White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said Sunday that blocking President Donald Trump’s tariffs could be catastrophic for the United States. He described the appeals court ruling as “weaponized partisan injustice at its worst.” Navarro’s remarks came following a 7-4 federal appeals court decision that declared most of Trump’s global “reciprocal” tariffs illegal.
The ruling questioned the president’s authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The appeals court said Trump overstepped by imposing tariffs on almost every country in the world. The decision allows most tariffs to remain until October 14, giving time for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Navarro told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” that the administration remains “very optimistic” about its arguments before the Supreme Court. He cited a strong dissenting opinion that he said provides a “road map” for the justices. Navarro insisted that if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling against the tariffs, it “will be the end of the United States.”
Trump also reacted to the court decision on his social media platform Truth Social. He said that removing tariffs would be a “total disaster for the Country” and repeated that the Supreme Court could allow their continued use. Trump claimed that the tariffs already generated “trillions of dollars,” a figure contradicted by official Treasury Department data.
According to the Treasury, the U.S. collected $142 billion in tariffs so far this fiscal year. Much of that revenue came from customs duties applied before Trump’s April “tariff liberation day.” The main set of reciprocal tariffs did not take effect until early August. Independent estimates suggest the tariffs could generate $2.9 trillion over fiscal years 2026 through 2035 if upheld.
Economic experts emphasize that tariffs are not paid by foreign governments but mostly by American consumers. U.S. businesses often raise prices to cover the higher costs, passing the burden onto households. The Tax Policy Center estimates the tariffs could cost the average American taxpayer roughly $2,700 in 2026 alone.
Trump’s tariffs were set to cover about 69% of U.S. imported goods. If blocked, they would affect only 16% of imports. While many of Trump’s measures face legal challenges, some remain intact. Sector-specific tariffs on steel and aluminum were not affected by the appeals court ruling and continue in force.
The appeals court decision highlights a broader debate about presidential power in trade policy. Experts note that the ruling could redefine the limits of executive authority. If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, it would mark a major setback for his trade agenda, potentially reshaping U.S. economic policy for years.
Navarro’s comments show the administration’s approach is aggressive. He framed the outcome as crucial to national security and economic strength. “Without Tariffs, and all of the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS we have already taken in, our Country would be completely destroyed,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. He also linked tariff revenue directly to military power, a claim experts call exaggerated.
The Supreme Court will likely decide on an expedited timeline. Trump’s team hopes the justices will overturn the appeals court decision and allow the tariffs to remain permanently. Legal analysts predict a complex battle ahead, noting the unusual breadth of Trump’s reciprocal tariff program.
While the debate unfolds, U.S. consumers and businesses remain in a state of uncertainty. Many companies face higher import costs, while economists continue to study the broader effects on trade and inflation. Analysts warn that prolonged legal battles could strain relationships with key trading partners.
The appeals court ruling underlines the tension between Congress and the presidency over trade authority. Congress holds primary power over tariffs, but Trump invoked emergency powers to bypass lawmakers. Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s decision will clarify whether presidents can use such authority for sweeping economic actions.
As the case moves forward, both Navarro and Trump are intensifying public messaging. The White House is emphasizing that tariffs are essential to national prosperity and security. Critics argue the tariffs primarily serve political goals and impose real costs on American households.
With the Supreme Court set to weigh in, the future of Trump’s tariff policies remains uncertain. The decision will affect not only trade flows but also domestic industries and international relations. The outcome could reshape U.S. trade law for decades to come.
