Highlights

• U.S. Court of Appeals rules most of Trump's global tariffs unconstitutional, finding the executive branch overstepped its authority.
• Court decision emphasizes tariffs remain a core Congressional power, potentially reshaping future trade policy approaches.
• Ruling highlights critical vulnerabilities in U.S. rare earth element supply chain and potential strategic trade challenges.

---

A federal appeals court has struck a serious blow to Donald Trump’s tariff-heavy trade strategy. In a 7–4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that most of the former president’s global tariffs were unconstitutional, finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the executive branch free rein to levy broad import taxes. Tariffs, the court emphasized, remain a core Congressional power.

What Holds Up Under Scrutiny

The factual reporting from the likes of CNBC is straightforward: the ruling pauses implementation until October 14 to give the Trump administration time to seek Supreme Court review. The case—V.O.S. Selections v. Trump—represents the furthest along of several legal challenges. Previous rulings from the U.S. Court of International Trade also rejected Trump’s reliance on IEEPA. These details are consistent with court filings and reflect an accurate portrayal of the judiciary’s skepticism.

Where the Story Tilts

The article quotes Trump calling the court “Highly Partisan” and warning that overturning tariffs would “literally destroy the United States of America.” These statements reflect rhetoric rather than substantiated fact. While tariffs have reshaped global supply chains—rare earths included—there is no evidence that removing them would “destroy” the country. This is political hyperbole, repeated without direct pushback.

Similarly, CNBC’s framing emphasizes a “massive blow” to Trump’s trade policy. That’s not inaccurate, but it also sets a dramatic tone before the legal process plays out at the Supreme Court, which may still reverse course.

The Subtext Investors Should Watch

For those tracking critical minerals, the relevance is clear: tariffs are a blunt instrument in a sector that depends on long-term supply chains, stable pricing, and multinational investment. If executive tariff powers are narrowed, Congress will have more control over how the U.S. structures rare earth trade policy. That means longer debates, slower pivots—but also potentially more predictable rules for miners, refiners, and magnet manufacturers.

The bias here lies less in facts than in emphasis. CNBC frames the ruling as a sweeping repudiation without probing its economic nuance. The real investor question is not whether tariffs live or die, but how policy stability—or volatility—reshapes financing for high-risk resource projects.

President Trump—Read Rare Earth Exchanges

Rare Earth Exchanges has long warned that the rare earth element supply chain constitutes a genuine national emergency—one that demands urgent, precise action rather than sweeping overreach. President Trump, in relying on an overly broad emergency declaration, diluted the legal and strategic case he could have made. Instead of casting a wide net of tariffs vulnerable to judicial rejection, he should have consulted closely with trade lawyers and grounded the emergency powers squarely in the critical mineral crisis.  He could have had a serious case.

The U.S. remains almost wholly dependent on China for separation, refining, and magnet production—an exposure that touches everything from defense systems to energy security. If Trump had tied his emergency declaration narrowly and specifically to rare earths, a sector where U.S. vulnerability is indisputable and well-documented, he would have not only strengthened his legal footing but also focused Washington’s political will on the supply chain choke point that matters most.

Back to the drawing board with rare earth elements?  Or off to an appeal to the High Court?

Source: CNBC, Kevin Breuninger and Dan Mangan, Aug. 29, 2025.

©!-- /wp:paragraph -->