
White House grapples with whiplash legal rulings hitting heart of Trump's economic agenda
For a White House that has grown accustomed to a rollercoaster of legal rulings, judicial decisions over the past day throwing President Donald Trump's tariff plans into question landed like a bombshell.
The rulings – which strike at the heart of Trump's economic agenda – represent far more of a threat to his priorities, White House officials said, than many other court opinions over the last four months since Trump returned to office. And perhaps no fight will prove as consequential to the president's agenda — at home and abroad — as the effort now underway by Trump and his administration to rescue his tariff policy after it was imperiled by a relatively obscure tribunal this week.
The day after the US Court of International Trade — a panel housed in a boxy glass building in Lower Manhattan — ruled Trump lacked the authority to apply the sweeping sky-high tariffs under federal emergency powers, the president and his team quickly moved to have the ruling frozen. The administration blasted the Wednesday night decision, which was reached by a three-judge panel appointed by Trump, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan.
Trump's team was successful; by Thursday afternoon, a federal appeals court in Washington had preserved the tariffs on an administrative basis, buying the White House time.
In the interim, there was a scramble inside the White House to both identify other authorities that would allow Trump to move ahead with the stiff new duties and to swiftly petition the courts to pause enforcement.
Back-up options could prove cumbersome. Many of the alternative routes would involve lengthy investigations or require approval from Congress, where support for tariffs — even among some Republicans — is lukewarm.
'We're not planning to pursue those right now because we're very, very confident that this really is incorrect,' Trump's top economist Kevin Hassett said early Thursday in a Fox Business interview, before affirming later in the day what other White House officials had been saying: that Trump's team was exploring all its options.
'Heaven forbid, if it ever did have trouble in the future, we've got so many other options on the table that the president's policy is going to be there,' he told reporters in the White House driveway.
Still, it seemed evident that Trump's advisers believed the courts would provide the best resource, even if there was little certainty at how judges will ultimately rule.
'We will respond forcefully, and we think we have a very good case with respect to this,' Trump's hawkish trade adviser Peter Navarro said following the stay decision.
The whiplash rulings — which joined a string of on-again, off-again tariff moves orchestrated by Trump himself — only seemed to emphasize the degree of chaos that continues to color Trump's trade agenda.
The tariffs were restored only temporarily, leaving foreign trade partners and investors in a state of limbo at least until June 9, the date by which the Justice Department must respond to those challenging the duties.
The ultimate fate of Trump's prized tariffs, both a lynchpin of his wider economic agenda and the motivating force of his foreign policy, has now been thrust into deep uncertainty.
And the prospects of the roughly 18 trade deals that the administration has said are being negotiated under threat of withering new tariffs — including three in their final stages, according to White House officials — now appear unclear.
The legal and trade fights, which are now fully intertwined, present one of the biggest challenges yet for the administration – further complicated by urgent efforts to push the Senate to advance its budget and tax bill. Taken together, Trump faces a multi-front battle that could well define his presidency.
Trump lashed out at the judiciary in a lengthy Thursday evening Truth Social post, taking aim at the three judges from the Court of International Trade. 'How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?'
Hours earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had struck a similar tone, attacking 'unelected judges' ahead of the stay decision.
'America cannot function if President Trump, or any president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.'
Trump remained behind closed doors Thursday, but did hold a meeting with Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell, whom he has sharply criticized for not lowering interest rates. Powell has also expressed concern Trump's tariffs could lead to higher inflation and lower economic growth.
The president's long-standing belief in tariffs has not been shaken, officials said, despite the series of legal, political and economic setbacks.
While Trump has repeatedly argued that tariffs will make the United States wealthy, the counterargument that import taxes will be paid by consumers has made his sales pitch far more difficult. And businesses are begging for a sense of certainty and a consistent policy.
It was a coalition of small business owners and 12 states that challenged the legality of the Trump tariffs before the US Court of International Trade.
'We brought this case because the Constitution doesn't give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy,' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement.
'We're very confident in our case,' said Jeffrey Schwab, a senior counselor at the Liberty Justice Center, which represented the small business owners who filed suit. 'The Trump administration is asserting a vast unilateral authority that is not supported in the law.'
As for the uncertainty abroad, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued Thursday night that trade negotiations with international partners haven't been affected.
'They are coming to us in good faith and trying to complete the deals before the 90-day pause ends,' he told Fox News. 'We've seen no change in their attitude in the past 48 hours. As a matter of fact, I have a very large Japanese delegation coming to my office first thing tomorrow morning.'
But some US trading partners tread cautiously in their response.
'We will study this ruling of the US Federal Courts on reciprocal tariffs closely and note that they may be subject to further legal processes through the courts,' said Australia's trade minister Don Farrell, who was careful not to get ahead of ongoing judicial review.
'You will have to bear with us,' said a spokesman for India's Ministry of External Affairs when questioned about the court ruling. India remains in intensive discussions with the Trump administration on a trade deal.
Still, the leader of one nation that has borne the brunt of Trump's trade agenda was more receptive.
'The government welcomes yesterday's decision,' Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney, who held a stiffly cordial meeting with Trump earlier this month, told his country's parliament, calling the tariffs 'unlawful as well as unjustified.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
8 minutes ago
- CBS News
Transcript: Michael Roth, Wesleyan University president, on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 1, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Michael Roth, Wesleyan University president, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 1, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're turning now to the President of Wesleyan University, Michael Roth, who joins us from Monterey, Massachusetts. Good morning to you. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT MICHAEL ROTH: Good morning. Good to be with you. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to pick up on something we were just discussing with the congressman, and that is this instruction to have new scrutiny of Chinese students, but also, more broadly, Secretary Rubio said all U.S. embassies should not schedule any new student visa application appointments at this time. About 14% of your students are international. Are you concerned they won't be able to come back to school in September? ROTH: I'm very concerned, not only about Wesleyan, but about higher education in the United States. One of the great things about our system of education is that it attracts people from all over the world who want to come to America to learn. And while they're here learning, they learn about our country, our values, our freedoms. And this is really an act of intimidation to scare schools into toeing the line of the current administration. It really has nothing to do with national security or with anti- antisemitism. This heightened scrutiny is meant to instill fear on college campuses, and I'm afraid it is working. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it is noticeable, sir, that you know, at a time when so many higher education institutions, Harvard, Columbia, Brown, have had federal funding revoked because of their policies, we find heads of universities are fearful of speaking out. Why are you not afraid of speaking critically? ROTH: Oh, I am. I'm afraid too. But I just find it extraordinary that Americans are afraid to speak out, especially people who, you know, run colleges, universities. Why- this is a free country. I've been saying it my whole life. I used to tell my parents that when I didn't want to do something, I would say it's a free country. And this idea that we're supposed to actually conform to the ideologies in the White House, it's not just bad for Harvard or for Wesleyan, it- it's bad for the whole country because journalists are being intimidated, law firms are being intimidated, churches, synagogues and mosques will be next. We have to defend our freedoms. And when we bring international students here, what they experience is what it's like to live in a free country, and we can't let the president change the atmosphere so that people come here and are afraid to speak out. MARGARET BRENNAN: But there are also some specific criticisms being lodged by members of the administration. Do you think that higher education has become too dependent on federal funding, for example, or money from foreign donors, are there legitimate criticisms? ROTH: There are lots of legitimate criticisms of higher education. I don't think overdependence on federal funding is the issue. Most of the federal funding you hear the press talk about are contracts to do specific kinds of research that are really great investments for the country. However, the criticisms of colleges and universities that we have a monoculture, that we don't have enough intellectual diversity, that's a criticism I've been making of my own school and of the rest of higher education for years. I think we can make improvements, but the way we make improvements is not by just lining up behind a president, whoever that happens to be. We make improvements by convincing our faculty and students to broaden our perspectives, to welcome more political and cultural views, not to line up and conform to the ideology of those in power. But yes, we have work to do to clean up our own houses, and we ought to get to it. But to do it under the- under this- the gun of an aggressive authoritarian administration that- that will lead to a bad outcome. MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you define some of the protests that even Wesleyan had on its campus that were, you know, critical of the State of Israel, for example, regarding the war against Hamas in Gaza, do you consider them to be xenophobic by definition, antisemitic or anti-Jewish? ROTH: Oh no, certainly not by definition. There are lots of examples of antisemitism around the country, some of them are on college campuses. They're reprehensible. When Jewish students are intimidated or afraid to practice their religion on campus, or are yelled at or- it's horrible. But at Wesleyan and in many schools, the percentage of Jews protesting for Palestinians was roughly the same as the percentage of Jews on the campus generally. The idea that you are attacking antisemitism by attacking universities, I think, is a complete charade. It's just an excuse for getting the universities to conform. We need to stamp out antisemitism. Those two young people just murdered because they were Jewish in Washington, that's a great example of how violence breeds violence. But the- the attack on universities is not an- is not an attempt to defend Jews. On the contrary, I think more Jews will be hurt by these attacks than helped. MARGARET BRENNAN: President Roth, thank you for your time this morning. We'll be back in a moment.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former Charger Seen As Final Piece For Commanders Offense
Former Charger Seen As Final Piece For Commanders Offense originally appeared on Athlon Sports. Austin Ekeler and Brian Robinson were the two-headed monster that the Washington Commanders relied on to reach the conference championship game last season. Advertisement Both are entering the final years of their deal with the team, though. With a bolstered offensive line, the Commanders could look to add another runner to the roster in the hopes of making their top two, a three-headed unstoppable force. A player they could look at? Former Baltimore Raven and Los Angeles Charger J.K. Dobbins. NFL reporter Gilberto Manzano suggested that Dobbins would be the top choice and best fit for Washington out of the leftover free agents. "It's a bit surprising that Dobbins remains unsigned after bouncing back from significant injuries to emerge as a Comeback Player of the Year candidate with the Chargers last season," Manzano said. "Perhaps teams aren't willing to pay a certain price for a running back with an extensive injury history. Advertisement "The Commanders could use a productive back such as Dobbins, who recorded 905 yards in 13 games last season. Dobbins wouldn't have to carry a heavy workload with Brian Robinson Jr. and Austin Ekeler also on the Commanders' roster." He has an injury history, but we are a bit puzzled as to why he sits on the shelf. Dobbins' 2024 season showed he could still play football at a high level with the right offensive line blocking for him. Washington has made tremendous strides to bolster their front five over the last two seasons. Because of this, a power runner like Dobbins would be an excellent fit for the Commanders offense. Advertisement Even maybe as a final piece to a Super Bowl roster. Related: Commanders Trade Paying Off As A Steal as Deebo Stars at OTAs Related: Commanders Rookie Putting On Show for Kingsbury at OTAs This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 1, 2025, where it first appeared.

Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Five big issues looming over the final days of Maine's legislative session
Jun. 1—Some of the thorniest and most divisive policy issues of the session stand between Maine lawmakers and their plan to adjourn on June 18. While the biggest outstanding item on the agenda is finalizing a two-year state budget, other major issues remain unresolved, as well. Here's a look at what lies ahead. TRANSGENDER ATHLETES When Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, he issued two executive orders targeting people who are transgender, including an order prohibiting transgender girls from participating in girls sports. Those orders put Maine in the administration's crosshairs because the state allows transgender athletes to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity — a stand state officials say is consistent with Title IX, which grants equal opportunity to females in education and sports, and with the Maine Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. That dynamic led to a high profile confrontation between Gov. Janet Mills and Trump at the White House, efforts by the Trump administration to cut Maine's funding, the censure of Rep. Laurel Libby, R-Auburn, for a social media post identifying a transgender high school athlete, a U.S. Supreme Court intervention, and a hotly contested and emotional debate in the State House, where Republicans have offered a slate of bills that would restrict participation by transgender athletes and students. None of those have yet been taken up by the full Legislature. Lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee deadlocked 6-6 on two bills that would eliminate funding from school districts that allow transgender girls to participate in girls sports. Democratic Rep. Dani O'Halloran of Brewer joined Republicans in backing LD 233, sponsored by Richard Campbell, R-Orrington, and LD 1134, sponsored by Sen. Sue Bernard, R-Caribou. Two other bills were voted "ought not to pass" by the committee, but still face floor votes. LD 868, sponsored by Rep. Liz Caruso, R-Caratunk, which would have required sports to be male, female or coed and required students to use restrooms and changing rooms consistent with their gender assigned at birth, was narrowly defeated in committee, 7-5. And LD 1432, sponsored by Rep. Mike Soboleski, R-Phillips, which would have removed gender identity from the Maine Human Rights Act, was opposed, 11-2. CHILD CARE The budget presented by Gov. Janet Mills proposes rolling back some recent investments in child care, including stipends to attract workers, but pending legislation would boost support for the struggling industry. Child care advocates presented a show of force early in the session, calling on lawmakers to protect the investments targeted by Mills. And while lawmakers are still negotiating the budget, additional standalone bills have been working through the Legislature. One of those bills, LD 1955, is sponsored by Senate President Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick. It calls for $1 million a year in child care provider stipends, plus a onetime appropriation of $3.8 million and an annual appropriation of $2 million to help qualifying families pay for child care. HOUSING The affordable housing shortage in Maine has been front and center again this session. LD 1829, sponsored by House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, D-Biddeford, aims to make it easier to build housing in communities by reducing minimum lot requirements, loosening regulations on in-law apartments or accessory dwelling units, streamlining municipal review for smaller housing developments, and allowing a single-story high bonus for qualified affordable housing. Lawmakers have also taken up bills that would provide funding to allow residents of mobile home parks to purchase those parks when offered for sale. Mobile home residents own their homes, but not the land underneath them. In recent years, parks have changed hands, leading to an increase in lot fees, and increasing the housing instability of of tenants. IMMIGRATION Immigration enforcement has been another focus of the Trump administration that spilled into the Legislature this year. Lawmakers are still considering bills that would define the relationship between federal authorities and state, county and local police. One bill, LD 1656, sponsored by Soboleski, would prohibit any restrictions from being placed on assisting with federal immigration enforcement. But two Democratic bills — LD 1259, sponsored by Rep. Ambreen Rana, D-Bangor, and LD 1971, sponsored by Rep. Deqa Dhalac, D-South Portland — take the opposite approach. Rana's bill would prohibit state and local law enforcement from entering into contracts for federal immigration enforcement, while Dhalac's bill would go further by adding additional restrictions on state and local law enforcement's ability to enforce immigration laws, while emphasizing the rights of detained immigrants. TAX BILLS With state revenues flattening, lawmakers are considering a range of proposals to support state programs and provide tax relief to families. One bill likely to come to the floor is LD 1089, sponsored by Rep. Cheryl Golek, D-Harpswell. It would create a so-called millionaire's tax to support K-12 education. Adding a 4% surcharge to incomes above $1 million could generate over $100 million a year, according to advocates who celebrated the positive committee recommendation. Copy the Story Link