Appeals court said, most of trump tariffs are illegal

Appeals court said, most of trump tariffs are illegal, the decision which will come into effect on October 14, is the biggest blow to Trump’s tariff policy so far. Reacting to the decision on social media, the president said: “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT!”

Tariffs Ruled Illegal, But Still in Effect
A U.S. federal appeals court determined that most of Trump’s sweeping global tariffs are illegal, citing presidential overreach and reliance on tenuous national emergency powers.

The decision permits the tariffs, pending October 14, probably paving the way to a Supreme Court appeal. Trump has come out publicly to condemn the decision and said that he will counter it.

• $4.9 B in Foreign Aid Blocked Using Rare “Pocket Rescission”

The administration has frozen almost 4.9 billion of foreign aid which had already been Congress approved. The action, dubbed a pocket rescission, capitalizes on a little-used method last employed in 1977 to postpone expenditure outside of the year-end fiscal year.

• Secret Service Protection Revoked for Kamala Harris

Trump withdrew Secret Service protection of the former Vice President, Kamala Harris, a very unusual move that opponents view as politically inclined.

• Visa Denials & Aid Cuts Ahead of UN Assembly

The administration is also said to be denying Palestine Authority officials visas ahead of the United Nations general assembly and has cancelled a 4.9 billion dollars of international aid in advance without the consent of congress.

• Where Is Trump?–No Public Appearances?—Questions.

Trump has not been seen in the last weekend, which has given rise to speculations and concerns about his whereabouts and transparency.

• Redistricting and Diplomatic Tensions

Trump-supported redistricting bill became a law in Texas, which revived the arguments about gerrymandering. Simultaneously, the application of tariffs against India seems to be connected to more significant diplomatic strains related to the unwillingness of India to permit Trump to intervene in inter-regional disputes.

 

In Summary

The recent coverage of Trump highlights a complex and contentious policy environment:

• Legal legal losses over trade policy, the courts restricting the power of the executive.
• Budgetary gambles, circumventing the Congress to freeze money abroad.
• Political decisions, such as withdrawal of protection of a former rival.
• A speculative build-up of his non-public activity.
• Acts of home and foreign division, red-districting scandals to trade friction with India.

 

1) Tariff decision — what was and why it is so.

What was ruled: On Aug 29, 2025, a U.S. federal appeals court (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) found by a 7-4 majority that the statute Trump depended on (International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA) does not permit most of his broad-based tariffs in the form of the so-called reciprocal tariffs. The court however permitted the tariffs to be kept in place pending the appeal by the administration as it put a deadline of October 14 wherein the tariffs can take effect pending the administration again appealing.

Why the court gave them the axe: The court determined that IEEPA gives the president the authority to impose emergency economic sanctions and other actions, but does not explicitly confer the authority to impose general tariffs/duties – taxing/import duties is a power that the Constitution bestows on Congress under which the Constitution explicitly delegates it. According to the judges, it was unreasonable to suppose that Congress wanted IEEPA to be employed to levy blanket, economy-wide tariffs.

Immediate legal/policy significance: The decision undermines a key pillar of the administration trade policy and predisposes the possibility of refunds/liability in case the Supreme Court finally decides the same.

Instructions: The administration has indicated it will request a Supreme Court review, and may pursue other statutory means to retain tariffs (Plan B). Markets and business planners are left with incompleteness until the legal route is settled.

2) $4.9 bn pocket rescission – what, why does it matter?

What occurred: On Aug 29, 2025, the White House made a statement saying it was not respending $4.9 billion in congressionally-authorized foreign aid – a maneuver called pocket rescission (a rescission that is submitted after it is too late to be acted on by Congress during the statutory review period), and in effect, the funds lapsed. This mechanism of reporting has not been observed to be used at scale in decades.

What is at stake: This has a direct impact on State Department and USAID programs (development grants, peacekeeping, UN contributions) and constitutional issues regarding the separation of powers, or is it a bypass of the power of the purse by the executive.

• Politically, it increases spending/oversight battles with republicans and Democrats in congress and exposes it to retaliation or legal action.

 

 

3) Visa denials to Palestinian officials ahead of the UNGA

What occurred: The State Department declared that it will refuse or cancel visas to members of Palestinian Authority (PA) and PLO in advance of the upcoming meeting of U.N. General Assembly, including arrangements to refuse visiting the New York to senior Palestinian officials to attend the UN proceedings. The administration contextualized this as the PA/PLO being responsible in the lawfare as well as unilateral action towards statehood.

Legal/diplomatic complication: The UN has its headquarters in the U.S. and the U.S. has signed the U.S.UN Headquarters Agreement (which has the historic effect of requiring the U.S. to accept UN missions). Refusal to issue visas to a whole delegation is thus rare and has immediately attracted legal and diplomatic challenge.

 

4) Ending Secret Service protection for Kamala Harris

What occurred:  Reports (first widely disseminated Aug 2930, 2025) indicate that the White House has canceled a long-lasting Secret Service protection that was given to former Vice President Kamala Harris. The cancellation will become effective at the beginning of September, i.e. in September, Harris would no longer be provided with that additional protection at the cost of the federal government funds. On the letter and timing, Reuters and CNN carried the news.

Political implications: This is very out of the ordinary, and observed by most observers to be politically motivated (Harris is a former opponent and a high profile Democrat). It casts doubt on precedent, consistency (how decisions on protection are made) and the security logistics as Harris sets out on a book tour.

 

5) “Where is Trump? — no visible action.

What occurred: (During the weekend of Aug 30), there were reports by various media outlets and social posts that there was no planned public appearance and few appearances of the President, and this caused speculations on where he was and his health. The official White House schedule did not have any public events on a particular few days, which attracted attention over the Internet. This is more of transparency/communications problem than a legal one – but that feeds media scripts and political analogy.

Expansive cross-country/regional responses – snapshots of countries/regions.

India

Immediate reaction: Strong public and political backlash. The Indian government officials such as Trade Minister Piyush Goyal came out publicly to declare the U.S. tariffs as unilateral and vowed to help exporters and diversify markets. Some cities have experienced protests and effigy-burning and the tariffs have been used by the political parties to compel the government to act. India already is investigating export diversification and local cushions to sectors impacted.

Likely trajectory: New Delhi will seek to use diplomatic avenues (WTO/negotiations), hasten the process of market diversification and may contemplate retaliatory trade measures or tariffs; it will also urge allies and trading partners to condemn the unilateral action of the U.S. in imposing tariffs.

Europe (France, UK, EU)

• Visa refusals / UNPA problem: Some European states, especially France and the UK have been reported to be preparing or heading toward diplomatic follow-through recognition of Palestine. They were concerned with U.S. steps to prevent the participation of Palestinian officials in the UN; the UN representatives called on resolution. Certain EU members perceive the refusal of visas as harm to the U.S. as a UN host, and as diplomatic retaliation.

Israel / Palestinian Authority

Israel: Israeli officials celebrated the U.S. move to revoke visas as pressure on the PA over so-called lawfare and unilateral action.

Palestinian Authority: denounced the decision on the ground of violation of international law and the UN Headquarters Agreement; requested a reverse and diplomatic pressure. The PA is likely to lobby the other members of the UN and request them to assure them that they can also take part.

Latin America (Brazil)

Brazil/President Lula: Media coverage reported that leaders such as Lula are publicly considering countermeasures or at least criticizing American unilateral tariff policy, which foreshadows more widespread worry among emerging markets that U.S. tariff actions can be used as a model of trade coercion. Al jazeera reported Brazil deliberating.

United Nations / international institutions

United Nations said it was worrying about visa refusals and highlighted the significance of allowing participation. Reduction of funding to UN/peacekeeping and pocket rescission of aid will cause backlash among countries which depend on U.S. funding of multilateral programs (including beneficiaries of development assistance).

 

 

Practical implications & next steps to observe.

1. Tariffs: The administration anticipates immediate appeals to the Supreme Court and maybe emergency stays. Markets, importers and exporters will observe whether the tariffs survive that test – and whether the administration will seek to re-equip tariffs with other statutes. Key date of (stay expiration): October 14, 2025 (unless extended)
2. Rescission / aid cuts: Congress both moderates and some Republicans can respond to litigation, conduct hearings or employ other tools such as riders/withholding in any other appropriations. Partners abroad and the UN agencies will be scrambling how to plan lost funds.
3. UN Visa denials: The State Department, UN Secretariat and the governments of the countries where citizens are affected (France, other EU partners) will be engaged in fierce negotiations. The UN may also pursue facilities to ensure the involvement of the Palestinians regardless of the U.S. visas or host country tension may increase.
4. Domestic politics: Both parties will use such moves: opponents will cite them as executive overreach or politically-motivated targeting (Harris protection removal) whereas proponents will argue it as robust action to strengthen U.S. interests.

Also visit-https://iggram.com/