Latest news with #BrennanCenter
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Ohio Republicans using fake ‘noncitizen voting' problem as a false pretext to make it harder to vote
Stock photo from Getty Images. 'What is the problem trying to be solved with (Ohio) Senate Bill 153?' asked a speaker testifying before a senate committee last week on yet another Republican measure to make voting harder in the state. It was a rhetorical question. Kelly DuFour, the voting and elections manager at Common Cause Ohio, knew the proposed legislation wasn't drafted as a solution to any glaring flaw in Ohio elections. So did the overflow crowd hastily assembled in the middle of a day (with little advance notice from the committee) to register overwhelming opposition to SB 153. So did the two GOP state senators who co-sponsored the legislation, Bowling Green Republican Theresa Gavarone and Andrew Brenner of Delaware. They see the same data on statewide voting the public does. They know rampant voter fraud or noncitizens casting ballots en masse is not an Ohio problem. They know the checks and balances that scrupulously safeguard the administration of free and fair elections in the state routinely produce problem-free elections with 99.9% accuracy. They ought to know the 2020 presidential election was not stolen in Ohio from the sore loser whose lies led to a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Gavarone and Brenner also ought to know that there is not a scintilla of evidence that noncitizens are brazenly violating federal and state election laws at the polls. Ohio officials who combed through years of voting records in the state were able to identify only six possible noncitizens — one of whom was dead — who cast ballots out of 8 million registered voters between 2008 and 2020. A Brennan Center analysis concluded that 'even if every one of those cases is proven, that's less than one noncitizen vote in a million in any given election.' Even Ohio's partisan hack/elections chief Frank LaRose acknowledged the infinitesimal percentage of potential voting cases involving noncitizens were probably due to mistakes, i.e., being wrongly registered, and not intentional. Why would noncitizens, who risk much to live free, jeopardize everything with nefarious subterfuge at the polls? They wouldn't and don't. Proof is the handful of supposed infractions flagged over a 12-year period in Ohio that will likely never rise to prosecutable offenses. The reality is Buckeye elections have been laudably conducted with meticulous rigor to diligently ferret out any suspected discrepancies or irregularities. County boards of election across Ohio report that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in the state — no noncitizens voting, no voter impersonation, no drop box sabotage. But that hasn't stopped the Ohio Senate's most prolific sponsor of anti-voting legislation from proposing ever-restrictive solutions to nonexistent election problems. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Gavarone is a career climber who jumped on the Trump propaganda train about rigged elections that weren't and never looked back. After the Big Lie took hold among MAGA faithful, she and other Trumpian opportunists amplified the deception to advance voter suppression measures in state and federal government. The senate majority floor leader joined Republicans in statehouses across the country to exploit the unfounded doubt seeded by Trump and his GOP toadies to delegitimize democratic elections long considered the envy of the world. Like other MAGA Republicans angling for attention, Gavarone used the Republican-planted mistrust over (baseless) election fraud rhetoric with a spate of bills, including one that produced the strictest voter ID law in the nation and led to the current Senate Bill 153, arguably her most extreme effort yet to limit voting in Ohio. As a second term senator, Gavarone religiously parrots her party's talking points about 'working to improve the integrity and confidence of Ohio's elections' as though she really believes them and the charade she adopted in the wake of Trump's lawless attempt to overturn a legitimate election. Her hollow justifications for manipulating the phantom menace of pervasive voter fraud to enact severe voting restrictions that purportedly strengthen 'trust and integrity in our institutions' are a parody of trust and integrity. But her latest handiwork, with co-sponsor Brenner, is a manifest assault on the voting rights of all Ohio voters. It mirrors the travesty passed by U.S. House Republicans — the so-called Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act or SAVE Act — that would severely restrict voting access by making it harder for all American citizens and registered voters to cast a ballot. They'd have to provide documentary proof of citizenship in person to register or update their voter registrations for federal elections. Convenient registration options by mail, online, at the BMV, and community options would be eliminated, forcing voters to register only at county election boards. The SAVE Act (which saves no one) would disproportionately impact women who've changed their names, rural residents, older Americans, Black voters, military personnel, people with disabilities, and students. Gavarone's SB 153 creates the same hoops for those voters and worse. It bans ballot drop boxes so 'people don't have the ability to sabotage our elections' — despite zero drop box threats in the state. It hobbles direct democracy with new barriers for statewide citizen initiatives and referendum campaigns. It creates impossible bureaucratic and financial burdens on county boards of election. What made-up election problem is Ohio Senate Bill 153 is trying to solve? None. 'It's about keeping people who don't agree with the people in power from voting,' wrote an alarmed voting advocate in Gavarone's hometown. Nailed it. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
A ballot denied can deter voters for years. Texas provides worrisome case study
If you decided to devise a scheme to frustrate loyal voters so much that a good chunk of them would just give up, you might arrive at something like the Senate Bill 1 that Texas lawmakers passed in 2021. Perhaps you remember the dustup over this solution-in-search-of-a-problem election bill. Anyone filling out an application to vote by mail, or sending the mail-in ballot itself, suddenly had to include their state ID number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on the envelope. Oh, and it had to be the same number you used when you first registered to vote all those years ago — so don't put your Social if you registered with your driver's license. (You remember which number you used, right?) Oh, and it's possible you didn't see the new spot on the envelope requiring this number. It was under the flap. Sorry about that. When the March 2022 primary rolled around, more than 30,000 Texas voters had their ballot application or their mail-in ballot itself rejected over this rule. Most voters who ran into this obstacle ended up not voting at all. A 2022 analysis by the nonpartisan Brennan Center found that among the 11,719 Texans whose application for a mail-in ballot was rejected in that year's primary, only 3,266 ended up voting in person. Among the 18,368 Texans whose mail-in ballot was rejected, only 338 voted in person. If your goal is to disenfranchise voters, mission accomplished. I mention all of this because a troubling new study just came out that followed these voters to see what happens over time. If you run into a pointless procedural roadblock with voting once, are you less likely to vote in the future? Distressingly, but not surprisingly, the Brennan Center said this week the answer is yes. Take the voters whose mail-in ballot applications were rejected in the 2022 primary: When the general election arrived that fall, those voters' participation dropped 16 percentage points. Among those whose mail-in ballots were rejected in the primary, participation was down 1.5 percentage points in the general election. The Brennan Center and researchers Michael G. Miller and Ian Shapiro found the declining participation for those voters continued through the 2024 primary, the most recent data they reviewed. In other words, when you make it harder to vote, people are less likely to vote — for years to come. That no-duh mantra bears repeating because some lawmakers, at the state and federal level, keep working to raise more procedural hurdles for voters. A bill that passed this session in the Texas Senate, but thankfully stalled in the Texas House, would have required all existing and future voters to present proof of citizenship — digging out birth certificates or passports (not to mention marriage or divorce paperwork, if you're a woman whose last name ever changed), driving to election offices to present these documents, all in service of stamping out noncitizen voting that experts have called 'vanishingly rare.' At the federal level, a similar proof-of-citizenship measure — the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act — passed the U.S. House of Representatives in April, and now rests with the U.S. Senate. I have yet to meet anyone who wants noncitizens to vote. Nor is there evidence that's happening at any meaningful scale — and it's not like Texas hasn't looked. Gov. Greg Abbott's claim last year that officials had found 6,500 potential noncitizens on the Texas voter rolls turned out to be way off base (the secretary of state's office had flagged 581 people, and even that list was flawed, the Texas Tribune, ProPublica and Votebeat found). And looking nationally, when the Brennan Center analyzed 23.5 million votes cast in the 2016 presidential election, only 30 of them appeared to involve noncitizens. Still, the tiny prospect of noncitizens voting is used to cast a large shadow of suspicion on our elections, justifying measures that, in reality, just make it harder for legitimate voters to vote. This is why Texas' experience with the 2021 SB 1 matters: It triggered a warning light. Those allowed to vote by mail in Texas are 65 and older, and in practice they are the die-hards. They are the coveted super-voters who cast their ballots year in and year out, for every elected office from the White House to the water conservation district board. And even they could be deterred in worrisome numbers when paperwork hassles sent them back to Square One. 'There is every reason to think that barriers to participation even more effectively turn off younger voters at the start of their civic participation,' Brennan Center president and CEO Michael Waldman wrote this week. 'A long line at a polling place, a demand to produce a birth certificate, or a technical error on a ballot can reverberate throughout a lifetime.' It's not a guess that raising these barriers hurts voter participation. It's a documented fact. And there's not an acceptable level of collateral damage here — not when every voter's voice should count. Bridget Grumet is the Statesman's Editorial Page Editor. Her column contains her opinions. Share yours via email at bgrumet@ or via X or Bluesky at @bgrumet. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: A ballot denied can deter voters for years, Texas law shows | Opinion
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Democrats rip Trump ahead of meme coin dinner: ‘Orgy of corruption'
President Trump is set to host a private dinner Thursday night with the top investors in his meme coin, who spent millions of dollars to secure a spot at the exclusive event, fueling Democratic accusations of corruption. More than 200 investors in $TRUMP will dine with the president at his golf club outside of Washington, D.C., in what Democratic lawmakers have alleged is a 'pay-to-play scheme' effectively selling access to Trump. 'There is a big 'For Sale' sign on the White House lawn,' Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said at a press conference Thursday. 'U.S. policy for sale.' 'Anyone who thinks those 220 people who are attending the dinner tonight who paid about $150 million for those seats just really craved to have a digital equivalent of a baseball trading card, well, you're a little off the mark,' he continued. 'They absolutely want to buy influence over U.S. policy.' Trump launched his meme coin shortly before his inauguration. Meme coins are cryptocurrencies typically based on internet trends that have no inherent value, often making them highly volatile assets. The token almost immediately drew scrutiny, prompting concerns that it could be used to buy influence with the president. $TRUMP even received pushback from within the crypto industry, as some worried it could derail the president's efforts to pass long-sought digital asset legislation. However, the announcement of the dinner last month, which urged investors to load up on $TRUMP to secure one of 220 spots at the 'intimate private dinner,' has sparked a new level of backlash. 'Donald Trump's dinner is an orgy of corruption,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday. 'That's what this is all about. We are here today to talk about exactly one topic: corruption, corruption in its ugliest form.' 'Donald Trump is using the presidency of the United States to make himself richer through crypto, and he's doing it right out there in plain sight,' she added. 'He is signaling to anyone who wants to ask for a special favor and is willing to pay for it exactly how to do that.' The White House has pushed backed on these allegations, arguing that Trump is attending the event in his personal time and abiding by all conflict-of-interest laws. 'The president has been asked about this, he has addressed this. I have also stated previously from this podium that the president is abiding by all conflict-of-interest laws that are applicable to the president,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday. 'And I think everybody, the American public, believes it is absurd for anyone to insinuate that this president is profiting off of the presidency,' she continued. However, Democrats and ethics watchdogs have underscored concerns about the relatively anonymous nature of those buying up millions of dollars' worth of Trump's meme coin to secure a spot at the dinner. 'This dinner is different from a traditional donor fundraiser,' Eric Petry, who serves as counsel in the Brennan Center's Elections and Government Program, told The Hill. 'Typically, when a candidate is raising money for a campaign, all that money has to be reported, and it goes into the campaign finance system,' he said. 'This situation is totally different.' He noted that Trump is no longer a candidate, and it's much more difficult to trace where these funds are coming from. 'It's much, much harder to track and trace who these people are,' Petry said. 'The money can come from foreign governments, foreign officials, from abroad, which raises a host of corruption concerns that we just really haven't seen before.' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and other Democratic lawmakers urged Trump to release a list of the attendees at Thursday night's dinner. 'It provides cover for the most corrupt, for the most compromised, for the worst of the worst, to channel money to Donald Trump in order to get their private audience with him in order to plead their case for favorable treatment from the federal government or for investment from the U.S. taxpayer,' Murphy said. Murphy also pressed Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a Tuesday hearing on the potential for Trump's meme coin to be used as a tool of foreign influence. 'There is clearly a way around the State Department for foreign individuals of significant influence and wealth, to be able to directly lobby the president,' Murphy said.'These are individuals who just bought their way into a meeting with the president. I think you should endeavor to get your hands on the list to make sure that there aren't individuals there who are perhaps contravening national security interests that the Department of State is prioritizing.' The top 220 investors in $TRUMP have bought nearly $394 million worth of the token since January, according to an analysis by blockchain analytics platform Nansen. The wallet that sits atop the public leaderboard for the dinner, named 'Sun,' has long been suspected to belong to Justin Sun, founder of the crypto platform Tron. He confirmed Tuesday that he is the top holder of $TRUMP. 'Honored to support @POTUS and grateful for the invitation from @GetTrumpMemes to attend President Trump's Gala Dinner as his TOP fan! As the top holder of $TRUMP, I'm excited to connect with everyone, talk crypto, and discuss the future of our industry,' Sun wrote in a post on the social platform X. Sun's attendance at the dinner is notable given his history with U.S. regulators and his involvement with the Trump family's crypto businesses. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Sun and his companies in 2023, accusing him of selling unregistered securities and fraudulently manipulating the price of his TRX token. However, as the SEC has pulled back from numerous crypto lawsuits and investigations under Trump, the Tron founder has been among those to receive a reprieve. The SEC asked the court to put Sun's fraud case on hold in February as it explored a potential resolution. Sun has since become involved with World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture launched by Trump and his sons last fall. The company announced earlier this month that its new stablecoin, USD1, would integrate with the Tron ecosystem. World Liberty Financial has also been at the center of a firestorm of corruption allegations. The same day it unveiled the Tron integration, the company announced that USD1 would be used to complete a $2 billion transaction between an Emirati firm and Binance, a crypto exchange that has also come under scrutiny from U.S. regulators. Like the meme coin, the stablecoin deal has fueled concerns that outside actors could use USD1 to attempt to buy influence with the president. Trump's growing crypto portfolio is complicating efforts to pass crypto legislation, which has become a key priority for the administration following the president's embrace of the industry during his 2024 campaign. A Senate bill to create a regulatory framework for stablecoins cleared an early hurdle on the floor Monday, bringing it one step closer to final passage after a failed attempt earlier last month. However, several Democrats who voted to advance the bill have indicated that they are still uneasy about Trump's ties to the crypto industry and are hoping to address these concerns in the floor amendment process. Some have already filed amendments seeking to bar elected officials from holding stablecoins, meme coins and other digital assets. Lawmakers in both the Senate and House have also introduced separate legislation to a similar end. Several Republicans have also appeared hesitant about Trump's meme coin dinner. 'This is my president that we're talking about, but I am willing to say that this gives me pause,' Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said, according to NBC News. Others have brushed off concerns. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) emphasized earlier this month, 'Whatever President Trump is doing is out in the open. They're not trying to conceal anything.' Murphy pushed back on this argument Thursday, contending that Trump's moves can still be considered corruption. 'Just because the corruption is playing out in public where everybody can see it doesn't mean that it isn't rampant, rapacious corruption,' he said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
22-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Democrats rip Trump ahead of meme coin dinner: ‘Orgy of corruption'
President Trump is set to host a private dinner Thursday night with the top investors in his meme coin, who spent millions of dollars each to secure a spot at the exclusive event, fueling Democratic accusations of corruption. More than 200 investors in $TRUMP will dine with the president at his golf club outside of Washington, D.C., in what Democratic lawmakers have alleged is a 'pay-to-play scheme' effectively selling access to Trump. 'There is a big 'For Sale' sign on the White House lawn,' Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said at a press conference Thursday. 'U.S. policy for sale.' 'Anyone who thinks those 220 people who are attending the dinner tonight who paid about $150 million for those seats just really craved to have a digital equivalent of a baseball trading card, well, you're a little off the mark,' he continued. 'They absolutely want to buy influence over U.S. policy.' Trump launched his meme coin shortly before his inauguration. Meme coins are cryptocurrencies typically based on internet trends that have no inherent value, often making them highly volatile assets. The token almost immediately drew scrutiny, prompting concerns that it could be used to buy influence with the president. $TRUMP even received pushback from within the crypto industry, as some worried it could derail the president's efforts to pass long-sought digital asset legislation. However, the announcement of the dinner last month, which urged investors to load up on $TRUMP to secure one of 220 spots at the 'intimate private dinner,' has sparked a new level of backlash. 'Donald Trump's dinner is an orgy of corruption,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday. 'That's what this is all about. We are here today to talk about exactly one topic, corruption, corruption in its ugliest form.' 'Donald Trump is using the presidency of the United States to make himself richer through crypto, and he's doing it right out there in plain sight,' she added. 'He is signaling to anyone who wants to ask for a special favor and is willing to pay for it, exactly how to do that.' The White House has pushed backed on these allegations, arguing that Trump is attending the event in his personal time and abiding by all conflict-of-interest laws. 'The president has been asked about this, he has addressed this. I have also stated previously from this podium that the president is abiding by all conflict-of-interest laws that are applicable to the president,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday. 'And I think everybody, the American public, believes it is absurd for anyone to insinuate that this president is profiting off of the presidency,' she continued. However, Democrats and ethics watchdogs have underscored concerns about the relatively anonymous nature of those buying up millions of dollars' worth of Trump's meme coin to secure a spot at the dinner. 'This dinner is different from a traditional donor fundraiser,' Eric Petry, who serves as counsel in the Brennan Center's Elections and Government Program, told The Hill. 'Typically, when a candidate is raising money for a campaign, all that money has to be reported, and it goes into the campaign finance system,' he said, adding, 'This situation is totally different.' He noted that Trump is no longer a candidate, and it's much more difficult to trace where these funds are coming from. 'It's much, much harder to track and trace who these people are,' Petry said. 'The money can come from foreign governments, foreign officials, from abroad, which raises a host of corruption concerns that we just really haven't seen before.' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and other Democratic lawmakers urged Trump to release a list of the attendees at Thursday night's dinner. 'It provides cover for the most corrupt, for the most compromised, for the worst of the worst, to channel money to Donald Trump in order to get their private audience with him in order to plead their case for favorable treatment from the federal government or for investment from the U.S. taxpayer,' Murphy said. Murphy also pressed Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a Tuesday hearing on the potential for Trump's meme coin to be used as a tool of foreign influence. 'There is clearly a way around the State Department for foreign individuals of significant influence and wealth, to be able to directly lobby the president,' Murphy said.'These are individuals who just bought their way into a meeting with the President. I think you should endeavor to get your hands on the list to make sure that there aren't individuals there who are perhaps contravening national security interests that the Department of State is prioritizing.' The top 220 investors in $TRUMP have bought nearly $394 million worth of the token since January, according to an analysis by blockchain analytics platform Nansen. The wallet that sits atop the public leaderboard for the dinner, named 'Sun,' has long been suspected to belong to Justin Sun, founder of the crypto platform Tron. He confirmed Tuesday that he is the top holder of $TRUMP. 'Honored to support @POTUS and grateful for the invitation from @GetTrumpMemes to attend President Trump's Gala Dinner as his TOP fan! As the top holder of $TRUMP, I'm excited to connect with everyone, talk crypto, and discuss the future of our industry,' Sun wrote in a post on X. Sun's attendance at the dinner is notable given his history with U.S. regulators and his involvement with the Trump family's crypto businesses. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Sun and his companies in 2023, accusing him of selling unregistered securities and fraudulently manipulating the price of his TRX token. However, as the SEC has pulled back from numerous crypto lawsuits and investigations under Trump, the Tron founder has been among those to receive a reprieve. The SEC asked the court to put Sun's fraud case on hold in February as it explored a potential resolution. Sun has since become involved with World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture launched by Trump and his sons last fall. The company announced earlier this month that its new stablecoin, USD1, would integrate with the Tron ecosystem. World Liberty Financial has also been at the center of a firestorm of corruption allegations. The same day it unveiled the Tron integration, the company announced that USD1 would be used to complete a $2 billion transaction between an Emirati firm and Binance, a crypto exchange that has also come under scrutiny from U.S. regulators. Like the meme coin, the stablecoin deal has fueled concerns that outside actors could use USD1 to attempt to buy influence with the president. Trump's growing crypto portfolio is complicating efforts to pass crypto legislation, which has become a key priority for the administration following the president's embrace of the industry during his 2024 campaign. A Senate bill to create a regulatory framework for stablecoins cleared an early hurdle on the floor Monday, bringing it one step closer to final passage after a failed attempt earlier last month. However, several Democrats who voted to advance the bill have indicated that they are still uneasy about Trump's ties to the crypto industry and are hoping to address these concerns in the floor amendment process. Some have already filed amendments seeking to bar elected officials from holding stablecoins, meme coins and other digital assets. Lawmakers in both the Senate and House have also introduced separate legislation to a similar end. Several Republicans have also appeared hesitant about Trump's meme coin dinner. 'This is my president that we're talking about, but I am willing to say that this gives me pause,' Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said, according to NBC News. Others have brushed off concerns. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) emphasized earlier this month, 'Whatever President Trump is doing is out in the open. They're not trying to conceal anything.' Murphy pushed back on this argument Thursday, contending that Trump's moves can still be considered corruption. 'Just because the corruption is playing out in public where everybody can see it doesn't mean that it isn't rampant, rapacious corruption,' he said.
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Donald Trump keeps declaring national emergencies. Why?
President Donald Trump has made a habit of declaring emergencies. Since he took office for his second term, Trump has issued declarations of emergency at the southern border. On energy and trade. About drug trafficking and cartels, and even the International Criminal Court. In all, he's declared eight emergencies in his first 100 days, a rate that far outstrips any previous president, including his own first term. It's unclear whether all these things meet the legal standard for an 'emergency' — a situation so unusual and extraordinary that it can't wait for congressional action. The US trade deficit with China, for instance, has been the status quo for decades. But by declaring it an emergency, Trump unlocks special authorities that wouldn't otherwise be available to him. The question of whether Trump can use his emergency powers this way is currently making its way through the courts, and our colleague Ian Millhiser has been following along as proceedings kicked off in the Court of International Trade. In the meantime, we at Today, Explained wanted to understand why Trump is so keen to tap these powers to achieve his agenda, so we called up Elizabeth Goitein. She's a senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice and an expert on presidential emergency powers. Goitein spoke with Today, Explained co-host Noel King about the history of national emergencies, what Trump can do with his powers, and whether Congress should do something about it. An excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. I don't think most Americans feel like we're living in a time of eight distinct emergencies that we weren't living in six months ago. Why does the president do this? A national emergency declaration is an extraordinarily powerful thing. It unlocks enhanced powers that are contained in 150 different provisions of law, all of which say something like, 'In a national emergency, the president can do X,' or, 'In a national emergency, the president doesn't have to do Y.' These are powers that allow the president to take actions that go beyond what Congress has authorized in nonemergency situations. In some cases, they allow him to take actions that Congress has expressly prohibited in nonemergency situations. This can be a very tempting tool in order to implement policy in situations where there's not sufficient support from Congress or where Congress has actually prohibited that policy. You can see why the temptation is there for presidents to use these powers rather than go through the normal policy-making and law-making process. President Trump sometimes behaves as if the emergency powers were granted by God, but actually what you're saying is: They come from Congress. This is Congress saying, 'We will allow you to have additional power in times of emergency.' When and why did Congress initially do this? Congress has been providing these powers to the president since the founding. Our current system, in which the president declares a national emergency, and that declaration unlocks powers that are included in other statutes, dates back to World War I. This system where Congress would talk about national emergencies and then the president started issuing declarations of national emergency evolved organically. In fact, the organic nature of it turned out to be a problem, because there was no overarching law that governed the process. There was no time limit on how long an emergency could stay in place. There was no reporting to Congress. This is why Congress, in the 1970s, enacted the National Emergencies Act. It placed a time limit on how long an emergency declaration could stay in place without being renewed by the president. The NEA also, as originally enacted, gave Congress the power to terminate an emergency declaration using a legislative veto. That's a law that goes into effect with a simple majority of both houses of Congress and without the president's signature. That was a ready means for Congress to shut down an emergency declaration that was either inappropriate or was lasting too long. But then in 1983, the Supreme Court held that legislative vetoes are unconstitutional. So today, if Congress wants to terminate an emergency declaration, it basically has to pass a law by a veto-proof supermajority, which is next to impossible in today's political climate. How far can the president go with emergency powers? What kinds of things could he do? If you look at these 150 powers that are at the president's disposal in a national emergency, a lot of them really do seem reasonable on their face. They seem measured, something that you would want and expect the president to have. But others seem like the stuff of authoritarian regimes. There is a law that dates back to 1942 that allows the president to take over or shut down communications facilities. This was last invoked in World War II. Today, it could arguably be used to assert control over US-based internet traffic. There's another law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that allows the president to freeze the assets of almost anyone, including a US person, if the president deems it necessary to address a foreign or partially foreign threat. In fact, the president can also make it illegal for anyone to engage in any financial transactions with that person, including something as simple as renting them an apartment or giving them a job or even selling them groceries. So these are some really alarming authorities in terms of the potential for abuse. You've laid out why granting some of these powers does make sense in times of emergency. Some of them, though, seem like a lot of power. Donald Trump is a highly unusual American president. Is it possible that Congress made a mistake in assuming that every American president would be like the guy who came before? Yes. Congress made a mistake. To be fair, Congress did give itself a ready means of terminating emergency declarations, and Congress did not foresee that the Supreme Court was going to take that off the table. However, I think it was a mistake to leave the law in place as it was without that safeguard. I think it is time — past time — for a reckoning for Congress, to not only reform the process of national emergency declarations and the termination of those declarations, but also to look at some of these individual powers like the Communications Act, which allows the president to take over or shut down communications facilities, and the power over domestic transportation. Congress should put some limits and safeguards on those powers.
