One year ago this week, President Trump stood in the Rose Garden and declared April 2, 2025, "Liberation Day." The executive order raised tariffs on nearly all countries to at least 10 percent, with higher rates for major trading partners phased in by April 9. [1] It was, at the time, the most sweeping unilateral trade action since Nixon's import surcharge in 1971.

The liberation did not go as planned.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as the legal basis for the tariffs, in a case styled Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. [2] The ruling was narrow in its legal reasoning and devastating in its practical effect. Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA was designed for genuine national emergencies, not for restructuring the entire American tariff schedule. The vote was 6-3.

The administration's response was immediate and revealing. Within hours of the ruling, the White House issued a new executive order imposing replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. [3] That statute authorizes the president to impose temporary import surcharges — for a maximum of 150 days — to address "fundamental international payments problems." The new tariffs were set at 10 percent, rising to 15. [3]

Twenty-four states, led by California, filed suit to block the Section 122 tariffs within two weeks. [4] Their argument is that the president is using a law designed for balance-of-payments crises as a permanent end-run around the Supreme Court's decision. The case remains pending. CBP has confirmed it is "on track" to begin accepting IEEPA refund claims by April 20 — the first acknowledgment that some of the money collected under the struck-down tariffs may actually be returned. [5]

The anniversary accounting is grim. The Tax Foundation found that Liberation Day tariffs raised less revenue than projected and contributed to higher consumer prices. [1] The average American household paid an estimated $1,700 more in 2025 due to tariff pass-through. Tariff policy changed, on average, once per week over the past year. [6] Trade partners retaliated, agricultural exports suffered, and the trade deficit — the thing the tariffs were supposed to fix — widened.

What Liberation Day actually liberated was a legal and constitutional confrontation over the limits of executive trade authority that is not yet resolved. The Supreme Court settled one question. The Section 122 litigation will settle another. In the meantime, the containers keep arriving, the surcharges keep collecting, and the consumer keeps paying.

-- CHARLES ASHFORD, London