Elizabeth Goitein, a former Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. She has long been beating the drums on the dangers of how U.S. presidents increasingly are turning to emergency powers. Her alarm bells come as President Donald Trump just officially declared a national emergency. This strategic shifting of the huge trade imbalance addresses this imbalance while raising profound concerns over adverse consequences on American democracy and American governance.
Trump’s national security declaration is only a small piece of a larger strategy to wage a global trade war, with a special focus on China. In one of his most protectionist actions so far, he proposed tariffs on Chinese imports, now implemented at an all-time high of 125%. He provided other countries a 90-day period to negotiate exemptions. It comes after the introduction of a temporary blanket 10% tariff that has been applied since July. Besides the future economic consequences of this approach, it raises important questions about executive branch power.
The Legacy of Emergency Powers
Congressional use of emergency powers to address extraordinary circumstances is not unprecedented in U.S. politics. Trump’s administration has often used these 32 declared emergencies as a justification for doing things that otherwise would require congressional approval. Since the mid-1970s, the U.S. has maintained an emergency posture toward Iran. Furthermore, it has taken the exact same position on Ukraine for well more than a decade. Such consistent statements are an encouraging sign that these commitments might not be diluted in the future and not so easily used as a fig-leaf.
Goitein cautions against using emergency powers to fix chronic problems, no matter how serious. Restoring civility and dignity to our politics He’s quick to point out that these powers do not bestow on a president the ability to ignore Congress and make themselves an all-powerful policymaker. This sentiment lays bare how much our understanding of the bounds of executive power in tackling our nation’s great challenges remains an open question.
Yet attempts to rein in emergency powers have died in Congress. For example, some of the agreements would limit these powers to just 30 days, rather than a year. The lack of legislative response is alarming. It grants presidents broad leeway to exercise unilateral power outside of public scrutiny when he declares an emergency.
Trade Wars and National Security
Against this landscape of declarations, Trump has attempted to use domestic production of several sectors and industries to strengthen the U.S. through wartime powers. He recently announced a statewide energy emergency. This action became a ramp for him to reclassify coal as a mineral and to recast its extraction as a matter of national security. The continued unravelling of the rule, part of Trump’s effort to reorient U.S. energy policy back toward energy sources of the past, continues apace.
The administration’s push to increase mineral production aligns with Trump’s broader strategy of negotiating trade deals with neighboring countries, including Canada and Mexico. During his initial term, he negotiated a tri-lateral trade agreement with these same countries. Now, he is unilaterally reinterpreting those agreements as part of his emergency powers initiative.
While laudable in intent, this approach has not been without negative consequences. And indeed, as Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly put it, “At the end of the day, what we know is the relationship between Canada and the US will never be the same.” Her immediate concern was that the tariffs would further poison U.S.-China relations.
The Broader Economic Context
Trump’s economic emergency declaration is the latest step in an extraordinary and unprecedented run of new, expanding, or otherwise taking hold emergencies. His administration exploits these crises to rationalize their misguided policies. Trump’s administration recently used emergency authority to increase domestic lumber production. It will lower energy costs by decreasing dependence on Canadian lumber imports and help tackle other key trade and energy priorities.
Moreover, Trump’s recent opposition to the CHIPS Act—the bipartisan legislation aimed at boosting semiconductor manufacturing in the United States—raises further questions about the administration’s direction in technology and manufacturing policy. That may seem like a strange decision considering the booming demand for domestic semiconductor production, not to mention our current need in an increasingly competitive global market.
Lawmakers are under tremendous pressure. Congress does continue to have power to override any national emergency declaration the president makes. Yet political dynamics and partisanship make any joint bipartisan exercise in curbing expansive executive authority a heavy lift considering the current political climate.
