logo
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term

The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term

Time of India19 hours ago

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.
Live Events
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 cites 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."
Economic Times WhatsApp channel
)

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Cash discovery row: Justice Varma must quit to avoid removal by Parliament
Cash discovery row: Justice Varma must quit to avoid removal by Parliament

Business Standard

time31 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

Cash discovery row: Justice Varma must quit to avoid removal by Parliament

Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said. A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said. The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. "As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard. He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion. Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned. Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

As Elon Musk's bromance with Trump crumbles, an incident in Mar-a-Lago with Tesla link re-surfaces
As Elon Musk's bromance with Trump crumbles, an incident in Mar-a-Lago with Tesla link re-surfaces

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

As Elon Musk's bromance with Trump crumbles, an incident in Mar-a-Lago with Tesla link re-surfaces

As the ongoing feud between US President Donald Trump and tech billionaire Elon Musk continues to escalate, some are taking the opportunity to bring the attention back to Tesla. In a similar stunt to one pulled over a month ago, a plane with the banner "Save Tesla, Fire Musk" soared over Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate this weekend. While the party behind this message remains unknown, this aerial protest follows speculations that surfaced last month about Tesla 's board considering Musk's replacement as CEO. 'Save Tesla, fire Musk' On April 22, a plane with the same banner slogan was spotted flying over the Texas Capitol building and downtown Austin, corresponding with Tesla's earnings call, reports THE Irish Star. The dispute originally began over Trump's budget bill but quickly escalated after Musk claimed that Trump wouldn't have won the election without his help. Trump then hinted that he might turn the federal government against Musk's businesses, including Tesla and SpaceX. ALSO READ: In Georgia, Pak man with UAE residency denied entry to US state, says 'was treated like a criminal'. Know the revised rules The confrontation reached feverish levels as Musk insinuated that Trump's reluctance to release files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was because Trump himself appeared in them. Live Events The dispute escalated dramatically when Musk claimed that President Trump had not released files related to the infamous paedophile Jeffrey Epstein because Trump himself was implicated in them. On June 5, Musk posted on X, 'Time to drop the really big bomb. @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Although this post has since been deleted. In response, President Trump appeared unfazed by the controversy, telling CNN, 'I'm not even thinking about Elon. He's got a problem. The poor guy's got a problem.' ALSO READ: Thomas Fugate: A novice who replaced an army veteran to lead US terror prevention centre Meanwhile, Tesla's shares plunged over 14% in a sharp sell-off as investors reacted to the escalating feud between the CEO and the U.S. President. By the close of trading yesterday, Musk's personal fortune had dropped by an estimated $34 billion—nearly matching the largest single-day loss he suffered back in November 2021. Tesla's market value also took a huge hit, shedding about $150 billion. Despite this massive setback, Musk remains the world's richest person, with an estimated net worth of $334.5 billion. In after-hours trading, Tesla shares rebounded slightly, gaining 0.8%. Investors had poured hundreds of billions into Tesla stock following Trump's election, betting that political factors would favor the company. However, the recent turmoil has served as a reminder of the risks involved in such speculation.

Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament
Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament

New Indian Express

timean hour ago

  • New Indian Express

Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament

NEW DELHI: Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the Houses, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row.

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