The Trump administration has responded defiantly to a federal court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose a broad array of tariffs, insisting that the setback will not derail its trade agenda.
On Wednesday, the Court of International Trade ruled that the administration had exceeded its authority by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries. The decision challenges a key pillar of Trump’s revived trade policy, which hinges on the assertion that persistent trade deficits and other economic concerns constitute a national emergency.
Speaking on Fox Business the following morning, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett dismissed the ruling as a “hiccup” caused by “activist judges.” He insisted the White House remained committed to its strategy and suggested the ruling would likely be overturned on appeal.
“In a month or two, you are going to look ahead and see that countries have opened their markets to American products, they have lowered their non-tariff barriers, they have lowered their tariffs, and all the countries that have done that are being treated very respectfully and well by the U.S.,” Hassett said. He added that those who do not comply should expect “some form of reciprocal tariffs.”
The confident tone contrasted with the administration’s earlier arguments before the Court of International Trade and other judicial bodies. In a related hearing this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate warned that an adverse decision could “kneecap the president on the world stage” and “cripple his ability to negotiate trade deals.”
The administration had used IEEPA not only to justify tariffs linked to trade imbalances, but also to impose duties on China, Canada, and Mexico, citing concerns over fentanyl trafficking and undocumented migration. The court found that these actions went beyond the powers granted by the statute.
Hassett rejected the court’s interpretation, citing the severity of the fentanyl crisis as justification. “The idea that the fentanyl crisis in America is not an emergency is so appalling to me that I’m sure that when we appeal, this decision will be overturned,” he said.
Although Trump delayed the most severe reciprocal tariffs for 90 days — until 9 July — to allow time for negotiations, a 10 per cent baseline tariff remains in place. Hassett stated that the administration is proceeding with negotiations under the assumption that the appeals court will uphold its position.
“It’s certainly not going to affect the negotiations,” Hassett said. “Because in the end, people know President Trump is 100 per cent serious and they also have seen that President Trump always wins.”
According to Hassett, three trade deals are already near completion and ready for the president’s final approval, with several more in the pipeline.
Should the administration lose on appeal, Hassett hinted that other statutory options remain available. He did not specify which laws might be used but alluded to legislation previously deployed during Trump’s first term. These include Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which enabled tariffs on Chinese goods, and Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which was used to justify duties on steel, aluminium, and automotive imports.
White House officials have also escalated their criticism of the judiciary in the wake of the ruling. Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai denounced the judges involved as “unelected” and suggested they were overstepping their remit.
“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” Desai said in a statement. “President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”
Long-time Trump adviser Jason Miller echoed this view, alleging interference by a “global deep state.”
“This is their last line of defence — you have these unelected judges who are trying to force their own will when it comes to tax policy, trade policy, and all matters of the economy,” Miller said, again speaking on Fox Business.
However, not all voices in Trump’s party are aligned. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a frequent critic of the president’s tariff strategy, welcomed the ruling.
“I have said time and time again that the Founders wanted to prevent one person from having unilateral control and decision-making powers,” Paul posted on X. “That’s why the power of the purse and the ability to tax lie with Congress, not the president.”
The case is now likely to advance to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the outcome carrying significant implications for the future of U.S. trade policy and executive authority.
Read also:
Markets Rally After US Court Blocks Trump’s Emergency Tariffs
