What constitutes a \u201cnational emergency\u201d? It\u2019s a question at the heart of the Supreme Court\u2019s upcoming decision on tariffs and.What constitutes a \u201cnational emergency\u201d? It\u2019s a question at the heart of the Supreme Court\u2019s upcoming decision on tariffs and the president\u2019s authority to unilaterally impose them under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Now, anticipation surrounding the court’s opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump has only\u2026<\/b>
\nWhat constitutes a \u201cnational emergency\u201d? It\u2019s a question at the heart of the Supreme Court\u2019s upcoming decision on tariffs and the president\u2019s authority to unilaterally impose them under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Now, anticipation surrounding the court\u2019s opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump has only grown following the events of the weekend.
In response to the Trump administration\u2019s continued insistence that Denmark relinquish sovereignty over Greenland, several European countries, including France, Germany, the U.K., Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, sent troops to \u201cestablish a more permanent military presence with a larger Danish contribution.\u201d
This maneuver by the Danish and their European allies drew the ire of President Donald Trump.
On Saturday, he announced new 15 percent tariffs on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the U.K., the Netherlands, and Finland, which would take effect on Feb. 1.
On Wednesday in Davos, the president struck a different tone following his speech at the World Economic Forum.
Following a \u201cvery productive meeting\u201d with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, President Trump declared on Truth Social that he would \u201cnot be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st,\u201d citing ongoing talks on the \u201cGolden Dome as it pertains to Greenland.\u201d Details are scarce, but one takeaway remains apparent.
While President Trump\u2019s assertion that the acquisition of Greenland is \u201cimperative\u201d to \u201cprotect Global Peace and Security\u201d is debatable, the use of tariffs as a political cudgel to browbeat foreign opposition to his policies is both unconstitutional and untenable.
However, declaring new economic policies on a whim has become the de facto operating procedure.
Even as the Supreme Court deliberates, the legislature has done little to check President Trump\u2019s worst impulses. He has employed tariffs and the threat of tariffs as a cure-all for a range of issues, from trade deficits to retaliation for international decisions with which he disagrees.
In this regard, lawmakers should find Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent\u2019s rationale that \u201cthe national emergency is avoiding a national emergency\u201d woefully inadequate.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act only grants the president authority to deal with \u201cany unusual and extraordinary threat,\u201d so long as a national emergency has been declared \u201cwith respect to such threat.\u201d However, the law also requires any \u201cnew declaration of national emergency\u201d be made \u201cwith respect to such threat,\u201d placing a limit on the executive\u2019s authority.
Under Article II, the president\u2019s authority to act must come from an act of Congress or the Constitution, but, through the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (NEA), Congress has granted the executive branch extensive powers to act during crises.
While Congress enacted the NEA to curtail presidential power, the law essentially gives the president the authority to declare national emergencies in perpetuity, until Congress passes a joint resolution terminating the emergency. The act requires the president to specify the emergency authority being invoked. It directs Congress to meet every six months to consider such a joint resolution, although Congress has never done so.
In October, the Senate voted 51\u201347 to approve a joint resolution terminating the \u201cnational emergency\u201d justification the president used to impose tariffs. However, a procedural vote by House Republicans on the Rules Committee blocked any efforts to end the national emergencies until March 31.
While the threat of new tariffs hung in the air, the early signs of backlash appeared on the stock market, reflecting the inherent volatility of a one-man-driven tariff policy.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 876 points on Tuesday, with European companies in the automotive, pharmaceutical, and luxury goods industries already bracing for another year of uncertainty.
Bessent\u2019s statement to CNBC that President Trump\u2019s goal was to \u201cpre-empt the problem before it starts\u201d gives the game away. If there is no problem, then there is no national emergency.
Deft diplomacy could have achieved the same outcome. Instead, the president relied on threats and coercion.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, there are currently 150 statutory powers available to the president when a national emergency is declared, 58 of which lawmakers enacted \u201cmore than half a century ago.\u201d
Steadily accumulating over time, some of these powers, like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, are used almost annually, transforming what should be an extraordinary measure into a routine policy tool \u2014 fundamentally contradicting the concept of an emergency.<\/p>\n