Donald Trump has reacted sharply to a recent ruling from the International Trade Court in New York that deemed his use of emergency powers to impose substantial tariffs illegitimate.

The court's unanimous decision stated that Trump's administration did not possess the legal authority to enact tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, citing constitutional provisions that grant Congress exclusive authority to impose taxes, duties, and tariffs.

The tariffs in question, announced in early April, included a significant 20% rate for the European Union and Spain, with even higher tariffs proposed for major trading partners such as China, Mexico, and Canada.

Trump's administration has been directed to take steps to deactivate these tariffs within ten days, although a subsequent appeal has temporarily halted this order pending further legal review.

In a message on his social media platform, Trump labelled the ruling as "horrible," asserting that it would require hundreds of politicians to deliberate for extended periods before reaching a consensus on national tariffs.

He contended that the judicial decision undermines the authority of the presidency.

Legal experts argue that the court’s ruling reinforces the checks and balances embedded within the U.S. constitution, emphasizing that long-standing trade deficits do not constitute an extraordinary threat that would justify the invocation of such emergency powers.

Trump has indicated that if the ruling were upheld, it could significantly diminish presidential authority regarding international trade policy.

After the initial ruling, Trump's administration celebrated a temporary victory when an appellate court granted a stay on the lower court's decision, allowing for further consideration of the appeal.

Trump, however, has criticized the judges involved, questioning their motivations and asserting they could not have delivered such rulings without an inherent bias against him.

Other senior White House officials have echoed Trump's criticisms, labeling the ruling as a "judicial coup" and condemning what they describe as an unaccountable judiciary.

The judges on the panel were appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump himself, complicating the narrative of a partisan judicial bias.

Peter Navarro, a senior trade adviser, referred to the appellate court's ruling as a positive development and framed the situation as part of a broader political struggle.

He emphasized that the administration still views the tariffs as a critical response to ongoing challenges such as the fentanyl crisis and the trade deficit with China, asserting that they would explore alternative means to implement tariffs if necessary.

Navarro articulated a commitment to a strategic response, alluding to ongoing discussions with various countries regarding trade matters and emphasizing the administration's resolve to uphold its policy goals.

As the situation evolves, the Trump administration is expected to engage in further legal and diplomatic maneuvers to navigate the complexities of the ruling.