Some tariffs on trading partners are set to remain in place following the sweeping ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade that landed a huge blow to President Trump’s trade agenda.
While the ruling declared that Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, including those imposed on China, and tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China aimed to stop the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. are all illegal, some were sparred.
Trump’s tariffs on specific products, which are in place on steel, aluminum and automobiles, were not struck down, largely because of the route the administration took to impose them.
Trump leaned on a 1962 law, Section 232, that gave the president the power to take action when the Commerce secretary finds an import into the U.S. represents a threat to national security.
Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum went into effect in March. The 25 percent tariff on aluminum represents a 15-point increase from the previous 10 percent levied on imports of the metal.
The tariffs on steel brought in nearly $1.3 billion in duties in fiscal year 2025, which ran from Oct. 1 to April 30, and the tariffs on aluminum brought in $766.9 million, according to data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Trump’s tariffs on imported automobiles and auto parts went into effect this month after they were recently scaled back to spare foreign auto parts from facing a double hit from the auto tariffs and his previously imposed import taxes on foreign metals.
The tariffs on automobiles brought in nearly $1.2 billion in duties so far, according to CBP.
Additionally, tariffs imposed under Section 301, which allows for tariffs if there are unfair trade practices, have been in place on some goods from China since the Biden administration and would remain.
The Section 301 tariffs on China have generated nearly $23.4 billion since October, CBP reported.
The Trump administration has vowed to fight back against the ruling the struck down the “Liberation Day” tariffs and others. The Justice Department on Wednesday appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, warning in filings that the ruling “jeopardizes ongoing negotiations with dozens of countries by severely constraining the President’s leverage and undermining the premise of the ongoing negotiations.”