Karoline Leavitt declares courts should ‘have no role’ since Donald Trump can’t function under the same rules as everyone else

If the rest of us have to abide by laws and rules, Trump, according to Leavitt, deserves a personalized set of exceptions. Why? Because he’s Trump, of course. And if you think that sounds like a toddler demanding they get to eat cookies for dinner while everyone else eats broccoli, you’re not alone.

Leavitt’s comments came on the heels of two federal courts blocking Trump’s sweeping tariffs, which were slapped on imports from places like Canada, Mexico, and China. These tariffs, which Trump claimed were necessary to address national security threats and economic imbalances, were ruled as overreach by the courts. But instead of engaging with the legal reasoning behind these rulings, Leavitt went full scorched-earth mode, accusing judges of being “activists” who are “railroading” Trump’s delicate diplomatic negotiations. In her view, allowing the judiciary to do its job is apparently a “dangerous trend” that threatens to derail America itself.

Trump’s tariffs, including the infamous “Liberation Day” levies that slapped a 10% duty on all imports and even higher penalties on dozens of countries, were blocked by multiple federal courts. The courts ruled that Trump’s attempt to impose these tariffs by declaring emergencies—like trade deficits and the opioid epidemic—was not legally sound. For context, emergency powers are usually reserved for, you know, actual emergencies—wars, terrorist attacks, or pandemics—not for vague issues like a trade imbalance.

But Trump, being Trump, has always had a penchant for bending definitions to suit his goals, and his istration justified these tariffs under dubious claims of national security threats. The courts called out this overreach, doing what courts are supposed to do: check executive power when it goes beyond its legal limits. Yet, for team Trump, this was an egregious act of judicial sabotage.

This isn’t the first time Trump’s istration has butted heads with the judiciary. From immigration bans to funding cuts, federal judges have repeatedly blocked Trump’s more extreme policies, citing legal and constitutional concerns. Each time, the istration has responded with the same playbook: cry “activist judges,” insist the courts are overstepping, and appeal to the Supreme Court in hopes of finding a more sympathetic audience.

Leavitt’s remarks are just the latest chapter in this ongoing saga. Her call for the Supreme Court to intervene is a familiar refrain from an istration that has leaned heavily on the court’s conservative majority to validate its policies. But even the Supreme Court has limits. While it has upheld some of Trump’s actions, it has also ruled against him in key cases, demonstrating that even the highest court in the land won’t rubber-stamp every executive whim.