Washington: US President Donald Trump has issued a sharp rebuke against a federal appeals court ruling that invalidated several of his administration’s tariffs, declaring that without them the United States would be “completely destroyed” and its military power “instantly obliterated.”
The comments came on Sunday through Trump’s post on Truth Social, just two days after the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that his use of emergency powers to impose sweeping import duties exceeded constitutional authority. The court, in a 7–4 decision, concluded that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) could not be stretched to justify tariffs of the scale and scope enacted earlier this year.
“The Radical Left judges didn’t care, but one Democrat, Obama-appointed, actually voted to save our Country. I thank him for his courage! Without tariffs, and the trillions of dollars we’ve already taken in, our Country would be completely destroyed,” Trump wrote. He insisted that tariffs remain in effect despite the ruling, portraying them as essential for national strength and economic stability.
Legal experts noted that the decision underscored the constitutional principle that taxation and tariff powers rest with Congress, not the presidency. The court also warned that Trump’s interpretation of IEEPA marked an “unprecedented overreach” of executive power. Still, enforcement of the ruling has been postponed until October, giving the Trump administration time to escalate the case to the Supreme Court.
Trump, however, doubled down on his stance, dismissing the appeals court as “highly partisan” and warning of financial collapse if the duties were lifted. “If these tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong,” he wrote in another post.
The tariffs, which targeted a wide range of imports, have been central to Trump’s trade agenda, generating significant revenue but also sparking disputes with US trading partners and challenges from businesses. Analysts suggest the pending legal battle could shape the future limits of presidential authority on economic policy.