'Well, that was painful': WSJ editorial mocks Trump's court bruising over tariffs

President Donald Trump's tariff policies were on the line in federal court Thursday, as a panel of appellate judges questioned whether the president even has authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — and it didn't go well for him, the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote.

The board has been a frequent critic of Trump's economic policy, particularly his tariffs, which they have warned could cause billions in economic damage and raise the cost of everyday goods for Americans.

"Well, that was painful. For the Trump Administration’s lawyer, that is," the board opened their analysis.

For starters, "out of the gate one judge pointed out that no President has ever used the emergency law to impose tariffs," wrote the board. "No problem, replied Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate. He said the law is written broadly to let a President 'regulate' the 'importation' of foreign property if he declares a national emergency for any reason," and Trump declared an emergency of illegal fentanyl trafficking in February, which qualifies.

The judges, however, didn't see this as a good argument, the board noted.

"'Why would we read tariffs into that statute?' and 'Is the plain meaning of ‘regulate’ to impose tariffs or taxes?' they asked. And isn’t the Administration 'upending the entire tariff schedule' that Congress had enacted?"

The administration lawyer argued an appeals court upheld former President Richard Nixon's 10 percent across-the-board tariffs, but the judges pointed out these were "temporary" and didn't just arbitrarily set the rate to whatever the president wanted, like Trump is doing.

The bottom line, the board concluded, is that Trump's tariff powers don't look like they're going to survive.

"As one judge told Mr. Shumate, it seems 'you’re asking for unbounded authority' to impose tariffs," wrote the board. "Yes he is. But as the small business plaintiffs argue, the President isn’t a king, and the Constitution doesn’t let him command the trade tides."