The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced on Thursday that it will continue negotiating bilateral and multilateral trade measures despite a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington that has introduced legal uncertainty about some executive trade actions. The USTR framed the court’s ruling as a challenge to particular procedural uses of presidential trade powers but said diplomatic work with partners remains a priority.

In a brief statement, a USTR spokesperson said, “We will continue our negotiations and engagement with partners around the world. Our team is working to ensure that any agreements are legally sound, durable, and advance the interests of American workers and businesses.” The office did not specify which talks would accelerate or be altered in response to the ruling, but officials emphasized continuity in conversations on supply chains, digital trade, and labor and environmental standards.

The Federal Circuit ruling, issued earlier this week, examined the legal boundaries of executive authority to change tariff measures and other trade instruments without additional congressional action. The decision has prompted legal teams in Washington to reassess the exposure of past and prospective proclamations to court challenge, raising the prospect that some executive trade tools could be limited or require fresh statutory backing.

Trade lawyers and former administration officials said the ruling could complicate the mechanics of future agreements even if it does not directly halt negotiations. “Courts are now asking for more specificity about the statutory bases for presidential trade proclamations,” said a Washington trade lawyer. “That doesn’t stop diplomats from bargaining, but it changes how the results may be implemented at home.”

Washington’s trading partners have followed the developments closely. European and Asian officials, while publicly cautious, signaled a desire for clarity. An EU trade official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations, said Brussels would “work constructively” with Washington but asked for transparency on any measures that would affect access to markets. For countries negotiating access to American markets or regulatory alignments, the legal limbo could slow commitments that require domestic steps to implement.

U.S. businesses are watching for immediate impacts. Exporters who rely on predictable tariff regimes and trade facilitation measures told reporters they need assurance that any future concessions will survive judicial scrutiny. The National Foreign Trade Council urged Congress and the executive branch to clarify the legal framework, saying in a statement that legal certainty is essential for long-term commercial planning.

The administration faces a familiar separation-of-powers tension: executives seeking agility in trade policy and courts and lawmakers insisting on statutory precision. Legal scholars noted that the ruling may push more of the implementing work into Congress, or prompt administrations to draft more narrowly tailored proclamations and implementing regulations.

For now, the USTR’s message is one of forward momentum. Officials in Washington will likely balance an assertive diplomatic posture with a more cautious legal playbook, seeking to keep talks alive while avoiding moves that could be invalidated in court. How quickly that balance is struck may determine whether the ruling becomes a temporary procedural hurdle or a turning point in how the United States conducts trade policy.