dw.com
US Appeals Court Rules Trump's Tariffs Mostly Illegal
A US federal appeals court ruled on August 29, 2025 that a significant portion of Donald Trump's broad tariffs are illegal, upholding a lower court's decision and weakening his protectionist policies; the ruling allows the tariffs to remain until mid-October.
- What is the immediate impact of the court's decision on Trump's trade policies?
- The ruling weakens Trump's protectionist trade policies by deeming a large portion of his broad tariffs illegal. Although the tariffs remain in effect until mid-October, the decision represents a significant legal setback for Trump's trade agenda. A 7-4 majority ruled against the tariffs.
- What is the legal basis for the court's decision, and what was Trump's response?
- The court found that existing laws do not explicitly grant the president the authority to impose tariffs as a response to a declared national emergency. Trump denounced the decision as "highly politicized" on his Truth Social platform, asserting that removing the tariffs would be catastrophic and vowing to fight the ruling using the Supreme Court.
- What are the potential long-term implications of this ruling on US trade policy and Trump's presidency?
- This ruling could significantly limit the future use of broad tariffs by presidents as a trade policy tool. The outcome of any Supreme Court appeal will be crucial, potentially setting a major precedent for executive power in trade matters. Trump's reaction underscores the high stakes involved for his presidency.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a relatively balanced account of the court ruling, presenting both the ruling itself and Trump's reaction. However, the inclusion of Trump's strong, emotionally charged statements ('incorrectamente', 'catástrofe total', 'destruido') without significant counterpoint might subtly frame his perspective as more prominent than it objectively is. The headline does not explicitly state that the ruling is against Trump's tariffs, instead focusing on the legality of the tariffs. This could be interpreted as a framing bias, although the details within the article clarify the situation.
Language Bias
Trump's statements are presented directly, including emotionally charged language such as "catástrofe total" and "destruido." While the article accurately reports these statements, the lack of immediate counterarguments or context from opposing viewpoints could subtly amplify their impact. Neutral alternatives could include paraphrasing these statements with less emotional language, such as 'significant economic consequences' instead of 'catástrofe total', or providing direct quotes from officials disagreeing with Trump's assessment.
Bias by Omission
The article omits details regarding the specific economic arguments used to support or oppose the tariffs. Also, the long-term economic impacts of the tariffs are not extensively explored. While the article mentions the potential for economic consequences, the lack of detailed analysis limits a fully informed reader conclusion. Further details on the specific legal reasoning behind the court's decision would also strengthen the analysis.
Sustainable Development Goals
The ruling against Trump's tariffs could negatively impact decent work and economic growth. The tariffs, while intended to protect certain industries, also led to increased prices for consumers and potentially hindered international trade, impacting job creation and economic growth in various sectors. The potential removal of tariffs could lead to job losses in protected industries but also benefit consumers through lower prices and potentially stimulate economic growth through increased trade.