Latest news with #IlyaSomin
Yahoo
14-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Trump's tariff lawsuits may not slow his larger trade war
A courtroom showdown over President Trump's tariffs is coming at the end of July, just one day before a series of steep duties are scheduled to take effect for dozens of countries around the world. But it could still take a lot longer to permanently settle the legal question of whether the president has authority to impose his wide-ranging tariffs, according to legal experts and even a participant in the current case. "If we win," the Trump administration 'could try to use other statutes' to justify new tariffs, said Ilya Somin, a lawyer for the small business importers that successfully challenged Trump's tariffs before a lower court in May. 'And that would be a lengthy, complex discussion about what [the president] can do,' added Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and constitutional studies chair at the Cato Institute. The small business importers that proved it was possible to temporarily derail Trump's global tariffs with a lower court victory in May will make their arguments again on July 31 before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. In a separate challenge, two toy manufacturers are scheduled to make their own arguments against Trump's tariffs before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30, after also winning a lower court victory. These legal challenges to Trump's escalating trade war don't necessarily pose an immediate danger to Trump's broader tariff plans for a few reasons, according to legal and trade experts. One, even if he loses the current cases on appeal, Trump could turn to other statutes that administration officials believe allow him to also act unilaterally. Any lawsuits designed to stop those moves would likely stretch for months into 2026. Another complicating factor for challengers is that the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for lower courts to issue a nationwide injunction against a presidential action. It did so in a ruling last month in a case stemming from a Trump executive order ending a longstanding US rule on birthright citizenship. The court's decision could be relevant for the tariff cases, since in May the small business importers were able to convince the US Court of International Trade to issue a nationwide injunction against Trump's tariffs after concluding he lacked authority to impose his duties by executive order under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put that order on hold while it considers whether the president has the ultimate legal authority to impose the IEEPA duties, which are now scheduled to take effect on Aug. 1 unless countries are able to negotiate new deals in the coming weeks. 'I think trading partners should take the message and probably do take the message that they can't rely on the courts to protect them from tariff actions from the United States,' said Greta Peisch, an international trade attorney and former general counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). She and other trade experts say the matter is likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court, though not necessarily on an expedited basis. Peisch also noted the two cases now before appeals courts won't address the president's authority under other statutes that carve out exceptions to Congress' tariff power. These alternative statutes include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs on a foreign nation so long as the US Trade Representative finds the nation has violated trade agreements or engaged in unfair trade practices. They also include Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which empowers the president to impose tariffs on certain imports designated as a threat to the US economy, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 that empowers the president to impose tariffs on countries that unreasonably restrict US goods. There are a lot of questions about how those other laws may work, Peisch said, because some haven't been challenged in court. 'I think what that means for negotiating partners and for importers, is that the outcome of the case and the timing is not something that they can certainly hang their hat on and depend on as something that's going to change the dynamics and the calculus in the next months, maybe even year,' she said. One loophole that the Supreme Court left in place that could work against Trump is that it has kept intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of presidential executive orders through class action lawsuits. The lawyer working with the importers that are challenging Trump's tariffs, Somin, said 'we believe we don't need, necessarily, a class action to get a broad remedy here.' A complete remedy, Somin added, 'requires a broad injunction barring these IEEPA tariffs entirely.' Somin also noted that if the president does turn to other statutes to impose tariffs, they could be more limited than the widespread duties justified under IEEPA. 'What I do not think you can do is start a gargantuan trade war with the entire world, which is what he has tried to use IEEPA to do,' Somin said. Ben Werschkul contributed to this article. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
ABC News
12-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Is Trump trying to normalise troops on US streets?
Sam Hawley: Across America, the number of protests against Donald Trump's immigration raids is increasing, a week since the LA rallies began. But it's Donald Trump's decision to deploy armed forces on US soil that's really causing a stir. Today, Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, on why it's an authoritarian move Trump has long wanted to take. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Karen Bass, LA Mayor: I have declared a local emergency and issued a curfew for downtown Los Angeles. News report: Thousands of National Guard troops and Marines deployed by President Trump are on the ground in LA in response to the protests. An overnight curfew in the city will remain in place indefinitely. News report: As Los Angeles enters its sixth day of protests against the policy, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, announced it was deploying tactical agents to Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York and Northern Virginia. Protester: I want to say to each and every one of you, you are not alone. The world is watching Los Angeles. Sam Hawley: Ilya, it's a week since these protests in LA first began, but it's been an extraordinary week, not so much because of the protests, but because of the US President's reaction to them. Ilya Somin: Yes, that's right. The protests themselves are not that extraordinary, nor is the level of violence that has occurred, which is so far at least pretty modest in scope. Rather, it's the domestic use of the military and the attempt to assert federal control over National Guard, which if not completely unprecedented, certainly is unusual and certainly in modern times has not been done without much more substantial reason than exists here. Sam Hawley: And I would have thought it's pretty ironic, Ilya, that Donald Trump pardons almost everyone involved in the January 6th riots and then sends in the military for these protests. Ilya Somin: So I would say it's more than an irony. It's pretty obvious and blatant hypocrisy. What happened in 2021 was a genuine insurrection and a genuine attempt to overthrow the government effectively to keep in power a person who had no legal claim to it. On the other hand, what is going on now is fairly small-scale violence and property destruction. I condemn it. The people who do it should be prosecuted, but it's not anywhere near the level of what happened on January 6th. In many cases, Trump's immigration policies and the activities of ICE themselves, as well as trying to deport people without due process, seizing people when they're going to immigration hearings, sending people to imprisonment in El Salvador, which is lawless on many levels and which several courts have ruled against. So I think it is Trump's law breaking which precipitated this crisis and he and his policies are principally to blame for it. That doesn't justify people reacting with violence that harms innocent people in response. That's wrong and I condemn it, but it is also the case when the government itself acts lawlessly, they can't rightly count on the cooperation of citizens that normally they might come to expect. Sam Hawley: Some of these protesters have been flying the Mexican flag. That plays into Donald Trump's hands, doesn't it? That's what he wants. Ilya Somin: Maybe. If I were organising a protest, and I'm no political activist, but if I was, I probably would not wave Mexican flags, but that people have a first amendment right to wave whatever flags they want, whether I approve of them or not. Sam Hawley: All right, so, Ilya, we're going to unpack with you the significance of Donald Trump's intervention in these protests. To do that, I just wondered if you could first take us to Fort Bragg. That's a military base in North Carolina. Donald Trump addressed troops there during the week, didn't he? Donald Trump, US President: It's a beautiful sight to be with you in a place called Fort Bragg. Sam Hawley: What was he actually telling them? Ilya Somin: As I understand it, you know, he was telling them that the US had been invaded and that he would use force to prevent it in Los Angeles. Donald Trump, US President: What you're witnessing in California is a full-blown assault on peace, on public order, and a national sovereignty carried out by rioters bearing foreign flags with the aim of continuing a foreign invasion of our country. We're not going to let that happen. Ilya Somin: And he was at least strongly implying he would use force even against peaceful protesters, and he got the troops to cheer. Donald Trump, US President: Time and again, our enemies have learned that if you dare to threaten the American people, American soldier will chase you down, crush you, and cast you into oblivion. That's what happens, unfortunately. In Los Angeles, the governor of California, the mayor of Los Angeles, they're incompetent. Ilya Somin: From what I have read, what they did is troops who seemed inclined not to be supportive of Trump, they had the right to just not appear at that speech. And so the people who were there were sort of self-selected to be his supporters. The bottom line, though, is it's unusual and a violation of political norms, at the very least, for the president to openly advocate the use of force domestically and to use troops as a backdrop for what is obviously a blatantly partisan political speech, at the very least. It may not be illegal to do that, but it's certainly a violation of political norms, though in fairness, over the last decade, we've seen a lot of norms be violated, and this will be far from the first. Sam Hawley: All right. And he told these troops that he'd liberate LA. Donald Trump, US President: Very simply, we will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again. It's happening very quickly. Sam Hawley: And he called the protesters animals and the foreign enemy. Quite extraordinary. Ilya Somin: Yes. I think that language speaks for itself and you don't really need me to say much more, except that it's both wildly inaccurate and to say the least, hugely inappropriate. Sam Hawley: Yeah. All right. Well, let's just talk a bit more about his decision to send in the US Marines and the National Guard to LA, even though the local authorities, the police insist they were being brought under control. It's hardly surprising he acts in this manner, is it? I mean, he has form. Ilya Somin: In one sense, it's not surprising because it seems like he wanted to do this even in his first term during the much larger actually protests and riots that occurred after the death of George Floyd. And at that time he was prevented by his secretary of defence and by military officials. This time around, he has sort of more cooperative loyalists or one might say, toadies who are less willing to counter his worst impulses. So while it's not surprising that this individual wanted to do it, it is, I think, at the very least, a major breach of norms and at least arguably a violation of law as well. Sam Hawley: But just explain for me how that relates to now and what Donald Trump is doing now. Ilya Somin: So I think in two ways. One is he clearly did want to use the military back then, and he clearly has sort of these authoritarian instincts going way back. At one point, even years before he was president, he praised the Chinese government for their crackdown in Tiananmen Square, which a massacre that killed hundreds or even thousands of protesters. Donald Trump, US President: I was not endorsing it. I said that is a strong, powerful government that put it down... they kept down the riot. It was a horrible thing. It doesn't mean at all I was endorsing it. Ilya Somin: And so he has these instincts going way back, but also his frustration over what happened in 2020 may make it even more likely that he would want to do things differently now. Sam Hawley: So you seem to be suggesting that sending in the National Guard and the Marines could be somewhat sinister in a way. Ilya Somin: I think at the very least, it's quite possible, given that the actual legal and policy argument for doing so is extremely weak. So either at best is just a very poorly thought out initiative by the administration, but at worst, it is indeed sinister, as you suggest. Sam Hawley: But to what end? What's the aim? Ilya Somin: So one possible aim could simply just be to look strong or to satisfy his instincts to be strong and tough. Another possibility is that they want to normalise the idea that you can use troops domestically so that they have this in their toolkit going forward. And that obviously would be extremely sinister, as you suggested. Sam Hawley: What, so it's a practice run for the future? Ilya Somin: Yeah. If you normalise something and you succeed in getting people to accept it, and obviously those are two big ifs, then it's easier to do it the second or third or fourth time around. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Ilya, Trump's deployed the Marines to LA and the National Guard, but there are limits, aren't there, on what those forces can do? Just explain that. Ilya Somin: So under the current set of statutes that he's invoked, it seems like the limits are that they can only sort of protect federal facilities and perhaps federal personnel. And from what I've read and heard they actually haven't been doing very much other than sort of being in the streets and guarding certain federal facilities. But if he were to invoke the Insurrection Act, a law he hasn't invoked yet, then at least it's possible that they would have much broader law enforcement authority to just enforce ordinary laws and could then act much more aggressively. And there's also the issue of even if he doesn't invoke the Insurrection Act, whether he could simply just order them to do things which are illegal, but on the hopes that nobody would stop him from doing it, even if it is illegal under the letter of the law. Sam Hawley: Right. And just to point out that Insurrection Act, it's not used very often. We haven't seen it used much in American history, right? Ilya Somin: Not much. The last time, if I recall correctly, was with respect to the LA riots of 1992, which really was much larger scale violence than anything going on right now. But certainly it was the case that there was large scale riots. The LA police at that time were just not able to control them. They were taken by surprise. Whereas right now, from what I've heard, things are sort of calming down. There has been some destruction of property and some relatively low level violence, but nothing like what happened in LA in 1992 or at some other notorious riots in American history. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, in a televised address said that Donald Trump is destroying democracy, that California may be the first, but it won't be the last. Gavin Newsom, California Governor: When Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard, he made that order apply to every state in this nation. This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Sam Hawley: Now, we should point out, of course, that he is a Democrat and could potentially be a presidential nominee in the future. But what do you make of his comments? Ilya Somin: I think his concerns are at least plausible and well taken. We don't know whether the administration has a plan to make use of this precedent in the future, but I think the risk is great enough that this is the kind of thing that, if at all possible, you want to cut off before we go down that road and take more risk. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Ilya, Donald Trump's next big scheduled event is this military parade in Washington over the weekend. The president says any protests there would be met with a very big force. Donald Trump, US President: For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force. You know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force. Ilya Somin: I don't know what force he has in mind or whether he even plans to carry out that threat in any way or not. But obviously, if he does use force, even against peaceful protesters, that would both be a violation of the First Amendment and I would argue a crime as well. Sam Hawley: But Ilya, if the LA riots are the start of something bigger for Trump, what legally can be done to stop him? I note the California governor is taking action in the court to halt the troop deployment, but does that achieve anything? Ilya Somin: So it depends to some extent on whether he wins the action, if so, whether Trump would obey the decision. So we'll have to see what happens in court on that. And if there is a decision by the court against Trump, whether they would obey the injunction or not. You know, if troops commit crimes or shoot people illegally or whatnot, criminal liability can result there. There would also be civil liability as well. But it all depends on exactly what is done and under what circumstances. And if the Insurrection Act is invoked, then there could be litigation about that. And, you know, there would be questions that I think in modern times, there's little, if any, judicial precedent on. Sam Hawley: We see headlines suggesting it could be the start of a civil war. That's going a bit far, I would think at this point. But there is a concern about that. Ilya Somin: So I think a civil war, to my mind, is still unlikely. But obviously, the very fact that we're talking about that is itself not a great sign. Sam Hawley: Ilya Somin is a law professor at the George Mason University in Virginia, and the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think tank. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Adair Sheppard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
New York Times
10-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump Declares Dubious Emergencies to Amass Power, Scholars Say
To hear President Trump tell it, the nation is facing a rebellion in Los Angeles, an invasion by a Venezuelan gang and extraordinary foreign threats to its economy. Citing this series of crises, he has sought to draw on emergency powers that Congress has scattered throughout the United States Code over the centuries, summoning the National Guard to Los Angeles over the objections of California's governor, sending scores of migrants to El Salvador without the barest hint of due process and upending the global economy with steep tariffs. Legal scholars say the president's actions are not authorized by the statutes he has cited and are, instead, animated by a different goal. 'He is declaring utterly bogus emergencies for the sake of trying to expand his power, undermine the Constitution and destroy civil liberties,' said Ilya Somin, a libertarian professor at Antonin Scalia Law School who represents a wine importer and other businesses challenging some of Mr. Trump's tariffs. Crisis is Mr. Trump's brand. When he took office the first time, he promised to end 'American carnage.' When he announced his most recent re-election campaign, he said he would reverse 'staggering American decline.' Ever since he first ran for president in 2015, he has argued that only he can restore the country to greatness. Now in office again, he is converting that rhetoric into policy. Mr. Trump says that events and circumstances largely considered routine amount to emergencies that allow him to invoke powers rarely sought by his predecessors but embedded in statutes by lawmakers who wanted to ensure presidents could act quickly and aggressively to confront authentic crises. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CTV News
07-06-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
President Donald Trump holds up an executive order after signing it at an indoor Presidential Inauguration parade event in Washington, Jan. 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File) WASHINGTON — Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.' Byron Tau, Seung Min Kim And Chris Megerian, The Associated Press
Asharq Al-Awsat
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term
Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.'
