The Wall Street Journal Takes a Victory Lap Over ‘Destructive’ Trump and His ‘Illegal’ Tariffs
The Wall Street Journal took a victory lap over President Donald Trump and his “destructive tariff obsessions” in a new editorial celebrating the U.S. Court of International Trade’s ruling blocking his “Liberation Day” tariffs — as well as those he has levied against Canada and Mexico — under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
“This is an important moment for the rule of law as much as for the economy, proving again that America doesn’t have a king who can rule by decree,” began the Journal. “The Trump tariffs have created enormous costs and uncertainty, but now we know they’re illegal.”
“Mr. Trump invoked IEEPA because he wanted to impose tariffs as he sees fit. But the Constitution doesn’t let the President ignore Congress and do whatever he wants,” it observed before concluding:
The White House boasts it will win at the Supreme Court, but our reading of the trade court’s opinion suggests the opposite. Mr. Trump’s three Court appointees are likely to invoke the major-questions precedent.
Mr. Trump has other laws he can use to impose tariffs, though most are more limited than his emergency claims. The most expansive is Section 338 of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, which lets a President impose duties up to 50% on countries found to discriminate against the U.S. But no President has ever done so.
Mr. Trump would be wiser to heed the trade court’s ruling as the political gift it is and liberate his Presidency and the economy from his destructive tariff obsessions.
The influential center-right newspaper has been among the most notable and outspoken critics of the president’s trade policy, characterizing it as “the biggest threat to the world economy.”
Trump has responded to the criticism by deeming the Journal a “rotten newspaper” that has “truly gone to hell.”
“I don’t want to talk to The Wall Street Journal. Look, Wall Street Journal is China-oriented, and they’re really bad for this country,” said Trump after one of its reporters tried to ask him a follow-up question on Air Force One earlier this month.
