Why Trump does not suffer Congress when it comes to his prized tariffs

The Guardian

3 days ago

When it comes to cutting taxes or paying for mass deportations, Donald Trump is happy to work with Congress. But if the issue is his prized and disruptive tariff policy, the president has made clear that he has no time for their legislative wrangling.
Trump underscored his sentiment towards Congress after a US trade court this week briefly put a stop to his controversial policy of placing levies on a wide range of countries, before a different court reversed that decision while legal proceedings continue.
'The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around DC for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly. If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power – the Presidency would never be the same!' the president wrote on Truth Social.
The statement served to put Congress in its place, even though its Republican leaders have shown Trump great deference since taking office. The Senate has approved just about every official he has nominated, no matter how controversial, while the House of Representatives last week overcame substantial differences among the GOP conference to pass the One Big Beautiful bill containing Trump's tax and spending priorities.
If there's one place where there is daylight to be found between Trump and his Republican allies, it's his tariff polices. Even avowed supporters of the president have raised their eyebrows at his on-again, off-again imposition of levies on the countries from which US consumers buy their goods and factories source their inputs, and Republican leaders have gone to great lengths to thwart their attempts to do something about them.
Which might be why Trump struck out on his own, and hoped the courts would back him up. So far they have not. The US court of international trade, which ruled to block Trump's tariffs on Wednesday, was very clear it believed his policies 'exceed any authority granted to the president'.
The matter may ultimately come down to the views of the supreme court, where Trump appointed half of the six-justice conservative supermajority during his first term. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor, said the case is likely to present a test of how the supreme court views the 'major questions doctrine' (MQD), which argues clear congressional authority is needed for agencies to carry out any regulations of national importance, in light of Trump's tariffs moves.
The doctrine was used to defang regulators last year when the court overturned the Chevron decision, limiting regulators' powers and arguing they had overstepped their authority.
The supreme court may not be minded to accept the major questions doctrine when it comes to the commander in chief, wrote Goldsmith in his newsletter, Executive Function. 'It is an open question whether the MQD applies to congressional authorizations to the president. Every Supreme Court decision involving the MQD has involved agency action, and lower courts are split on whether the MQD applies to presidential authorizations,' he said.
For Congress's beleaguered Democrats, this week's court intervention, however fleeting, provided grist for the case they've been trying to make to voters ever since Trump took office, which is that he is trying to act like the sort of monarch America was founded on rejecting.
'This is why the Framers gave Congress constitutional power over trade and tariffs,' said Suzan DelBene, a Washington state House Democrat who has proposed one of many bills to block Trump's tariffs. 'The court spoke decisively in defense of our democracy and against a president attempting to be king.'