Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House Economic Council, expressed strong confidence during a recent interview on ABC’s “This Week” that the courts will support President Donald Trump’s tariff policies. Hassett reaffirmed that the administration views its strategy, referred to as “Plan A,” as both effective and reliable. He indicated satisfaction with the legal grounding of the tariffs and expected that judges would affirm the legality of the president’s actions. He emphasized their belief in the necessity of these tariffs, suggesting they are crucial for addressing economic challenges, including the opioid crisis, which he referred to as a national emergency.
Hassett’s comments come in light of a recent legal situation where a federal court initially struck down Trump’s tariff measures. Subsequently, however, an appeals court issued a temporary stay, allowing the administration to enforce a 10% baseline tariff and additional “reciprocal tariffs” announced under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This ruling temporarily paused a unanimous decision made by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) that blocked the tariffs, showcasing the ongoing legal tensions surrounding the administration’s trade policies.
The CIT’s ruling highlighted that Trump had potentially overstepped his authority under the IEEPA, as the panel of judges—appointed by presidents from both major political parties—unanimously agreed that the president does not hold “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs under this emergency law. This ruling has compounded the administration’s challenges in solidifying its trade agenda, as they now face a legal landscape that questions the breadth of executive power concerning trade issues.
To proceed, the Trump administration must meet the legal standards required by the appeals court, which now shifts the burden of proof onto the government. They must demonstrate that they will face “irreparable harm” if the injunction against the tariffs remains in place. This high legal threshold places additional pressure on the administration as they navigate ongoing litigation and the complexities of their tariff implementation strategy.
Hassett’s reassurances appear to rest on a belief that the administration has a robust plan to counter any unfavorable judicial rulings. He mentioned alternative measures available if courts significantly challenge the administration’s authority, suggesting that the White House is preparing for various scenarios in the ongoing legal battle. This highlights the administration’s strategic emphasis on maintaining its trade policies, which they view as vital for ensuring fair trade practices in the U.S.
The current situation reflects a broader clash between federal authority, trade policy, and judicial oversight, showcasing the complexities of executive power in economic matters. As the legal disputes unfold, the administration’s efforts to implement its tariffs will continue to face scrutiny from both legal challengers and the judiciary, demonstrating the contentious intersection of law and trade in the current political climate.
