FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 2, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board couldn't hide its satisfaction on Thursday after a federal court struck down President Donald Trump's latest round of tariffs — calling it "rule of law 2, Trump's tariffs 0" and comparing him unfavorably to Joe Biden.
A 2-1 majority of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Trump's Section 122 tariffs unlawful, dealing the president his second major tariff defeat in three months. Trump had invoked Section 122 to reimpose border taxes after the Supreme Court struck down his emergency tariffs under a separate law in February.
The WSJ board, which has been broadly supportive of free trade, wasted no time twisting the knife.
"Another tariff swing and another legal miss for President Trump," the board wrote.
The court found that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking Section 122, which allows a president to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days to address "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits." The judges ruled that a trade deficit and a balance-of-payments deficit are legally distinct, and that Trump's lawyers' attempt to conflate the two would raise serious constitutional concerns.
In a particularly pointed passage, the Journal's board compared Trump's tariff obsession to Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness push — a damning analogy from a publication that spent years criticizing Democrats for executive overreach. The board noted the practical effect may be limited since litigation likely won't be resolved before the tariffs' 150-day clock expires on July 24.
"Time to quit while he's behind," the board concluded. "Then again, it's hard to recall another President so gung ho about a policy as economically destructive and politically unpopular."