Opinion - Trump's tariffs are bad economics, bad politics and unconstitutional
An injunction from the little-known Court of International Trade 'permanently enjoined' President Trump on Wednesday from enforcing many of his tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Neither executive authority nor congressionally delegated power allows the President to institute unprecedented global tariffs using emergency powers, the federal court unanimously ruled.
On Thursday, a second federal court also blocked most of Trump's tariffs, including the so-called 'Liberation Day' ones. But just hours later, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily paused the trade court's block.
These rulings bring to forefront two constitutional debates in American history: the limits of executive authority and the right of Congress to regulate commerce. The Court of International Trade is correct to limit executive authority. Before a prostrate GOP-led Congress, the judgment reminds elected officials about the sources and legitimacy of their power: the American people and their Constitution.
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to 'to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.' Initially enacted to regulate interstate commerce, over the last 250 years the law evolved to increase federal authority over international commerce and restrict one state's ability to regulate commerce in another. Powers reserved to the states, which Republicans traditionally championed, have stood against granting Congress unchecked authority to regulate commerce.
Presidents have historically claimed vast executive authority. Before Trump, several presidents employed the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to place economic sanctions on states that threatened U.S or international security.
But Trump's use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act for tariffs was unprecedented. In its 49-page ruling, the trade court noted that Congress does not provide the president 'unbounded tariff power' and that the law would only be valid to 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.'
Trump invoked emergency powers on two grounds: a purported fentanyl import crisis from Canada and Mexico, and the supposed worldwide lack of reciprocity on trade. Empirical evidence on the former, especially in the case of Canada, was spurious, despite the administration's continuing dissembling about fentanyl seizures. On trade reciprocity, the administration concocted a mathematical formula equating lack of reciprocity with trade deficits that makes no sense on economic grounds, let alone the practical and profitable aspects of businesses.
Congress ought to have stepped in at this point, but it lacked the spine to act. In fact, the trade court called attention to the 'improper abdication of legislative power.'
The trade court heard two cases, a lawsuit led by Oregon from 12 Democratic state attorneys general and another from a group of small businesses. In the former case, states' rights are being asserted by Democratic states arguing that Trump's tariffs stood in the way of provision of services. Conservatives, including Trump, often appeal to states' rights on issues such as religion, guns, schools, abortion, marriage and civil rights.
The small business case was led by a wine-making company named VOS Selections, which argued that tariffs would make the business unprofitable. Economists would agree, as did the trade court. While small businesses went to the trade court, big business has been strategically vocal about the harmful impact of tariffs.
With neither the businesses nor the states supporting the president's trade policy, one must ask whom the president represents in his trade policy measures. Public polling on trade might provide an answer: die-hard MAGA supporters, who tend to be rural, under-educated and fearful of anything global or cosmopolitan. They are entitled to these fears. The question is if the president can enact trade policy on their behalf. The answer is yes only if one agrees with Trump's political calculations, not the Constitution.
At the trade court, Trump's lawyers made a political argument, ostensibly on behalf of the MAGA fearful. They contended that these tariffs were necessary and that the president had the political mandate to negotiate new trade measures with countries around the world. The three-judge panel — made up of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees — unanimously dismissed these political claims. Instead, the panel focused on the legal and constitutional limits on executive power.
The immediate appeal to the Circuit Court provided an at least temporary victory, and the case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court. The White House already has a new argument that unelected judges cannot rule on these matters. Not only does this argument negate constitutional checks on executive power, but the president also continues to overestimate his electoral mandate.
An emerging set of conservative champions of executive authority, citing classic sources, almost equate presidential power with the absolute or divine rights of kings. Vice President JD Vance in particular propounds such views. These 'divine right conservatives' now must confront the traditional champions of pragmatic conservatism in America: businesses, consumers, markets and the states.
The courts are unlikely to uphold new conservative arguments for unchecked executive power. The Supreme Court has leaned in favor of states' rights on many questions. In the case of trade, the states' rights argument is now the bailiwick of Democratic states. Politics continues to make for strange bedfellows.
In the meantime, markets rose after the court ruling Wednesday.
J.P. Singh is Distinguished University Professor at Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, and Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow with the Robert Bosch Academy (Berlin). He is co-editor-in-chief of Global Perspectives.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
14 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill Gets Slimmed Down in Senate
WASHINGTON—President Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill is getting smaller just as Republicans head into a crucial week, after the Senate's rules arbiter decided several controversial provisions don't qualify for the special procedure the GOP is using to bypass Democratic opposition. The tax-and-spending megabill centers on extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts, delivering on the spirit of his campaign promises to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, and providing big lump sums of money for border security and defense. Those new costs are partially offset by spending cuts, in particular to Medicaid.
USA Today
15 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump rips Massie over Iran strike comments, threatens to campaign for primary challenger
Massie said his "side of the MAGA base" is made up of "non-interventionists" who are "tired from all these wars." President Donald Trump lashed out at Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a fellow Republican, over his criticism of U.S. airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites and threatened to campaign for the person running against him in the Republican primary next year. Soon after the military operation amid the Israel-Iran war was announced on June 21, Massie said the move was 'not Constitutional' on X. The day after the strike, Massie said it was 'a good week for the neocons and the military-industrial complex, who want war all the time" on CBS's "Face the Nation." Massie said his 'side of the MAGA base' is made up of 'non-interventionists" who are "tired from all these wars." Trump ripped into the lawmaker shortly afterward saying he was 'not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is.' 'Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 22. 'He is a negative force who almost always Votes 'NO,' no matter how good something may be.' Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California, had also introduced a resolution on June 17 to prohibit U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war without Congressional approval. Describing the bombings of the three nuclear sites as a 'spectacular military success' Trump called Massie a 'lightweight' congressman who was 'weak and ineffective.' The lawmaker was one of two Republicans who voted against his tax bill in the House of Representatives last month. 'He'll undoubtedly vote against the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, even though non-passage means a 68% Tax Increase for everybody, and many things far worse than that,' wrote Trump. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!'
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel says it has destroyed Iran's internal security HQ
Israel's military destroyed the headquarters of Iran's domestic policing arm, expanding its blows beyond Tehran's military and nuclear facilities as it continues to bombard its Middle East rival, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Wednesday. 'Air Force planes have just destroyed the headquarters of the Iranian regime's internal security — the central suppression arm of the Iranian dictator,' Katz wrote Wednesday in a post on social platform X, according to translation. 'As we promised — we will continue to target symbols of power and strike the ayatollahs' regime everywhere,' he continued. 'The tornado storm continues to strike Tehran.' Iran's internal security operations include the country's massive Basij Resistance Force, which polices dissent in the country. The latest target comes days after Israel launched a surprise attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and military outposts, killing several officials and scientists and setting off retaliatory attacks from Tehran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued that his country's strikes are crucial to ending a nuclear threat from the Islamic republic, which has long maintained that its uranium enrichment program is meant for civilian purposes. President Trump has meanwhile edged closer toward U.S. intervention in the military conflict to back up Israel. 'I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do,' he told reporters Wednesday. 'I can tell you this, that Iran's got a lot of trouble.' 'And they want to negotiate,' the president added, referring to talks with the U.S. to dismantle its nuclear program. 'And I say why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction.' Despite increasing pressure on Iran amid the conflict, Trump has thus far pushed back on plans to target Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei directly. The president said Tuesday Khamenei would be an 'easy target' but that there are no plans in the works to take him out — 'at least right now.' Iran on Wednesday cautioned the U.S. against intervening, with the supreme leader saying it could lead to an 'all-out war' and pledging to 'never surrender.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
