- PODCAST: Trump's Tariff Whirlwind, Trudeau's Tears, and Hunter Biden's 'Sugar Brother' – on the Latest Episode of Welcome to MAGAland
.
approval.
.
It's uncertain whether Mr. Trump has the authority to impose these tariffs, and we hope his actions will be subject to a legal review.
He is generally sympathetic to Republicans, but has strongly opposed Trump's tariffs.
Several editorials have strongly criticized them in recent weeks.
This week's attack warned that consumer prices will increase due to the imposition of a 25 percent tariff on the country's two neighboring nations.
The Wall Street Journal argued that Trump's reliance on a 48-year-old law that contains an emergency clause was not justified and that he should require Congressional approval.
'The president is invoking a law that does not grant him the authority to impose broad tariffs. Someone should take legal action,' it stated.
The editorial outlined the history of the law, the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and its intended function.
The law granted the executive branch the authority to investigate, block, prohibit or regulate imports and exports with foreign countries in the event of an "unusual or extraordinary threat" if a national emergency was declared.
Trump justified using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs by claiming that the flow of fentanyl and other drugs across the border posed a national emergency.
This is why Trump often raised the alarm on the issue, despite the fact that there was no evidence of increased drug traffic compared to previous decades.
The Wall Street Journal argued that even under the intentionally ambiguous language of the law, which was intended to provide the president with significant flexibility, Trump's tariffs exceeded reasonable limits.
Mr. Trump's tariffs arguably constitute a "fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from one type of regulatory scheme to an entirely different one," as stated in the relevant Supreme Court ruling.
'Under that ruling, Congress is required to explicitly approve significant executive actions that have economic and political implications, which Mr Trump's tariffs undoubtedly have.'
However, the paper also pointed out that the biggest issue with Trump's interpretation is that the law does not explicitly allow tariffs.
It only allows the president to 'investigate, block, prohibit or regulate' imports, exports or transactions in which foreign countries or individuals have an interest, or 'any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'.
"The presidents have employed the law to freeze assets belonging to foreign governments and nationals, restrict US companies from engaging in business with them, limit the export of technologies and prohibit imports from adversaries," the WSJ pointed out.
Biden utilized the law as part of sanctions against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in March 2022, prohibiting imports of Russian energy, seafood, and liquor.
However, he did not use it to impose tariffs - instead, he requested Congress's approval to do so the following month, and only took action after it was authorized.
"It appears that neither Congress nor President Biden believed that IEEPA granted tariff authority. No President has utilized IEEPA to impose tariffs," the WSJ stated.
The High Court stated that a "lack of historical precedent" is a "significant indication" that an extensive exercise of power is unlawful.
Only one president has ever successfully imposed widespread tariffs without Congressional approval: Richard Nixon, who in 1971 introduced a 10% across-the-board duty to mitigate a growing trade deficit.
Nixon only managed to escape punishment after an appeals court determined that his tariffs 'had a clear and logical connection to the emergency at hand'.
However, the Wall Street Journal argued that Trump's tariffs seem to fall short of those criteria.
Congress also disapproved so strongly of the ruling that it enacted the IEEPA to further restrict the authority of future presidents to circumvent it.
The real concern is that if Trump is allowed to impose these tariffs, future presidents of either party will likely follow suit.
President Biden has already attempted to implement various measures through emergency powers, including mandatory Covid vaccination, a moratorium on evictions, and forgiveness of student loans.
The Supreme Court ruled against all three, deeming them an overreach of executive authority.
Presidents from both parties are now labeling everything as an emergency in order to implement their policy objectives without having to navigate the challenging process of working with Congress.
If Mr. Trump is successful in unilaterally imposing tariffs according to his discretion, a future Democratic president will likely use 'emergency' powers to address climate change and other priorities.
Read more