Tim Cook lost his power, Trump puts on pressure, and Apple is alone in the tariff fight

In a significant legal setback for the Trump administration’s trade policy, a federal appeals court has ruled that a set of tariffs implemented during Trump’s first term was unlawful, sending shockwaves through political and business communities. 

The tariffs, which had been imposed on various imported goods under the justification of national security, were a key component of Trump’s broader “America First” economic agenda.

The court’s decision has not only called into question the legal foundation of those tariffs but also opened the door to potential reimbursement claims from affected companies and raised new doubts about the future of U.S. trade authority.

The case in question centered on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which grants the President the power to impose tariffs in the interest of national security.

Trump famously used this provision to levy heavy duties on steel and aluminum imports from a wide range of countries, including traditional U.S. allies like Canada and the European Union.

While the administration framed the move as necessary to protect American industry and reduce dependence on foreign metals, critics argued that it stretched the definition of national security and bypassed Congress’s constitutional role in trade.

The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of companies and industry groups that had been hit hard by the tariffs.

They claimed that the administration’s justification was arbitrary and that the Department of Commerce had failed to follow proper procedures in its investigations.

In a lengthy opinion, the appeals court agreed, stating that the executive branch had overstepped its authority and failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the tariffs to legitimate national security concerns.

The ruling marks one of the most high-profile legal rebukes of Trump’s economic agenda since his return to office.

Predictably, the Trump administration has vowed to appeal the decision. In a fiery statement released shortly after the ruling, the White House accused the court of undermining presidential authority and claimed that the tariffs had led to a resurgence in domestic steel production and job creation.

President Trump himself took to social media to defend the policy, calling the ruling a “disaster for American workers” and promising to “fight this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.” He also accused the judges of being politically motivated and out of touch with the realities of global trade.

Behind the political rhetoric, however, lies a more complex debate about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in setting trade policy.

For decades, Congress has gradually ceded more authority to the President in this area, largely out of expediency.

But the aggressive use of Section 232 by Trump—targeting not just rivals like China but also close allies—triggered a bipartisan backlash. 

Lawmakers from both parties have introduced bills aimed at reasserting congressional control over tariffs, arguing that unilateral actions risk damaging U.S. alliances and provoking retaliatory measures.

The economic impact of the tariffs has also been the subject of intense debate. Supporters point to a modest uptick in domestic steel production and highlight anecdotal examples of factories reopening.

But independent studies suggest that the costs have far outweighed the benefits. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the tariffs have resulted in higher prices for downstream industries, lost jobs in manufacturing sectors that rely on imported materials, and increased tensions with trading partners.

Moreover, they have led to retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports, harming farmers and other exporters.

The court’s ruling could also have significant implications for businesses. Legal experts say that companies that paid the now-invalidated tariffs may be eligible to file for refunds, potentially amounting to billions of dollars.

The administration has already signaled that it will resist such claims, setting the stage for a new wave of litigation.

Meanwhile, trade lawyers are closely watching how the ruling will affect other cases challenging similar executive actions under Section 232 and related statutes.

From a geopolitical perspective, the decision adds another layer of uncertainty to America’s global trade posture. Many of the countries affected by the tariffs had lodged complaints with the World Trade Organization and had begun negotiating exemptions.

The court’s ruling undermines the legal basis for those tariffs, potentially weakening the U.S. bargaining position.

At the same time, it could offer an opportunity for rapprochement with allies who have been frustrated by what they see as arbitrary and protectionist policies.

The timing of the decision is particularly sensitive. With the global economy still recovering from the pandemic and supply chain disruptions continuing to cause instability, businesses are looking for clarity and predictability in trade policy.

The ruling introduces new legal and political volatility at a time when stability is in short supply. For the Trump administration, it is a reminder that governing by executive order can deliver quick wins but also carry significant legal vulnerabilities.

Within Washington, reactions have been split along partisan lines. Republican leaders have largely rallied behind Trump, warning that the court’s ruling weakens American sovereignty and emboldens foreign competitors.

Some have even floated the idea of amending Section 232 to broaden presidential authority. Democrats, on the other hand, have seized on the ruling as proof that Trump’s economic nationalism is legally and economically flawed.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Maria DeRosa issued a statement calling for “a comprehensive reevaluation of U.S. trade tools” to ensure they are used responsibly and transparently.

In the short term, the administration’s appeal is likely to delay any concrete changes. Legal analysts expect the case to eventually reach the Supreme Court, where the justices will be asked to weigh not only the specifics of the Section 232 tariffs but also the broader constitutional questions surrounding executive power.

Given the high stakes, the outcome could reshape the contours of American trade policy for years to come.

The business community, meanwhile, remains caught in the crossfire. Companies that had adjusted their operations in response to the tariffs now face fresh uncertainty.

Some had moved production overseas to avoid duties, while others had restructured supply chains to reduce exposure.

The possibility that the tariffs may be retroactively nullified creates new dilemmas: Should firms undo those changes?

Will refunds be issued, and on what timeline? And how will future policy be made if the legal framework itself remains unstable?

For Trump, the legal loss is more than just a policy setback—it is a political test. His economic record has long been a central pillar of his brand, and the tariffs were among his most visible actions.

To have them declared unlawful strikes at the heart of his argument that he alone can protect American industry.

It also raises questions about the coherence of his broader economic strategy, which has increasingly relied on executive power and confrontation over negotiation.

Critics say the ruling exposes the weaknesses of Trump’s approach. Rather than building coalitions or working through multilateral institutions, they argue, he pursued a go-it-alone strategy that has now run afoul of the courts.

Supporters counter that the legal battle is just the latest example of the establishment trying to undermine a populist agenda. Either way, the stakes are high—not just for the administration, but for the future of American trade.

As the appeal process unfolds, all eyes will be on how Trump responds. Will he double down on the tariffs, perhaps expanding them in defiance of the court?

Will he seek to rally Congress to his side and rewrite the trade laws? Or will he pivot, using the setback as an opportunity to recalibrate and refocus his economic message?

The answers will shape not only the remainder of his presidency but also the broader debate over how the United States should engage with the global economy in an era of uncertainty, competition, and disruption.