logo
Trump's United States of Emergency

Trump's United States of Emergency

Axios18-04-2025

In his first 100 days, President Trump has declared more national emergencies — more creatively and more aggressively — than any president in modern American history.
Why it matters: Powers originally crafted to give the president flexibility in rare moments of crisis now form the backbone of Trump's agenda, enabling him to steamroll Congress and govern by unilateral decree through his first three months in office.
So far, Trump has invoked national emergencies to impose the largest tariffs in a century, accelerate energy and mineral production, and militarize federal lands at the southern border.
Paired with his assault on the judiciary, legal scholars fear Trump is exploiting loosely written statutes to try to upend the constitutional balance of power.
How it works: The president can declare a national emergency at any time, for almost any reason, without needing to prove a specific threat or get approval from Congress.
The National Emergencies Act of 1976, which unlocks more than 120 special statutory powers, originally included a "legislative veto" that gave Congress the ability to terminate an emergency with a simple majority vote.
But in 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that legislative vetoes are unconstitutional — effectively stripping Congress of its original check, and making it far harder to rein in a president's emergency declarations.
The big picture: Since then, presidents have largely relied on "norms" and "self-restraint" to avoid abusing emergency powers for non-crises, says Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program.
That precedent was broken in 2019, Goitein argues, when Trump declared a national emergency in order to bypass Congress and access billions of dollars in funding for a border wall.
President Biden stretched his authority as well, drawing criticism in 2022 for citing the COVID-19 national emergency to unilaterally forgive student loan debt.
But Trump's second-term actions have plunged the U.S. firmly into uncharted territory — redrawing the limits of executive power in real time, and fueling fears of a permanent emergency state.
Zoom in: Trump's justification for his tariffs cites the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which can be invoked only if the U.S. faces an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to its national security, foreign policy, or economy.
According to the White House, America's decades-old trading relationships — including with tiny countries and uninhabited islands — qualify as such threats.
As a result, a 1977 law originally designed to target hostile foreign powers — and never before used to impose tariffs — is now being deployed to rewrite the global economic order.
What they ' re saying: "Troubling times call for serious responses. The previous administration left President Trump a nation in decline — financially vulnerable, with unsecured borders and dangerously unfair trade deals. The President is leveraging every tool the Constitution provides to Make America Great Again," White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement.
Between the lines: Trump's affinity for extraordinary powers extends beyond just the National Emergencies Act.
He has invoked the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798, for example, to deport Venezuelan migrants who his administration claims are participating in an "invasion" of the United States.
The ACLU recently raised alarms over Trump's flirtation with the Insurrection Act of 1807, which would allow him to deploy National Guard troops on domestic soil without state consent.
"You would hope to see authorities like these used sparingly and reluctantly, as the last resort in an actual crisis situation, because they are a real departure from the constitutional norm," Goitein told Axios.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Hearing on California's challenge to Trump's deployment of troops to LA set for Thursday

time5 minutes ago

Hearing on California's challenge to Trump's deployment of troops to LA set for Thursday

A federal hearing is scheduled Thursday over whether the Trump administration can deploy National Guardsmen and Marines to the Los Angeles area to assist with enforcing federal immigration laws. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an emergency request on Tuesday to block expansion of what they called President Donald Trump and the Department of Defense's "unnecessary" and "unlawful militarization." The request, which was filed as part of Newsom and Bonta's lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeks to prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines beyond protecting federal buildings and property. To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which allows a federal deployment in response to a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions. Bonta argued in the filing that Trump failed to meet the legal requirements for such a federal deployment. "To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together," Bonta wrote. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer declined California's request to issue a temporary restraining order immediately and instead set the hearing for Thursday afternoon and gave the Trump administration the time they requested to file a response. In their response, Department of Justice lawyers asked the judge to deny Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order that would limit the military to protecting federal buildings, arguing such an order would amount to a "rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law." "The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," they wrote. They also argued California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters. Some 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines have been deployed to the Los Angeles area following protests over immigration raids. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary. Protests have since spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle. Trump on Tuesday defended his decision to send in the National Guard and Marines, saying the situation in LA was "out of control." "All I want is safety. I just want a safe area," he told reporters. "Los Angeles was under siege until we got there. The police were unable to handle it." Trump went on to suggest that he sent in the National Guard and the Marines to send a message to other cities not to interfere with ICE operations or they will be met with equal or greater force. "If we didn't attack this one very strongly, you'd have them all over the country," he said. "But I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it, if they do it, they're going to be met with equal or greater force than we met right here."

Trump administration appears to be pausing plans to ramp up Guantanamo transfers
Trump administration appears to be pausing plans to ramp up Guantanamo transfers

Politico

time6 minutes ago

  • Politico

Trump administration appears to be pausing plans to ramp up Guantanamo transfers

The Trump administration appears to have put on hold plans to dramatically ramp up transfers of undocumented migrants to Guantanamo Bay. As of Monday, the transfers were expected to happen later in the week but were delayed in part because unrest related to immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles 'got in the way,' said an administration official. The official said it's unclear how long the plan may be shelved. The person and others were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the discussions. At the State Department, where many officials have urged the Department of Homeland Security to abandon the plan, there's now confusion about what comes next, according to a U.S. diplomat familiar with the situation. State Department officials have been told that clarification about the Guantanamo transfer process is coming at some point and not to use previous guidance on what to tell reporters, the U.S. diplomat said. The apparent delay comes after POLITICO reported Tuesday that the administration was vetting at least 9,000 migrants for transfer to the base. The proposal, if it becomes a reality, would be an exponential increase from the roughly 500 migrants who have been held for short periods at the base since February. It would also be a major step toward realizing a plan President Donald Trump announced in January to use the facility to hold as many as 30,000 migrants found to be in the U.S. illegally. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X that reports of the plan were incorrect. 'Not happening,' she said. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, when asked Thursday about the apparent delay, said: 'That's not true. It was never a plan to begin with.' The proposal was designed primarily to free up bed space at detention facilities on domestic American soil, as the White House pushes Immigration and Customs Enforcement for higher arrest and deportation numbers. The agency is also tight on detention space and pressing Congress for additional funding to hire more agents and expand domestic detention capacity. Documents obtained by POLITICO on Tuesday noted that the plan had come together only recently and could still change. The expectation was that the detainees would be at Guantanamo Bay temporarily before being deported to their countries of origin, though it's not clear how long they would be held at the U.S. naval base. U.S. diplomats have been particularly worried about plans to include some 800 Europeans in the group to be transferred. They worry it could strain alliances with European nations that are typically cooperative in taking back deportees. Many European officials have been blindsided by the plans. Italy's foreign minister has said his country is doing 'everything' it can to prevent its citizens from being sent there. According to documents seen by POLITICO, at least two Italians are under consideration for a transfer to Guantanamo. The U.S. facility at Guantanamo, which is on Cuban soil but has been a U.S. naval base for many years, grew notorious because it has been used to hold terrorism suspects detained after the 9/11 attacks. Immigrant rights groups have sued the Trump administration in recent months in a bid to block its use of Guantanamo to house immigrant detainees. A federal class-action lawsuit pending in Washington indicates that there are roughly 70 immigrant detainees currently held there and facing 'punitive' conditions, such as insufficient food, weekly changes of clothes and rodent infestation.

Investor Anxiety Over ‘Revenge Tax' Is Overblown, Barclays Says
Investor Anxiety Over ‘Revenge Tax' Is Overblown, Barclays Says

Bloomberg

time7 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Investor Anxiety Over ‘Revenge Tax' Is Overblown, Barclays Says

A controversial provision in President Donald Trump's tax-and-spending bill aimed at penalizing countries with 'unfair' tax regimes is unlikely to disrupt US bond and stock markets, according to Barclays Capital. Dubbed a 'revenge tax' by the finance community, Section 899 of the budget bill calls for increasing levies for individuals and companies whose home countries' tax policies the US deems 'discriminatory.' The proposal – which received House approval in May and is now under consideration in the Senate as part of the so-called One, Big Beautiful bill — has raised concerns on Wall Street that it may drive away foreign investors at a time when their confidence in US capital markets has already been shaken by the Trump administration's policies.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store