The White House intensified its criticism of federal judges on Wednesday, May 29, following a court decision that struck down President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, with administration officials alleging judicial overreach and constitutional violations.
White House spokesperson Kush Desai indicated that trade deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, emphasizing that it is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address such emergencies. Senior adviser Stephen Miller escalated the rhetoric further, claiming that “the judicial coup is out of control” in a social media post.
The administration’s sharp response came after a bipartisan panel at the U.S. International Court of Trade determined unanimously on Wednesday that Trump had exceeded his presidential authority in imposing reciprocal tariffs. The judges ruled that his justification for the import taxes using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was insufficient to support the sweeping trade measures.
The court’s written opinion stated that the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the president by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to regulate importation through tariffs. The judges also called for the levies to be vacated entirely, dealing a significant blow to Trump’s trade agenda.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt delivered additional criticism during a White House driveway briefing, describing the pattern of judicial decisions as troubling and dangerous. She characterized the judges as activist judges who are inserting themselves into presidential decision-making processes, arguing that America cannot function if any president has their diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by such judicial intervention.
The administration has signaled its intention to appeal the court’s decision, marking another chapter in the ongoing legal battles between the White House and federal courts. Leavitt emphasized that the administration would fight back using the full weight of the White House Counsel’s Office and federal government lawyers, who believe the injunctions are entirely unconstitutional.
The February statistics cited by Leavitt revealed that the Trump administration faced 15 injunctions in a single month, compared to 14 injunctions during the entire three-year Biden administration period. This dramatic increase has fueled the White House’s claims of coordinated judicial activism targeting Trump’s executive authority.
The pattern of confrontation extends beyond trade policy, with judges repeatedly pausing or blocking various White House initiatives ranging from immigration program rollbacks to targeting of law firms. With Republicans in Congress declining to use their power to check presidential actions, the judiciary has emerged as one of Trump’s primary institutional restraints.
Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb, who served during Trump’s first term, criticized the administration’s approach during a CNN appearance. Cobb suggested that Leavitt’s comments were defensive and ill-informed, indicating that most Americans do not take her seriously on matters of substance. He argued that courts are not attempting to participate in international trade but are simply ruling on whether statutes authorize presidential actions.
The legal expert noted that the statute in question has never been used in connection with tariffs throughout American history, suggesting that courts will likely uphold restrictions that prevent the president from claiming all-encompassing powers in trade matters.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has previously issued rare public rebukes of Trump’s judicial criticism, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has characterized the rhetoric as attacks designed to intimidate the judiciary. Jackson warned that such attacks ultimately risk undermining the Constitution and rule of law.
Security concerns have escalated alongside the political tensions, with judges expressing increasing worry about their safety. A Reuters investigation documented that at least 11 federal judges who have ruled against Trump have faced threats of violence and harassment directed at their families, highlighting the real-world consequences of the heated political rhetoric.
The administration has previously labeled various judges with inflammatory terms, including describing them as crooked, radical, and monsters. Trump has also personally attacked individual judges, including U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who issued orders halting deportation of Venezuelan migrants.
Despite the temporary legal setback, a federal appeals court subsequently reinstated most of the tariffs on Thursday, May 30, providing the administration with a partial victory while the broader legal challenges continue through the court system.