Latest news with #NationalEmergenciesAct
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress should grow a backbone and reclaim tariff authority
For decades Congress has been gradually ceding its constitutional authority to the executive branch of government. And the executive branch has stretched that authority far beyond anything Congress or the Constitution intended. As the branch of government charged with levying taxes, including tariffs, it's time for Congress to reclaim that constitutional authority. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says,'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …' It's Congress's job to impose and collect taxes and duties, which include tariffs. It's not about whether tariffs are good or bad economic policy. It's about who has the constitutional authority to impose them. Because of the challenges created by two world wars and the occasional need for a quick U.S. response to international developments, 'Congress enacted statutes authorizing the President to declare a state of emergency and make use of extraordinary delegated powers.' Over time, Congress became concerned that presidents were taking advantage of those 'extraordinary powers.' A bipartisan Senate report released in 1974, 'A Brief History of National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers,' found 'at least 470 significant emergency statutes without time limitations delegating to the Executive extensive discretionary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Legislature, …' As a result, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (1976), ending most 'emergencies' that gave the president the justification for imposing tariffs, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977) or IEEPA to limit presidential overreach. According to an analysis on Congress's website, IEEPA affirmed that 'emergency authorities [are] employed only with respect to a specific set of circumstances which constitute a real emergency, and for no other purpose,' asserting that 'a state of emergency should not be a normal state of affairs.' In short, IEEPA was passed to keep a president from declaring an emergency to use tariffs as a basic tool for implementing economic and foreign policy. But that's exactly how President Trump is using them. A three-judge panel on the Court of International Trade recently called out Trump's abuse of IEEPA and ruled, 'The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,' thus striking down many of his tariffs. An Appeals Court has partially stayed the ruling to give the appellate judges time to consider the arguments. The case will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Trump's tariffs may have an uphill battle given the court's position on the 'major questions doctrine,' which says policies with significant economic impacts need clear congressional authority. No doubt that's what Republicans who are uneasy with Trump's tariff tantrums hope will happen — getting the country past the worst of the tariff turmoil without Republicans having to stand up to the president. But they may be disappointed. Trump has implied that if the court strikes down his tariff overreach, there are other ways to justify his tariffs. As the Wall Street Journal reports, 'U.S. officials are weighing their options should they need to find a new legal authority to impose the president's steep tariffs.' Remember how critical Republicans were of President Biden for searching for new legal authority when the Supremes ruled against his student loan forgiveness schemes? Would Republicans be just as critical if Trump does the same? Congress needs to reclaim its control over U.S. taxing authority, including tariffs. And the only way it can do that is either to amend IEEPA to strengthen presidential restrictions, pass a different law, or take stronger measures to challenge the president. Of course, the president would likely veto any bill. So, Congress would need the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override the veto. That won't be easy. Every Democrat will vote for the bill, not to reclaim Congress's constitutional rights, but to embarrass the president. Democrats didn't speak out when President Barack Obama exceeded his authority in granting legal status to some 830,000 undocumented children brought to the U.S. by their parents. And even though Congress has the 'power of the purse,' Democrats largely remained silent when Biden tried to spend more than $400 billion on student loans. But it will take a lot of Republicans voting with Democrats to pass legislation over a presidential veto that limits Trump's tariff powers. There was a time when House and Senate leadership zealously protected the legislative branch's constitutional authority. House Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd ( closely guarded Congress's constitutional prerogatives. Do Republicans have the courage to do the same? Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.' Follow him on X@MerrillMatthews. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
03-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Congress should grow a backbone and reclaim tariff authority
For decades Congress has been gradually ceding its constitutional authority to the executive branch of government. And the executive branch has stretched that authority far beyond anything Congress or the Constitution intended. As the branch of government charged with levying taxes, including tariffs, it's time for Congress to reclaim that constitutional authority. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says,'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …' It's Congress's job to impose and collect taxes and duties, which include tariffs. It's not about whether tariffs are good or bad economic policy. It's about who has the constitutional authority to impose them. Because of the challenges created by two world wars and the occasional need for a quick U.S. response to international developments, 'Congress enacted statutes authorizing the President to declare a state of emergency and make use of extraordinary delegated powers.' Over time, Congress became concerned that presidents were taking advantage of those 'extraordinary powers.' A bipartisan Senate report released in 1974, 'A Brief History of National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers,' found 'at least 470 significant emergency statutes without time limitations delegating to the Executive extensive discretionary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Legislature, …' As a result, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (1976), ending most 'emergencies' that gave the president the justification for imposing tariffs, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977) or IEEPA to limit presidential overreach. According to an analysis on Congress's website, IEEPA affirmed that 'emergency authorities [are] employed only with respect to a specific set of circumstances which constitute a real emergency, and for no other purpose,' asserting that 'a state of emergency should not be a normal state of affairs.' In short, IEEPA was passed to keep a president from declaring an emergency to use tariffs as a basic tool for implementing economic and foreign policy. But that's exactly how President Trump is using them. A three-judge panel on the Court of International Trade recently called out Trump's abuse of IEEPA and ruled, 'The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,' thus striking down many of his tariffs. An Appeals Court has partially stayed the ruling to give the appellate judges time to consider the arguments. The case will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Trump's tariffs may have an uphill battle given the court's position on the 'major questions doctrine,' which says policies with significant economic impacts need clear congressional authority. No doubt that's what Republicans who are uneasy with Trump's tariff tantrums hope will happen — getting the country past the worst of the tariff turmoil without Republicans having to stand up to the president. But they may be disappointed. Trump has implied that if the court strikes down his tariff overreach, there are other ways to justify his tariffs. As the Wall Street Journal reports, 'U.S. officials are weighing their options should they need to find a new legal authority to impose the president's steep tariffs.' Remember how critical Republicans were of President Biden for searching for new legal authority when the Supremes ruled against his student loan forgiveness schemes? Would Republicans be just as critical if Trump does the same? Congress needs to reclaim its control over U.S. taxing authority, including tariffs. And the only way it can do that is either to amend IEEPA to strengthen presidential restrictions, pass a different law, or take stronger measures to challenge the president. Of course, the president would likely veto any bill. So, Congress would need the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override the veto. That won't be easy. Every Democrat will vote for the bill, not to reclaim Congress's constitutional rights, but to embarrass the president. Democrats didn't speak out when President Barack Obama exceeded his authority in granting legal status to some 830,000 undocumented children brought to the U.S. by their parents. And even though Congress has the 'power of the purse,' Democrats largely remained silent when Biden tried to spend more than $400 billion on student loans. But it will take a lot of Republicans voting with Democrats to pass legislation over a presidential veto that limits Trump's tariff powers. There was a time when House and Senate leadership zealously protected the legislative branch's constitutional authority. House Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd ( closely guarded Congress's constitutional prerogatives. Do Republicans have the courage to do the same? Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.' Follow him on X@MerrillMatthews.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
WA leads lawsuit over Trump order fast-tracking energy projects without review
Fifteen states led by Washington filed a federal lawsuit Friday challenging a executive order by President Donald Trump that fast-tracks energy infrastructure projects by bypassing environmental review, according to court documents. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, argues that the emergency declaration issued by Trump on January 20, 2025, unlawfully invokes the National Emergencies Act to label energy infrastructure as a national emergency. The order directs federal agencies — including the Army Corps of Engineers and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation — to expedite permits and skip long-established environmental protections for energy-related projects. In the complaint, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and attorneys general from 14 other states contend that Trump's order sidesteps key legal requirements under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and National Historic Preservation Act. These laws require extensive environmental reviews and public input before permits can be issued for construction that affects wetlands, wildlife habitat, waterways, or cultural landmarks. 'There is no actual energy emergency,' the complaint states, noting that U.S. energy production is at an all-time high and that the country has been a net energy exporter since 2019. The states argue that the order's claim of grid unreliability and energy shortages is unsupported and contradicts data showing record oil and gas production. The executive order, titled EO 14156 and published in the Federal Register on January 20, directs agencies to use emergency permitting procedures — usually reserved for disasters like floods or oil spills — to authorize energy infrastructure projects. The lawsuit claims that using these emergency rules for non-emergencies violates federal law. The suit names President Trump, Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, Army Corps Commander Lt. Gen. William Graham, and officials from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation among the defendants. Washington's lawsuit seeks a court declaration that the executive order is unlawful and an injunction blocking agencies from fast-tracking permits under the order's direction. The plaintiffs include the states of California, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
Vox
10-04-2025
- Business
- Vox
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.
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House GOP moves to turn off ability to force vote on rescinding Trump ‘Liberation Day' tariffs
House Republicans are moving to turn off Democrats' ability to force a vote on rescinding the sweeping global tariffs imposed by President Trump as part of his 'Liberation Day' announcement. Language tucked into procedural rule legislation setting up debate on an unrelated matter — the budget resolution blueprint for Trump's legislative agenda — removes the ability for Democrats or rebellious Republicans to circumvent GOP leadership using an expedited process to rescind the tariffs until the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. A vote on the rule is set for Wednesday afternoon. It does not, however, prevent GOP leadership from deciding to bring up the legislation, or turn off other paths to force a vote on the matter like a discharge petition. Still, the move represents another case of leaders stifling the tools of the minority and deferring to Trump. Republicans made the same move last month, blocking Democrats' ability to force a vote on repealing the tariffs put in place earlier in the year on Canada, Mexico and China until the end of the year. 'I've made it very clear, I think the President has executive authority. It's an appropriate level of authority to deal with unfair trade practices,' Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters Wednesday when asked about the move. 'That's part of the role of the President is to negotiate with other countries, the other heads of state, and he is doing that, in my estimation, very effectively right now.' The move comes a day after group of House Democrats — led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-Mass.), and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) — introduced a privileged resolution to end the national emergency that Trump declared on April 2 that is the foundation of his authority to implement the tariffs. Trump utilized the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in order to implement the April 2 tariffs, just as he did with the tariffs on Mexico and Canada earlier in the year. The National Emergencies Act outlines an expedited process for congressional action on repealing a national emergency if it is not acted on in 15 days. But the new language from Republicans essentially pauses that clock, saying that days from now until Sept. 30 do not count. The language reads: 'Provides that each day during the period from April 9, 2025, through September 30, 2025, shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on April 2, 2025.' Democrats railed against the rule, with Meeks pledging to pursue other avenues to force a vote. 'They can run but they can't hide. At some point they're going to have to vote,' Meeks told The Hill. 'We're not going to stop. The American people have a right to know whether you're for the tariffs or against them. And if they vote this rule in, that will show that they're trying to hide.' Meeks also said Democrats will pursue a discharge petition to try to force action on the resolution, though discharge petitions are rarely successful. House Rules Committee Chair Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) pushed back on the criticism from Democrats by noting they used the same legislative maneuver on other topics to block Republican actions in the past. 'As you know, we keep good records here in the Rules Committee, as you've pointed out today. And while it's well within the minority's right to cry foul on this rule … on the latest national emergency announced by President Trump, they should really tread carefully on their arguments,' Foxx said. One rule approved in 2021, using very similar language that Republicans used, paused the expedited process on repealing a national emergency for 18 months until the end of the 117th Congress. That prevented Republicans from forcing consideration of a resolution from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) to end the COVID-19 national emergency. Mychael Schnell contributed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
