In recent months, federal courts have leaped into action to block key elements of President Trump’s policy agenda and after taking aim at his immigration policy, the judiciary is now seeking to take down his America First trade policy.

Last week, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) made a ruling suspending a key component of the Trump administration’s tariff program, one of the main tools employed to protect American industries and jobs.

The court argued that Congress and Congress alone has the authority to regulate trade and impose tariffs. Specifically, the judges stated the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not provide the president broad authority to impose tariffs on goods from around the world. As a result, the court overturned tariffs that were at the center of Trump’s action to make the playing field level for U.S. workers.

The court filings, however, argued that the president has both the authority and responsibility to act in a state of emergency to safeguard the U.S. economy from unfair foreign trading practices. Their invoking of IEEPA was part of that strategy.

Conversely, in an ancillary case, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras made a limited ruling on new tariffs for two companies that sued the administration. He said the issue wasn’t tariffs per se, but whether or not the president can remake trade policy unilaterally. The judge concluded that while the IEEPA does allow regulation of imports, it doesn’t empower the president to tax—a constitutional power reserved for Congress. Though the ruling only applies to those two companies, the Trump administration has already appealed.

Temporary Stay Issued

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded by saying that the administration would look for other legal means to defend America’s economic interests. She denounced the judges for overstepping their powers and into the constitutional authority of the executive branch on foreign policy and national security.

“These judges failed to acknowledge that the President of the United States has constitutional foreign affairs powers and authority granted to him by Congress to protect the United States economy,” Leavitt said.

The Trump administration quickly appealed what it had called an “unprecedented and legally indefensible injunction.” By Thursday evening, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a temporary stay, allowing the tariff program to operate whilst the fight in court progresses.

Trump’s Tariffs

Tariffs have been a cornerstone of Trump’s plan for revitalizing American manufacturing and reducing foreign dependence. Throughout the campaign and as president, Trump vocally lamented stupendous trade deficits with countries like China, saying America had been taken advantage of for decades.

Tariffs once protected American manufacturing and jobs and have been revived under Trump as a way to reassert equity and economic independence.

Tariff Tradition

Protectionism is nothing new—it’s deeply rooted in American tradition.

To the contrary, after the Revolution, one of the first significant laws signed into effect by President George Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. The United States maintained high tariffs for over a century, which encouraged domestic production and economic growth. Economic historian Paul Bairoch actually described the U.S. as “the mother country and bastion of modern protectionism.”

Republicans like President William McKinley established tariffs as a central component of the party platform for decades.

Tariffs helped develop the industrial giant that made America the economic superpower it became. Even when Democrats tried lowering tariffs during the early 20th century, world wars again required a return to protective trade policies. It wasn’t until after World War II that the U.S. began to adopt so-called “free trade,” reducing tariffs under pressure to create global alliances.

Globalism Vs. Protectionism

But that globalist approach came at a cost.

Whilst America kept low tariffs—typically below 5%—most countries charged tariffs of 70% or more on American products. The result? A $25 trillion trade deficit, draining America’s manufacturing capability, and tens of millions of lost jobs. U.S. manufacturing job losses from 1992 to 2012 alone were due to over 80% because of an inundation of cheap foreign imports.

Trump recognized this reality and took action, imposing selective tariffs on metals like steel and aluminum, often citing national security.

These weren’t just economic actions—they were about making America great again by making America no longer dependent on its enemy powers like China.

Conclusion

The courts may be pushing back, but Trump’s trade agenda has opened a serious national discussion about the worth of economic self-reliance, reasonable trade, and American sovereignty. Whether in the courts or on the campaign trail, the fight to safeguard American industry is far from over.

Thank you for your support.

If you appreciate the work we do to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, please consider giving a gift to help us continue this work. Maranatha!