Introduction
This article from ABC News was flagged for fact-checking due to claims surrounding the legality of former President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs and whether he had the legal authority to impose them. A reader wanted to know: What specific law or authority did Trump rely on, and does it actually cover what he did?
Historical Context
U.S. presidents have long had authority to impose tariffs under certain conditions, particularly on national security or trade imbalance grounds. During Donald Trump’s presidency, he invoked Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify tariffs targeting China, the European Union, Canada, and others. While these moves were controversial, they were often legally upheld. However, by 2025, courts began reevaluating the scope of presidential tariff powers amid new declarations of expansive tariffs that went far beyond established precedent, sparking significant judicial pushback.
Evaluating Key Claims
Claim #1: “Trump does not have power to unilaterally impose tariffs ‘to reorder the global economy.’”
This quote comes from U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras’ ruling, which argues that the Trump administration exceeded statutory limits by invoking national security to justify broad economic tariffs without congressional approval. The ruling is rooted in interpretation of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to impose tariffs if national security is at risk. However, courts have increasingly questioned whether tariffs targeting allies or widely disparate product categories unjustly extend the president’s powers. According to the Congressional Research Service and numerous legal analyses, Section 232 was never intended to justify massive economic restructuring. Therefore, the claim that Trump lacked authority to “reorder the global economy” is supported by legal precedent and analysis. Verdict: Accurate.
Claim #2: “Trump’s tariffs undermine ongoing negotiations with virtually every trading partner.”
This claim comes from the Trump administration’s court filing that labeled judicial interference as a disruption to sensitive negotiations. While accurate in reflecting the former administration’s stance, this is a subjective and speculative assertion. Historically, international responses to Trump’s tariff policies included retaliatory measures and suspended negotiations, notably with China, the EU, and Canada. For example, both China and the EU implemented counter-tariffs in 2018 and 2019. Multiple trade experts argued that unpredictable tariff escalation created friction rather than fostering serious negotiations. Therefore, while the claim presents a real concern voiced by officials, it lacks empirical support that the tariffs were fostering constructive diplomacy. Verdict: Misleading without context.
Claim #3: “The Trump administration relied on legitimate statutory authority to impose the ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.”
The article references a broad announcement of new tariffs, branded as “Liberation Day,” but it does not specify which statute Trump invoked — a critical omission. Public records show these tariffs were not directly tied to the familiar legal bases of Section 232 or Section 301. Courts questioned the sweeping nature of the executive move, especially since it affected dozens of countries without a clear national security rationale. No new law granting broader trade powers was passed in the years leading up to this announcement. Legal experts from Brookings and the Center for Strategic and International Studies agree that these tariffs represented an unprecedented stretch of executive authority. Without citing an explicit legal justification, calling them “legitimate” lacks substantiation. Verdict: Lacks legal clarity; Insufficient evidence for legitimacy.
Conclusion
The ABC News article accurately reports on court rulings that question the legality of the Trump administration’s tariff expansions and reflects the judicial skepticism toward the scope of executive power in this area. However, the article could have better informed readers by detailing the statutes originally used for past tariffs and clarifying whether those applied to these newer tariffs. While relevant facts are present, the framing lacks historical and legal nuance, leaving readers uncertain about what legal powers were invoked. Overall, the article is mostly accurate in reporting on the conflict but falls short on providing full legal clarity.
Get Involved
Want more fact-checks like this? Download the DBUNK app to explore verified news stories and fight misinformation every day.
Visit original article: abcnews.go.com
