Donald Trump‘s trade tariff agenda faced significant setbacks last week after two federal courts ruled his administration’s approach illegal. A three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade and a U.S. district court judge both determined the White House’s tariff strategy violated existing laws, though these rulings were later paused by an appeals court.
When questioned by Fox News’ Peter Doocy about why the administration wouldn’t simply work with Congress to create new legislation, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the president’s position. She maintained that no new laws were necessary, claiming the Constitution already gives Trump unilateral authority over trade policy.
According to MSNBC, Trump later revealed his true stance on the matter through his social media platform. In a lengthy post criticizing the Federalist Society, he expressed his frustration with the court’s decision, stating, “The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs… If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power. The Presidency would never be the same!”
Courts direct Trump to work with Republican-controlled Congress
The courts’ directive for Trump to collaborate with Congress, which is currently controlled by his own Republican Party, has highlighted a significant tension between presidential authority and the legislative process. Despite Trump’s reputation as a skilled negotiator, he has shown clear reluctance to engage in the legislative process required for implementing his trade policies.
@RoKhanna Can you find enough GOP members and all of the Democrats to please legislatively fix the tariff situation so that Trump must seek congressional approval for any tariffs?
— Tim Miley (@Tim_Miley_US) May 30, 2025
These loopholes must be plugged.
He is acting like a child, and we're all so tired of it.
The practical implications of this situation suggest that the White House may be avoiding Congressional approval because such a policy might not gather enough votes to pass, even with Republican control of both chambers. This reveals a potential lack of support for Trump’s tariff proposals among his own party members.
Trump’s response to the court rulings demonstrates his view that the traditional lawmaking process is too cumbersome for effective governance. His statements suggest he believes presidential power should not be constrained by the need to work within established legal frameworks, even when those frameworks involve cooperation with a Congress controlled by his own party.
The situation has drawn attention from political observers, with The New Republic’s Greg Sargent noting that Trump’s position essentially argues that presidential power can only be preserved by rejecting lawful limitations on it. This stance has raised concerns about Trump’s approach to executive authority and his willingness to work within the constitutional system of checks and balances.
