How to understand the tariff ban being blocked by the appellate court?

Overnight, the Trump administration scored a victory.

According to a report by Xinhua News Agency on the 29th, a U.S. appeals court has reinstated the tariff policy of the Trump administration. On the 29th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit approved the Trump administration's request to temporarily suspend the previous ruling by the U.S. International Trade Court that prohibited the enforcement of the Trump administration's executive order imposing tariffs on multiple countries under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

This has bought the Trump administration valuable time to respond. According to media reports, the initial court ruling only gave the Trump administration 10 days to cancel the tariffs, but the new order outlined a briefing timeline extending to June 9 to decide whether to extend the tariff application. If approved—or if an appeal to the Supreme Court is subsequently approved—the tariffs could last for months.

Although the Trump team views the appeals court's temporary order as a "victory," a larger cloud still looms over the White House. Reports indicate that while U.S. trade advisor Peter Navarro assured reporters that "the Trump tariff agenda is still alive," concerns within the White House about the appeals court ultimately supporting the original ruling persist.

According to calculations by Bloomberg Economics, if the original ruling takes effect, the effective tariff rate in the U.S. would drop from nearly 27% last month to below 6%—which would be one of the biggest policy defeats for Trump in his second term.

Does Trump have a Plan B?

In the face of legal challenges, the White House claims there are other avenues for imposing tariffs, but the reality is far from optimistic.

James Lucier, managing director of research firm Capital Alpha Partners, pointed out:

The idea that Trump will activate Plan B and impose tariffs through other means is problematic. Yes, he will do that. But he no longer has time to implement tariffs and achieve results before the midterm elections.

Reports indicate that the Trump administration could indeed impose tariffs through other legal avenues, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, but these procedures typically take 270 days to complete—which is clearly too long a timeframe for Trump, who is eager to showcase achievements before the midterm elections.

Supreme Court: The Final Battleground?

According to a report by The Washington Post, legal experts generally believe that if these lawsuits ultimately reach the Supreme Court, the party challenging the legality of the tariffs is likely to prevail.

Tim Meyer, co-director of the International and Comparative Law Center at Duke University School of Law, stated that the president is "rewriting" the tariff legislation passed by Congress.

Meyer further pointed out the constitutional aspect of the issue: "When the White House claims this is the largest tax increase in U.S. history, I think that will make judges sit down and think, the Constitution grants Congress, and only Congress, the power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign trade." This viewpoint directly addresses the legal vulnerability of Trump's tariff policy—the boundary of presidential power.

Trade Negotiations May Hit a Stalemate

Currently, Trump's aides are still defending him. Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, downplayed the consequences of the court ruling. He said:

This will definitely not affect the negotiations. Because in the end, people know that President Trump is 100% serious, and they also see that President Trump always wins.

However, the impact of the court ruling on Trump's trade strategy will ultimately be reflected at the negotiating table. According to The New York Times, William Reinsch, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, candidly stated:

In the very short term, this will definitely undermine negotiations. Why would countries negotiate to avoid a threat that has already been ruled illegal?

This logical chain is clear and brutal: the premise of tariffs as a bargaining chip is their legality and enforceability. Once the court questions their legal basis, Trump's biggest bargaining chip at the negotiating table loses its deterrent effect.

A temporary legal victory may allow the Trump administration to breathe a sigh of relief for now, but greater challenges lie ahead