Trump Trade Adviser Peter Navarro Blasts Federal Appeals Court Ruling on Tariffs as ‘Weaponized Partisan Injustice’
Washington, D.C. – August 31, 2025
President Donald Trump’s top trade adviser, Peter Navarro, unleashed a fiery critique of a recent federal appeals court decision that struck down most of the administration’s sweeping tariffs, labeling it “weaponized partisan injustice at its worst.” In a stark warning on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Navarro echoed Trump’s dire rhetoric, claiming that if the ruling stands, “it will be the end of the United States.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 7-4 decision on August 29 affirmed a lower court’s finding that Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when imposing the “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of countries. With the tariffs remaining in effect until October 14 pending a likely Supreme Court appeal, the controversy intensifies the ongoing legal and economic battle over Trump’s protectionist agenda, which has already reshaped global trade dynamics.
Details of the Appeals Court Ruling and Navarro’s Response
The Federal Circuit’s ruling, issued on Friday, August 29, 2025, held that Trump’s use of IEEPA—a 1977 law typically reserved for sanctions and embargoes—does not grant the president “unbounded authority” to impose broad tariffs on imports from nearly every country. The court affirmed the U.S. Court of International Trade’s (CIT) May 2025 decision, declaring the tariffs “invalid as contrary to law” because IEEPA does not explicitly authorize taxing imports, a power reserved for Congress under the Constitution. The appeals court stayed enforcement until October 14, allowing time for the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court, where the final decision could reshape U.S. trade policy.
The tariffs in question include the “reciprocal” duties imposed on April 2, 2025, affecting over 60 countries with rates from a 10% baseline to 50% on nations like India and Brazil. Additional IEEPA-based levies on Canada, Mexico (25%), and China (10%)—tied to fentanyl trafficking and border security—were also invalidated. However, sector-specific tariffs under other laws, such as 50% on steel, aluminum, and autos via Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, remain unaffected. The ruling stems from consolidated lawsuits by 12 states and five small businesses, who argued the tariffs caused financial harm without congressional approval.
Navarro, appearing on Fox on Sunday, blasted the decision as politically motivated, stating, “This was weaponized partisan injustice at its worst. If we lose the case, President Trump is right. It will be the end of the United States.” He expressed optimism about the Supreme Court appeal, citing a “very good dissent” from the four dissenting judges as a “road map” for reversal. Trump himself decried the ruling on Truth Social, calling the appeals court “Highly Partisan” and warning that voiding the tariffs would “literally destroy the United States of America.” The White House, through spokesman Kush Desai, affirmed that “the president’s tariffs remain in effect” and vowed to prevail at the high court.
Quotes from Officials, Experts, and Legal Analysts
Peter Navarro reiterated the administration’s stance: “We feel very optimistic… A very good dissent provides a road map for the Supreme Court.” He emphasized tariffs as essential for addressing the U.S. trade deficit, which exceeded $1 trillion in goods in 2023.
President Trump posted on Truth Social: “If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country… Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again!”
Neal Katyal, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, celebrated the decision: “This is a powerful reaffirmation of our nation’s core constitutional commitments… Presidents must act within the rule of law.”
Trade expert Ted Murphy from Sidley Austin noted: “The fundamental part of this decision is reminding everyone that the power to assess tariffs was bestowed by the Constitution to Congress.”
Legal scholar Kelly Ann Shaw from Akin Gump added: “There’s plenty of other authority that the administration could use… These tariffs will still continue to exist in some form.”
Background: Trump’s Tariff Strategy and Legal Challenges
Trump’s second-term trade policy has centered on tariffs as a tool to combat trade deficits, protect U.S. manufacturing, and pressure allies on issues like immigration and fentanyl. On April 2, 2025, he invoked IEEPA to declare a “national emergency” over the $1 trillion goods deficit, imposing reciprocal tariffs mirroring rates from trading partners—up to 50% on India and Brazil, 34% on China, and a 10% baseline elsewhere. Additional duties on Canada and Mexico (25%) and China (10%) were tied to border security. By July 2025, tariffs generated $142 billion in revenue—double the prior year—and affected 69% of U.S. imports.
These moves sparked immediate lawsuits, including V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, consolidated from state and business challenges arguing IEEPA’s scope is limited to sanctions, not broad taxation. The CIT’s May 28 ruling struck down the tariffs but paused enforcement for appeals. The Federal Circuit’s affirmation, by a 7-4 panel, reinforces that IEEPA does not explicitly authorize tariffs, a power vested in Congress. Dissenting judges, including Richard Taranto, argued the law’s broad grants in foreign affairs should include such measures.
This echoes Trump’s first-term tariffs under Section 301 (China) and Section 232 (steel/aluminum), which faced WTO challenges but survived domestic courts. However, IEEPA’s novel use for tariffs—unprecedented before 2025—has drawn scrutiny from conservative and libertarian scholars.
Potential Impacts and Next Steps
If upheld, the ruling could invalidate tariffs impacting 69% of imports, reducing them to 16% and costing billions in revenue while easing consumer prices (estimated $1,300 annual household savings per Tax Foundation). It might force Trump to pivot to Section 301/232 or seek congressional approval, limiting speed and scope. Globally, it could stabilize trade, encouraging negotiations with the EU, UK, and others, but disrupt ongoing deals.
The administration will likely petition the Supreme Court by mid-September, with a decision possibly by 2026. Meanwhile, the CIT may revisit universal injunctions per a recent Supreme Court limit. States and businesses could pursue refunds, while Congress debates tariff reforms. Economic forecasts suggest short-term market volatility but long-term benefits from reduced trade wars.
In conclusion, Peter Navarro’s blistering attack on the appeals court ruling underscores the high stakes in Trump’s tariff battles, with the Supreme Court poised to decide the fate of a cornerstone policy. The key takeaway? As legal challenges mount, the balance of trade power between the executive and Congress remains a flashpoint—reminding policymakers that unchecked authority risks economic instability, while balanced approaches could foster sustainable global commerce.