First of all, his ‘authority’ (expertise) was specifically being called into question.
Second, appealing to authority isn’t fallacious when the authority is genuine and relevant.
It is not fallacious to reason that a math champion is likely better than the average person at math, or that a psychologist is likely better than the average person at understanding the psyche.
And it is not fallacious to argue that a former minister of trade ‘knows what they are talking about’ when they are talking about tariffs.
It doesn’t automatically prove them right, either. But again, that does not make the argument itself fallacious.
First of all, his ‘authority’ (expertise) was specifically being called into question.
Second, appealing to authority isn’t fallacious when the authority is genuine and relevant.
It is not fallacious to reason that a math champion is likely better than the average person at math, or that a psychologist is likely better than the average person at understanding the psyche.
And it is not fallacious to argue that a former minister of trade ‘knows what they are talking about’ when they are talking about tariffs.
It doesn’t automatically prove them right, either. But again, that does not make the argument itself fallacious.