Trump’s Tariffs and Congressional Silence

Back in February, President Trump made headlines by issuing executive orders that raised tariffs on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico. Then, in April, he imposed a staggering 50% tariff on countries with which the US has a trade deficit, setting a baseline of 10% for everything else.

The administration has argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1997 grants the President the authority to declare a national emergency for the purpose of protecting the country. They claimed that the illegal trafficking of fentanyl justified these tariffs on the aforementioned countries, alongside concerns about border security.

The argument for the legitimacy of these tariffs rested on the significant trade deficit that the US has faced for decades.

Trump’s push for tariffs garnered attention especially because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was invoked to justify them.

However, last month, three judges from the US Court of International Trade—appointed by presidents from Reagan to Trump—ruled that Trump overstepped his authority. According to the judges, the tariffs were not appropriately linked to fentanyl trafficking or immigration issues. The fact that the US has had a trade deficit for the past 47 years made it hard to validate a declaration of national emergency. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals permitted the administration to continue collecting these tariffs while the matter is still under judicial review.

Meanwhile, there’s been a notable silence from Republicans in Congress. Under Article 1 of the Constitution, while the President has the authority to impose tariffs, the lack of counteraction has raised eyebrows.

Interestingly, by January 20, 2025, many Republicans supported a proposal aimed at limiting the President’s unilateral authority during national emergencies.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill, dubbed the “Article One Act,” which aimed to require a vote from both Houses of Congress to extend any national emergency declarations. He mentioned that there needed to be actual actions taken instead of symbolic votes that wouldn’t solve the real issues. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) co-sponsored the bill as well.

Fifteen senators, including nine from the Republican party, signed a bipartisan letter urging the Senate leadership to consider the Article One Act, emphasizing that Congress shouldn’t cede its authority to the Executive Branch. Lee pointed out that citizens are the ones suffering the consequences of such emergency declarations.

Yet, despite all the discussions, nothing materialized.

Lee reintroduced the Article One Act in 2023, stating that it counters the founders’ vision and undermines constitutional safeguards. Representative Chip Roy (R-Texas) echoed this sentiment, reminding lawmakers that the presidency was never meant to act as a monarch over the people. Unfortunately, this law didn’t receive votes in either chamber.

The frequent use of executive orders and national emergency declarations by presidents from Obama to Biden, and now Trump, poses a clear risk to the system of checks and balances that have been in place for over two centuries. The issue of executive overreach appears to be escalating. In the early days of his second term, Trump issued declarations of national emergency at a pace unmatched by any recent president.

Still, Congressional Republicans seem unperturbed by the executive orders stemming from these emergency declarations. In March, Lee introduced a different bill with a notable shift from the Article One Act, which mandated that a trio of judges review every lower court ruling against the President, followed by expedited appeals to the Supreme Court. Lee argued that if a single district judge can dismiss a presidential order, it cripples government functionality.

In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) blocked efforts to repeal Trump’s tariffs. While all presidents share similar powers, Johnson claimed Trump has broader latitude where trade is concerned. A similar measure also failed to pass in the Senate with a tie vote of 49-49. Notably, several Republicans who earlier signed the Article One letter did not back this latest initiative.

Judge Anthony Kennedy once cautioned that allowing line-item vetoes threatens the balance of powers and could allow the executive to unilaterally decide who benefits or suffers.

Clearly, many Republican lawmakers recognize the issue, but as long as they prioritize partisan interests over core principles, voters may justifiably hold them accountable for undermining democratic structures.