Supporters of Trump are defending his implementation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by arguing that Congress has the power to terminate the proclaimed “national emergency.”
They suggest that if lawmakers do not support a joint resolution, it effectively means that Trump’s authority to impose tariffs remains intact. However, critics point out that Congress’s failure to act does not inherently expand presidential powers.
While Congress can indeed impose tariffs, its authority is limited. Two sections of the Trade Act of 1974 focus on issues like balance of payments and unfair trade practices, and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 addresses national security concerns. All these powers come with specific limitations and procedures.
Trump aimed to bypass the confines of these laws, which have established constraints. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act—while perhaps vague—was intended more to prevent executive overreach than to enable it.
It’s worth noting that this law was meant for genuine emergencies, like hostage situations, rather than addressing ongoing trade deficit frustrations that, frankly, apply primarily to goods and not services.
Congress designed these laws to prevent the president from using a “state of emergency” as an open-ended license to enact legislation. Back in 1977, the House International Relations Committee stressed that the act was established due to concerns over prior laws, which allowed the president extensive powers without much oversight from Congress.
The committee went on to clarify that there are other mechanisms available, meaning there shouldn’t be a need for the executive branch to stretch the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Specifically, they highlighted President Nixon’s use of the Trade with Enemies Act, which allowed him to alter tariffs under a different authority.
This point holds significance. The U.S. goods trade deficit and balance of payments are pressing issues; however, Article 122—not the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—pertains more closely to Trump’s stated objectives.
As for the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Congress is supposed to keep an eye on the “emergency” that prompts its use. Typically, this isn’t a rigorous process. In fact, House Speaker Mike Johnson has actively sought to prevent a vote on this matter.
Credit where it’s due: some Republicans had initially pushed for a vote that was set for March but postponed it until late January. Depending on the Supreme Court’s timing and decision, the outcome could either turn into a political spectacle if the tariffs are struck down or solidify permanent tariff authority for the executive branch if they aren’t.
Trump’s tariff advocates are urging the Supreme Court to act amid Congress’s inaction, arguing it’s more of a political strategy than a legal stance. The core issue the court faces is whether Congress has delegated customs authority through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The likely answer is no. Just because Congress hasn’t acted doesn’t imply they’ve consented or relinquished their oversight.
This matter extends beyond trade; if the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is seen as granting authority for tariffs, then it could be interpreted as allowing anything that the administration frames as an “economic emergency.” This would skew power significantly towards the executive and undermine the checks envisioned by the Constitution’s Framers.
Essentially, Trump’s tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are unlawful, and Congress’s lack of action does not alter that fact.
