
Trump's power to declare national emergencies is a national emergency
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America.
Since taking office, President Trump has declared emergencies over immigration, drug trafficking, and trade. The exit sign is seen above his head in 2020. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
When President Donald Trump announced his tariffs last week, he also declared a national emergency. According to the White House, the emergency in question is 'the large and persistent trade deficit,' or the fact that the United States imports more goods than it exports.
If you're confused about why that's an emergency, you're not alone. So are experts. But regardless of whether the trade deficit is an actual crisis (it isn't), the reason Trump declared an emergency is straightforward: He wanted to invoke his emergency powers — specifically those granted to him under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — to quickly implement his new trade policy. (Had Trump not declared an emergency, he could still have implemented tariffs, but he would have had to follow certain procedures first.)
There is no legal definition of an emergency. Anything can be an emergency, so long as the president deems it to be one. And while some crises — like, say, a pandemic — warrant an emergency declaration, presidents often invoke their emergency powers over events that hardly merit that level of urgency.
That might be why it sometimes feels like America is in a perpetual state of crisis. Since taking office, Trump has declared emergencies over immigration, drug trafficking, and trade. He even declared a national emergency over the International Criminal Court's decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But while Trump has made use of his emergency powers in somewhat unorthodox ways, the use of those expansive powers is not unique to his presidency. 'You have this dynamic of presidents increasingly relying on emergency powers to do things that are not directly related to any actual emergency in the traditional understanding of that term,' said Elena Chachko, an assistant professor at Berkeley Law School.
There are many problems with presidents' tendency to turn to emergency powers to ram policy through. It allows presidents to circumvent Congress, abdicating legislators of their responsibility to pass laws that respond to current events. And more importantly, it props up a system that is ripe for abuse.
Emergency powers, explained
In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act to formalize the use of emergency powers. And in 1977, it passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows presidents to follow through on economic policies like imposing sanctions without having to wait for congressional approval. These laws allow presidents to unilaterally declare an emergency as they see fit, but requires them to articulate which powers they plan to use and to issue periodic reports to Congress.
Today, Explained
Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day, compiled by news editor Sean Collins. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The post-9/11 period is certainly not the first time that presidents have claimed to have inherent constitutional powers only to subsequently abuse them. President Franklin D. Roosevelt made that claim, for example, to justify the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. 'But I think this trend sharply accelerated after 9/11,' Goitein added.
Related National emergencies could be a step toward political violence
In fact, since 9/11, the use of emergency powers have only gotten more alarming.
'In addition to the statutory powers available in a national emergency, modern presidents have increasingly claimed to have inherent constitutional powers in emergencies,' Goitein told me. Unlike statutory powers, which are created through legislation, constitutional powers are derived from the constitution, and presidents have been more and more liberal with their interpretations of what powers are simply inherent to the office they hold.
So they don't have to point to a specific statute to say they have the authority to act; instead, they claim that some of their authority during emergencies is fundamental presidential power. 'For example, we saw the administration of George W. Bush taking the position in secret memos that the president has inherent powers that allow him to violate laws against warrantless wiretapping, and that he has inherent powers that allow him to violate laws against torture,' Goitein said.
Why presidents rely on emergency governance — and why that's a problem
Congress has gotten less and less productive over the years. In the previous congressional session, lawmakers passed the fewest laws in decades. With a legislature that is less responsive to the world around it, presidents have even greater incentive to act on their own. And emergency powers give them an avenue to do just that. One example is former President Joe Biden using emergency powers to cancel student loan debt, a politically polarizing issue that Congress was unwilling to address.
But the primary reason that presidents overly rely on declaring emergencies is simple: The system is designed to make emergency governance hard to resist. There are few checks on the president's emergency powers. (Technically, Congress can end an emergency with a veto-proof majority vote.) Plus, declaring a national emergency gives the president a pretense to, in many cases, find a way around political deadlock or other potential roadblocks, as was the case with canceling student debt.
Presidents can also use emergency declarations to whip up public support. After all, presidents often reiterate that their top priority is to keep people safe, and in a post-9/11 world, many Americans have been seemingly willing to give up certain civil liberties if they get safety and security in return. So by framing problems that hardly count as a crisis as an emergency, presidents hope to gain some political capital to implement their agenda. In his first term, for example, Trump declared an emergency to fund construction of the border wall.
When there is an emergency all the time, the limits on the president's power become less and less potent. And presidents can seriously abuse their authority with little to no consequence, as was the case with Bush's post-9/11 torture program.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's response to protests in Los Angeles is in keeping with suggestions put forth in Project 2025, a political commentator has said. Allison Gill, who worked at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, said on Wajahat Ali's the Left Hook Substack that the president's military response was "spelled out in Project 2025," a conservative policy dossier. She did not specify how. Newsweek has contacted the Heritage Foundation and Gill for comment by email. The Context Protests against immigration enforcement began in Los Angeles on Friday and have continued, with some isolated incidents of violence and looting. In response, Trump announced the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to restore order, without California Governor Gavin Newsom's consent. While the president has said the move was necessary to prevent the city from "burning to the ground" amid protests and riots, officials in California have accused Trump of exacerbating the situation in an "unprecedented power grab." A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. AP Photo/Eric Thayer What To Know Gill, who served Trump a lawsuit in 2023 accusing him of conspiring to fire her from the Veterans Affairs Department during his first presidency, said sending in the Marines was "propaganda" because the protests were not severe enough to require them. Though she said Project 2025 predicted the president's response to the protests, she did not elaborate on how. Project 2025 is a 900-page document of policy proposals published by the Heritage Foundation think tank. It advocates limited government, border security and tough immigration laws among other conservative measures. The policy proposals have proved divisive, and the president's critics and supporters alike have debated their influence on him. While Project 2025 does not mention the Insurrection Act, a November 2023 report from The Washington Post, citing internal communications and a person involved in the conversations, said the Project 2025 group had drafted executive orders that would use the Insurrection Act to deploy the military domestically. Gill told Ali that she warned people of Trump's potential use of the military to curb protests before the presidential election. "We did everything that we could in leading up to the election in 2024 to tell everyone as loud as we can, they are planning to do this," she said, adding: "Saying he's going to call this an invasion. He's going to call this an insurrection. And he's going to use that to invoke emergency powers so that he can unleash the military on United States citizens and perhaps even suspend habeas corpus so that he can detain his political enemies without due process." "This is scary," Gill, who hosts the Mueller, She Wrote podcast, continued. "This is full-on fascism, full-on authoritarianism." "This is a test case for authoritarianism," Ali added. Before the 2024 presidential election, Democrats accused Trump of planning to implement Project 2025 if he won. While Trump initially called parts of the plan "ridiculous and abysmal," he told Time after his electoral victory that he disagreed with parts of it, but not all of it. He has since appointed a number of people linked to Project 2025 to White House positions. In an October interview with Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, Trump indicated that he would use the National Guard or the military if there were disruptions from "radical left lunatics" on Election Day. What Does Project 2025 Say? Project 2025 advocates for improved defense infrastructure and for the Department of Homeland Security to "thoroughly enforce immigration laws." The document added that DHS should "provide states and localities with a limited federal emergency response and preparedness." However, it did not say whether this would occur in the context of protests. What Trump's Advisers Have Said Trump's advisers have previously spoken about the use of National Guard troops in other contexts. According to a February 2024 report in The Atlantic, Stephen Miller, now the White House deputy chief of staff, said that Trump—if returned to office—would take National Guard troops from sympathetic Republican-controlled states and use them in Democratic-run states whose governors refused to cooperate with their mass deportation policy. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday: "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "We will always protect the constitutional right for Angelenos to peacefully protest. However, violence, destruction and vandalism will not be tolerated in our city and those responsible will be held fully accountable." What Happens Next The anti-ICE protests, which have spread to other cities, are likely to continue. Newsom has called on the Trump administration to remove federal troops from Los Angeles.


CNBC
17 minutes ago
- CNBC
U.S. uncertainty is handing Europe a huge opportunity
Europe is being urged to capitalize on the volatility of the Trump administration, as shifts in capital and private market flows suggest U.S. exceptionalism is waning and losing out to a resurgent Europe. The numbers tell part of the story, with Europe's Stoxx 600 up over 8% compared to a 5% jump for the S&P 500 since Nov. 1, 2024, just days ahead of the U.S. election. Bank of America said in a report dated June 5 that U.S. equities had seen outflows of $7.5 billion over the previous three weeks, while European stocks benefited from inflows of $2.6 billion over the same period. Earlier this year, meanwhile, data from Morningstar showed that investors withdrew 2.8 billion euros ($3.2 billion) from U.S. equity ETFs in the month to the middle of March, while shifting 14.6 billion euros into European ETFs. Goldman Sachs International Co-CEO Anthony Gutman told CNBC that the convergence in U.S. and European growth rates came about quickly this year and was a big factor prompting investors to shift money toward Europe. "In January, sentiment felt very strong in the U.S., it felt somewhat more muted in Europe. You roll the clock forward and now the picture has changed fairly dramatically, that's to the benefit of Europe in many cases. Europe is getting more capital inflows and there is more optimism in Europe," Gutman told CNBC's Annette Weisbach Wednesday on the sidelines of the Goldman Sachs European Financials Conference in Berlin. Meanwhile, in private markets, talk of the breakdown of U.S. exceptionalism dominated the Super Return forum in Berlin last week. Carlyle Group's Managing Director Mark Jenkins told CNBC that, "in Europe, we've seen a lot of great opportunity and think we can pick up greater returns here relative to the risk you're taking in the U.S." This sentiment was echoed by private equity giant Permira, which holds private equity funds and credit vehicles representing around 60 billion euros worth of capital under management. "If you look at Europe at the moment, firstly, capital is cheaper, if you look at the trend of where euro rates are going versus dollar rates are going, you can fund and finance things cheaper here. Secondly, valuations are cheaper, you can buy great companies for less," Permira Executive Chairman Kurt Björklund told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" on Tuesday. "Thirdly the innovation cycle is growing exponentially in Europe … there is an enormous number of highly innovative companies that are growing in a disruptive and global way," he added. All eyes are now on the potential for an EU-U.S. trade deal — which is proving trickier to pin down than with some other countries, including the U.K. Referencing the complexity of the behemoth that is the European Union, Siemens Energy Chairman Joe Kaeser told CNBC that the EU is "politically not ready to strike these types of deals." The White House hinted on Wednesday that a July 9 deadline for a deal may be movable, however, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying: "It is highly likely that for those countries that are negotiating — or trading blocs, in the case of the EU — who are negotiating in good faith, we will roll the date forward to continue the good faith negotiation." French President Emmanuel Macron also struck an optimistic tone, telling CNBC's Karen Tso on Wednesday: "I'm sure that we will find, at the end of the day, a good solution." Unicredit CEO Andrea Orcel stressed that the opportunity for Europe's continued revival lies in its own hands, however. He explained that the 27-member European Union could galvanize amid the fracturing of Europe's relationship with the U.S., but warned that investors can also be fickle. The expectation is that "there will be convergence, there will be a banking union, there will be a capital markets union. There will be a lot of spend on infrastructure, on defense... That's exciting for the market, therefore money flowing in," Orcel told CNBC Wednesday. "But if, little by little, investors realize that this is lip service, but it doesn't really happen. Money will flow back in a nanosecond, and you will see [that] very quickly." Europe is faced with a "phenomenal opportunity," he added. "We have every reason to be ... on par with the U.S., but it's our fault if we don't do it."
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China affirms trade deal with US, says it always keeps its word
BEIJING (Reuters) -China on Thursday affirmed a trade deal announced by U.S. President Donald Trump, saying both sides needed to abide by the consensus and adding China always kept its word. The deal, reached after Trump and China's President Xi Jinping spoke on the telephone last week, brings a delicate truce in a trade war between the world's two largest economies. "China has always kept its word and delivered results," Lin Jian, a foreign ministry spokesperson, said at a regular news conference. "Now that a consensus has been reached, both sides should abide by it." The Trump-Xi telephone call broke a standoff that had flared just weeks after a preliminary deal was reached in Geneva. The call was quickly followed by more talks in London that Washington said had put "meat on the bones" of the Geneva agreement to ease bilateral retaliatory tariffs. The Geneva deal had faltered over China's continued curbs on minerals exports, prompting the Trump administration to respond with export controls preventing shipments of semiconductor design software, jet engines for Chinese-made planes and other goods to China. Trump on Wednesday said he was very happy with the trade deal. "Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval with President Xi and me," Trump said on Truth Social. "Full magnets, and any necessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front, by China. Likewise, we will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities (which has always been good with me!). We are getting a total of 55% tariffs, China is getting 10%." Still, specifics of the latest deal and details on how it will be implemented remain unclear. A White House official said the 55% represents the sum of a baseline 10% "reciprocal" tariff Trump has imposed on goods imported from nearly all U.S. trading partners, 20% on all Chinese imports associated with his accusation that China had not done enough to stem the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., and pre-existing 25% levies on imports from China put in place during Trump's first presidential term. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data