Donald Trump reciprocal trade tariffs back on – for now – as White House vows to fight ‘judicial tyranny’

She said members of the president’s economic team had already been in touch with foreign counterparts to convey this expectation.

Loading

“Other countries around the world have faith in the negotiator in chief, President Donald J. Trump,” she said.

“They also probably see how ridiculous this ruling is, and they understand that the administration is going to win, and we intend to win. We expect to fight this battle all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell said yesterday that the Albanese government had always believed the tariffs were unjustified and would continue to urge Trump to abandon them altogether.

The Trump administration is fighting legal battles on numerous fronts. A judge in Boston on Thursday extended an injunction against the government barring Harvard University from enrolling international students, while elsewhere a court blocked Trump from ending a Biden-era humanitarian immigration program.

Loading

Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff for policy, made a number of posts on X outlining the Trump administration’s dim view of the legal obstacles it has faced.

“The judicial coup is out of control,” Miller said about the tariff ruling. “We are living under a judicial tyranny,” he added later. Of the immigration decision, he said: “It is the end of democracy if not reversed.”

Trade experts were not surprised by Wednesday’s decision of the Court of International Trade in New York, but noted the likelihood the Supreme Court would be the final arbiter.

The levies struck down in the past 24 hours are the so-called “reciprocal tariffs” – including a baseline rate of 10 per cent on Australian goods – which Trump enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). However, the 25 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium were instituted using different laws, and still stand.

Loading

Mary Lovely, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said while Trump had other avenues by which he could impose tariffs – particularly section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – these would be sectoral rather than across-the-board.

“I think that particular ploy is now not available to him,” Lovely said, noting the Supreme Court could allow it. She was not surprised by the court rulings.

“The authority for setting tariffs is very clear in the constitution. The only question was whether the IEEPA was broad enough to include the types of arguments or justifications that he [Trump] used, and the court ruled that it wasn’t.”

Leavitt said on Thursday (AEST) that Trump had a mandate from the American people to fix the US’s large and persistent goods trade deficit, which reached $US1 trillion in 2024 and which she said posed a serious threat to the country’s economy and national security.

“President Trump correctly believes that America cannot function safely long-term if we are unable to scale advanced domestic manufacturing capacity, have our own secure critical supply chains, and [if] our defence industrial base is dependent upon foreign adversaries,” she said.

The case before the Court of International Trade was led by a small Manhattan-based wine importer, VOS Selections, while the Washington case was brought by an Illinois-based toy seller, Learning Resources.

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.