Trump's Tariffs Were Ruled Illegal. So Why Are They Still Here?

What happens when the world's most powerful economy ignores international law? We're about to find out, as Donald Trump's tariff policies—ruled illegal by multiple international bodies—not only survived his presidency but are set to expand dramatically in his second term.

The Legal Verdict That Changed Nothing

The numbers tell a stark story. Trump's tariffs cost American consumers an estimated $80 billion annually, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The World Trade Organization ruled that steel and aluminum tariffs violated international agreements. Federal courts questioned the legal basis for China tariffs. Yet here we are in 2026, with most of these "illegal" measures still in place.

The Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum were supposed to address national security threats. The Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods targeted unfair trade practices. But critics argued both were thinly veiled protectionism—using emergency powers for routine trade disputes.

WTO panels consistently found that the U.S. had "misused" national security exceptions, calling the tariffs discriminatory and inconsistent with global trade rules. The European Union, China, and other trading partners filed formal complaints. Legal experts called it a clear violation of international commitments.

So why didn't any of this matter?

When Law Meets Politics

The uncomfortable truth is that international trade law has no real enforcement mechanism. The WTO can rule against the U.S., but it can't force compliance. Meanwhile, domestic politics tells a different story entirely.

American steelworkers saw their industry stabilize. Manufacturers in swing states kept their jobs. Even as economists calculated the broader costs, politicians saw electoral benefits. Joe Biden, despite criticizing Trump's approach, kept most tariffs in place—and added a few of his own.

This isn't unique to America. The European Union has introduced carbon border adjustments that function like environmental tariffs. China maintains extensive subsidies that distort global markets. Everyone claims to support free trade while practicing something quite different.

The New Trade Reality

We're witnessing the emergence of what scholars call "weaponized interdependence"—using economic connections as tools of coercion rather than cooperation. The 70-year-old multilateral trading system assumed all major players would follow the same rules. That assumption is breaking down.

Consider the ripple effects: Samsung and other tech companies have had to restructure global supply chains. European automakers face uncertainty about U.S. market access. Developing countries watch nervously as trade disputes between superpowers reshape global commerce.

The irony is profound. Tariffs were supposed to bring manufacturing back to America, but they've often just shifted production to other countries. They were meant to punish China, but American consumers bore much of the cost. They violated international law, but they achieved some of their political objectives.

What Comes Next?

Trump 2.0 promises even more aggressive trade policies. Universal tariffs of 10-20% on all imports. Specific targeting of Chinese technology companies. Withdrawal from international agreements that constrain American action.

The question isn't whether these policies will face legal challenges—they will. It's whether those challenges will matter in a world where economic might increasingly trumps legal right.

Other countries are taking notes. If the U.S. can ignore WTO rulings with impunity, why shouldn't they? We may be entering an era where trade policy is determined not by multilateral agreements but by bilateral power dynamics.