
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
20 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
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tyrese Haliburton puts on triple-double show with dad back in building: ‘Makes it more sweet'
INDIANAPOLIS — Tyrese Haliburton's previously banned father was back in the building, and so, too, was the All-Star point guard's electrifying all-around game. John Haliburton was permitted by the Pacers to return to Gainbridge Fieldhouse following a first-round altercation with Giannis Antetokounmpo, and he got to see his son put on an absolute show with his first triple-double of these playoffs in Indiana's 130-121 victory Tuesday night in Game 4 of the Eastern Conference finals. Advertisement 'Hell yeah, I'm glad Pops [is] in the building, man, makes it more sweet,' Haliburton said during a postgame interview on TNT. 'Definitely had something to do with it.' John Haliburton, who had confronted Antetokounmpo on the court after Pacers' clinching Game 5 win in the first round against the Bucks on April 29, took in the game from a luxury suite after not attending any of the five games against Cleveland nor the first three games of this series. Tyrese Haliburton called out his father's behavior at the time, and John also issued an apology to both Antetokounmpo and to the Bucks. Tyrese Haliburton of the Indiana Pacers attempts a layup against Karl-Anthony Towns of the New York Knicks during the fourth quarter in Game 4 of the Eastern Conference Finals on May 27, 2025 Getty Images 'I'm gonna be honest with you guys here, my dad is just fine,' Tyrese Haliburton added in his postgame press conference. 'He lives just fine. He sits and watches the games in a beautiful home or he finds his way to a sports bar with a bunch of Pacer fans. Advertisement 'There's obviously a lot of commentary around him … some was warranted and some went a little too far. CHECK OUT THE LATEST NBA STANDINGS AND KNICKS STATS 'But I don't think there's really any emotion to it. I just wanted to put on a good performance and I wanted to win the game. But obviously my dad being here is special.' 'I know we were saying 'Free Pops,' and 'Pops is free,' but he was not in jail. They're in a beautiful home and sitting very pretty watching NBA basketball. He's doing just fine.' John Halliburton, father of Tyrese Haliburton, raises his hands from a suite before the Pacers' 130-121 Game 4 win over the Knicks in the Eastern Conference finals on May 27, 2025. AP Follow The Post's coverage of the Knicks in the 2025 NBA Playoffs Sports+ subscribers: Sign up for Inside the Knicks to get daily newsletter coverage and join Expert Take for insider texts about the series. The 25-year-old Haliburton put up 20 points, 10 assists and eight rebounds by halftime before finishing with a 32-15-12 stat line with zero turnovers and four steals in 38 minutes as the Pacers seized a 3-1 series lead with the series shifting to New York for Game 5 on Thursday. Advertisement He joined Oscar Robertson (twice) and Nikola Jokic as the only players in playoff history to record a triple-double with at least 30 points and 15 assists — and is the only player to reach those numbers without committing a turnover. Tyrese Haliburton shoots a 3-pointer over Jalen Brunson during the fourth quarter the Knicks' Game 4 loss to the Pacers. Trevor Ruszkowski-Imagn Images John Haliburton reacts from a suite before the Pacers' Game 4 win over the Knicks. IMAGN IMAGES via Reuters Connect The younger Haliburton had invoked the Reggie Miller choke sign from 1994 following a game-tying shot at the end of regulation of Indy's overtime win in Game 1 after the Knicks had flushed a 14-point lead with under three minutes to play. But the two-time All-Star admitted after the Knicks came back from 20 points behind to take Game 3 that he was 'kicking myself' for his part in a lackluster team showing with only 42 points in the second half. Tyrese Haliburton goes up for a shot against Mikal Bridges in Game 4. Charles Wenzelberg / New York Post 'I was just trying to be aggressive and just trying to play my best. I felt like I let the team down in Game 3 and felt like I could have been so much better,' Haliburton said. 'I felt like I responded the right way today.'
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jake Paul vs. Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. pay-per-view price revealed ahead of June fight
Combat sports fans might need to save up for June 28 with Jake Paul facing Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. and UFC 317 both taking place on the same night. On Thursday, DAZN revealed the pay-per-view price for the Paul vs. Chavez Jr. fight, which also features former UFC champion Holly Holm making her return to boxing on the undercard. Advertisement The Paul vs. Chavez Jr. fight costs $59.99 for the pay-per-view along with a subscription to DAZN. The boxing match marks Paul's first fight in 2025 after he put on one of the biggest spectacles in history this past November when he defeated former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson with more than 100 million viewers watching the event on Netflix. The win over the 58-year-old Tyson moved Paul's record to 11-1 overall and now he's seeking to add another famous name to his resume when he faces Chavez in June. Of course, Chavez comes into the fight at 39 years old and far removed from the prime of his career when he was a champion and top contender in several different divisions. Over his past six fights, Chavez has gone 3-3 including a shocking loss to UFC legend Anderson Silva, who Paul defeated back in 2022. Advertisement Most recently, Chavez won an uninspired decision over another former UFC fighter in Uriah Hall. The event also includes Holm making her return to boxing for the first time since 2013 when she faces Yolanda Vega on the main card. Paul vs. Chavez is set to go head-to-head with UFC 317, which features a vacant lightweight title fight at the top of the card when Ilia Topuria moves to 155 pounds to challenge former champion Charles Oliveira in the main event while Alexandre Pantoja defends his flyweight title against Kai Kara-France in the co-main event from Las Vegas. UFC 317 costs $79.99 along with a subscription to ESPN+. Advertisement More from