A top economic advisor to President Donald Trump, Kevin Hassett, is unwavering in his belief that the administration’s tariffs will ultimately prevail despite recent legal setbacks. Hassett, who serves as the director of the National Economic Council, expressed his confidence during an interview on Fox Business. He emphasized that the use of tariffs as a tool for ensuring fair trade is not only crucial but also within legal bounds.
“We’re right that America has been mishandled by other governments,”
stated Hassett, highlighting the administration’s stance on addressing trade imbalances through tariff measures. He further asserted that the ongoing trade negotiations have been highly beneficial for American citizens.
The recent ruling by judges on the Court of International Trade questioning Trump’s authority to impose tariffs has sparked debate and raised concerns about the future direction of U.S. trade policies. These tariffs were designed to tackle barriers hindering American exports overseas and combat the influx of fentanyl into the United States—a critical issue linked to rising overdose deaths according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In response to the court ruling, Hassett expressed frustration with what he perceives as an obstruction to crucial governmental actions aimed at curbing the fentanyl crisis.
“These activist judges are trying to slow down something right in the middle of really important negotiations,”
he lamented. Despite this setback, he remains resolute in his belief that an appeal will result in a favorable outcome.
“The idea that the fentanyl crisis in America is not an emergency is so appalling to me that I am sure that when we appeal, this decision will be overturned,”
stated Hassett confidently. While exploring various options to navigate around legal challenges, including provisions within existing trade laws, Hassett indicated a preference for resolving these issues through established channels rather than seeking alternative routes immediately.
Acknowledging potential alternative strategies available for immediate implementation, Hassett clarified that their current focus lies primarily on appealing against what they perceive as an erroneous ruling.
“We’re very confident that this ruling is incorrect,”
he reiterated firmly.
The clash between legal interpretations and governmental actions underscores a broader tension surrounding international trade policies and national security imperatives. As experts continue to weigh in on these developments, it remains evident that finding a delicate balance between regulatory compliance and strategic objectives poses significant challenges for policymakers navigating complex global dynamics.
