Appeals Court grants temporary lifeline to Trump’s tariff regime

President Donald Trump scored a temporary victory for his controversial tariff policies on Thursday, after an appeals court paused a lower court’s sweeping decision that had largely blocked the import duties he imposed on China and other trading partners.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an administrative stay, effectively allowing the tariffs to remain in place for now while the legal process continues. This came in the wake of a ruling by the US Court of International Trade that declared Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing the wide-ranging levies.

Trump seized on the development as a win in his ongoing legal battles over trade, while blasting the lower trade court as “horrible” and urging that its decision be “quickly and decisively” overturned for good.

Meanwhile, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged that trade talks with Beijing had slowed down, suggesting a need for Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to intervene directly.

“I think that given the magnitude of the talks, given the complexity, that this is going to require both leaders to weigh in with each other,” Bessent told Fox News, as he reacted to the appeals court’s temporary stay.

Trade tensions between the two nations have eased slightly since a 90-day pause in reciprocal tariffs was agreed to in Geneva earlier this month, following intense diplomatic exchanges.

Nevertheless, the tariff rollercoaster—characterized by sudden increases and reversals—has left markets and supply chains in turmoil. The lower court’s decision had given the White House just 10 days to remove the affected tariffs before Thursday’s ruling put them on hold.

The Trump administration has repeatedly denounced the trade court’s ruling as a gross overreach. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said the judges had “brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump,” adding that the administration was confident the decision would be overturned on appeal.

“The Supreme Court must put an end” to the tariff challenge, Leavitt said, while also noting that “Trump had other legal means to impose levies.”

A separate ruling in Washington, DC, federal district court found some of Trump’s tariffs illegal as well, ordering the administration to appeal within 14 days.

Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, sought to downplay the impact of the rulings on ongoing trade talks. He told Fox Business that the decisions were mere “hiccups” caused by “activist judges” and that the White House was close to finalizing three new trade deals.

Echoing that optimism, trade advisor Peter Navarro said after the appeals court’s decision that “plenty of phone calls from countries” were coming in to continue negotiations, though he did not name the countries involved.

The tariffs, which Trump justified as a response to trade deficits and drug smuggling under a self-declared “national emergency,” have been highly contentious since their rollout in April. They included a baseline 10 percent tariff on nearly all trading partners, as well as steeper duties on China and the EU, most of which had been temporarily paused to allow for further talks.

While the US trade court’s ruling struck down many of the broad tariffs—including those affecting Canada, Mexico, and China under emergency powers—it allowed Trump’s 25 percent duties on imported autos, steel, and aluminum to remain in place.

China, which had faced tariffs of up to 145 percent before they were dialed back to accommodate the 90-day negotiating window, urged the US to scrap the levies altogether.

“China urges the United States to heed the rational voices from the international community and domestic stakeholders and fully cancel the wrongful unilateral tariff measures,” said commerce ministry spokeswoman He Yongqian.

The trade court had been weighing challenges brought by businesses and a coalition of state governments, arguing that Trump had overstepped Congress’s power to manage spending.

The judges pointedly questioned whether the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) truly gave the president “unlimited tariff authority” over goods from nearly every nation, concluding that such an interpretation of the law “is unconstitutional.”

Analysts at Capital Economics, a London-based research firm, predicted the fight over tariffs could ultimately reach the Supreme Court but cautioned that the litigation itself would not put an end to the trade war that has come to define Trump’s economic strategy.