The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hall declares victory over Davis for Fort Worth City Council District 6 seat
Dr. Mia Hall declared victory over opponent Daryl R. Davis II to the applause and cheers of friends, mentors and family Saturday night at her election watch party at Bowlounge. Unofficial polling data shows Hall leading with 57.12% over Davis's 42.88% in the race for the Fort Worth City Council District 6 seat. Allof the 19 polling locations are reporting. Hall will fill out-going Council Member Jared Williams's shoes to represent Southwest Fort Worth and Como. In the crowd during Hall's speech of thanks were Council Members Chris Nettles, Michael Crain and Elizabeth Beck and Crowley School Board Members Dr. Nedra Robinson and Chakina Watkins. Because none of the four candidates — Davis, Hall, Marshall Hobbs and Adrian Smith — received more than 50% of the votes on May 3, the top two vote-getters went to a runoff election. On May 3, Hall had 46.8% of the votes, followed by Davis with 28.49%, Hobbs with 21.57% and Smith with 3.14%. Now with early voting results, she leads by nearly 400 votes. There was a 4.47% voter turnout. Hall said she was overwhelmed by the outpouring of support from the voters. She was formerly a Crowley ISD Board Trustee and a member of the Fort Worth Zoning Commission. 'It's been my pleasure to to have served this community in the capacity of a trustee for the last 10 years,' Hall said, 'and just to see the voter turnout, and the fact that they are going to bestow or that I may have the opportunity to represent them as the District 6 councilwoman, is just very humbling.' Hall has promised safe neighborhoods, improved roads and infrastructure, enhanced city services and the fostering of economic development. 'I made promises to our neighbors, and I plan to honor those promises,' Hall said. 'Among those were to be responsive and to be accessible, and that's something that I want to be day one. The other part will be just getting my bearings meeting the other council men and women and me and my colleagues, and just getting my footing underneath me so that we can take the priorities that our District 6 neighbors have made and put them to work quickly, without delay.' Her opponent in the runoff, Davis, promised well-planned neighborhoods that are safe and affordable to live in.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ben Crump Says Donald Trump's Spending Bill is Terrible Amid Elon Musk Feud
Ben Crump's picked his side in the Elon Musk and Donald Trump beef ... but, he's not backing a personality, he says he's backing the better idea -- and, he doesn't want the "One Big Beautiful Bill" to pass through the Senate. We caught up with the civil rights activist and attorney and asked him about the fight between POTUS and his former advisor ... and, he doesn't directly say he's on Elon's side -- but, he does think this spending bill is terrible. Crump rips the bill for making cuts to Medicaid -- the medical assistance program for people with lower incomes. BC says the world needs more humanity for all people ... instead of making the life of individuals struggling financially more difficult. As you know ... Elon lost his cool about this spending bill earlier this week -- firing off shots at the president and claiming Trump only won reelection because of his efforts. President Trump called BS on that idea ... but, Elon pushed on and claimed the real reason the administration hasn't released the so-called Epstein files is because the president's name is all over them. He's since deleted the post where he wrote that ... but, today Trump warned of serious consequences if Elon decides to support Dems who are running against Republicans who vote for the bill. BTW ... we also asked Crump about Trump potentially pardoning Diddy -- and, it sounds like Crump's staying out of that one, too. Bottom line ... back the idea, not the man -- that's the Ben Crump way!


CBS News
44 minutes ago
- CBS News
University of California researchers face uncertain future over possible federal funding cuts
Thousands of University of California and California State University system workers are unsure about their jobs and the future of their research after reports that President Donald Trump is going after the federal funding for California. In response, Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to stop paying the state's federal taxes. Tanzil Chowdhury is a graduate student researcher at UC Berkeley with the Materials Science and Engineering Department. He works on semiconductors and is researching how to create more efficient batteries and better solar panels. His academic future, however, is in limbo. "I really want to make a difference with the work that I do, I want to help transition off of fossil fuels and create greener and more efficient energy grid for everyone. With these cuts, I don't know if I'll be able to continue doing that," Chowdhury told CBS News Bay Area. That's because Mr. Trump is considering pulling funding for both the UC and Cal State University systems. "This would just be catastrophic to my work, the work of all my coworkers and the amazing research that happens here in the state of California at the UC and CSU," he said. "We can't access the materials that we need, we can't get the lab space that we need, we can't run our experiments if there's no money coming in." A recent report shows the UC system received more than $4 billion for academic research during the 2024 fiscal year. Schools, including UC San Francisco, rely on those grants. "This is one of the biggest recipients of National Institute of Health's funds, which are some of the funds that the Trump administration is reportedly going to cut," Chowdhury said. He helps lead UAW Local 4811, a union of 48,000 academic workers in the UC system. Chowdhury said about 15,000 of those academic workers are from UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley. "It is one of the nation's leaders in biomedical and biological research. So, groundbreaking treatments in cancer, heart disease, diabetes, all that stuff happens right here," he said. "The patient who needs that sort of groundbreaking research to get better, get healthier, that work stops." One infectious disease doctor and UC San Francisco professor agrees. "We receive 30% of all NIH funding in this country. And that's not because just that we are a more populous state, but because we have fantastic universities here, really high-level academics," Dr. Monica Gandhi told CBS News Bay Area. She added that funding cuts will have a dire impact on the patient level. "It would mean the complete slowing of any progress in biomedical research that is actually fueling American lives, health," she added. "People who are living in California, their health will absolutely be affected. We won't get novel medications, we won't get therapeutics for cancer, for diabetes, for HIV, for infectious diseases." Dr. Gandhi said that a recent analysis showed that three out of 365 medications that had been approved from 2010 to 2019 were from NIH-funded research. "It would be disastrous for California to not be able to continue the lifesaving, NIH-funded research that it does," she added. Meanwhile, Chowdhury hopes that Governor Gavin Newsom can help by rescinding academic budget cuts on the state level. "He should work with the California legislature to ensure that we have job security, and we're able to continue doing the research that we need to do, and fill in the gaps left behind by the federal government," Chowdhury said. While the future remains uncertain, the battle for academia continues. "The administration needs to not do this, because we don't want to mess with American lives and American health," Dr. Gandhi said. "Maybe we need to re-evaluate how much money we give to the federal government from California taxpayer dollars, because I know what my California taxpayer dollars to go to. I want them to go to life-saving medical research to extend human life," she added.