Court ruling

White House insists court ruling won’t derail Trump’s tariff agenda

The head of the White House National Economic Council called the decision a “hiccup” in Trump’s plan caused by “activist judges.”

By Doug Palmer and Giselle Ruhiyyih Ewing

Trump administration officials are making clear that they won’t back down on their global tariff policies without a fight, even after a federal court struck down its emergency tariffs on dozens of countries in a ruling Wednesday night.

Kevin Hassett, the head of Trump’s National Economic Council, brushed off the ruling on Fox Business Thursday morning, calling the decision a mere “hiccup” in Trump’s plan caused by “activist judges.”

“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 U.S.,” Hassett said, adding that countries that don’t abide by Trump’s plan should expect “some form of reciprocal tariffs.”

That confident pose contrasts with the position the Trump administration took in oral arguments before the Court of International Trade, which issued the ruling Wednesday against Trump’s tariffs, and in other judicial venues.

In a hearing this week in the District Court for the District of Columbia, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said an adverse decision “would kneecap the president on the world stage, cripple his ability to negotiate trade deals, imperil the government’s ability to respond to these and future national emergencies.”

Trump relied on the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act to impose his sweeping reciprocal tariffs on the grounds that the large and persistent trade deficit represented a national emergency. He also imposed separate IEEPA tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico to address concerns about fentanyl and undocumented migration.

The Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority in imposing the tariffs, but Hassett rejected that argument.

“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, that this decision will be overturned,” Hassett said.

Trump delayed the highest reciprocal tariffs on about 60 countries for 90 days, or until July 9, to allow time for negotiations, but left a 10 percent baseline duty in place.

Hassett indicated the administration would operate on the assumption the appeals court will uphold the tariffs in order to press on with negotiations, which he suggested would end successfully with many countries by the July deadline.

“It’s certainly not going to affect the negotiations. Because in the end, people know President Trump is 100 percent serious and they also have seen that President Trump always wins,” Hassett said.

At the end of last week, administration officials had three deals that were “basically ready for the President’s decision,” Hassett said. “There are many, many deals coming, and there were three that basically look like they’re done.”

If the administration does lose on appeal, there are other statutes the White House could use to pursue Trump’s tariff agenda, Hassett continued.

He did not identify any by name, but Trump used Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act to impose tariffs on hundreds of billions of tariffs from China during his first term and Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act to impose or threaten duties on various industrial sectors, such as steel, aluminum and autos.

While the administration considered IEEPA the best option, “there are three or four other ways to do it,” Hassett said.

Meanwhile, Trump administration officials are lashing out at the judiciary and piling up attempts to discredit judges who issue unfavorable decisions as “activists” trying to undermine the president’s agenda.

White House deputy press secretary Kush Desai issued a harsh rebuke of the decision, slamming the deciding judges as “unelected,” an oft-used insult launched by members of the Trump administration at sitting judges.

“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. 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,” Desai wrote.

Longtime Trump adviser Jason Miller similarly decried the decision on Fox Business Thursday morning as evidence of the workings of the “deep state.”

“What this really shows is the global deep state is real, this legal deep state. This is their last line of defense — 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, echoing attack lines on the judicial system — and on individual judges — that have become routine from the president and his allies amid escalating legal battles over several of his policies.