President Donald Trump has been known to resort to certain emergency powers in a manner unimaginable to previous administrations. From imposing strong tariffs, dispatching military personnel to the border, to shunning environmental norms, Trump has turned to regulations usually reserved for dire scenarios such as warfare and invasions.
Taking an instance, National Guard troops were deployed in Los Angeles, following a Trump directive aiming to suppress immigration-related protests that seemed to be escalating. Interestingly, it’s been observed that among his 150 executive directives, 30 are based on some form of emergency provision or authority–a rate that far surpasses his contemporaries.
This phenomenon has led to a reconfiguration of conventional conceptions of presidential powers. Instead of being a response mechanism for sudden crises, Trump appears to use emergency powers as a tool for undermining Congressional authority and promoting his own political agenda.
His endeavors recall the time when Trump, citing an economic emergency, imposed tariffs independent of Congressional approval, only to face opposition from businesses who successfully convinced a federal trade court of his overstep. An examination of this ruling is currently underway by an appeals court.
Many have expressed growing concerns at Trump pushing boundaries when the perceived threats aren’t of the magnitude for which these emergency measures were designed. Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican from Nebraska drafted legislation for Congress to regain its authority over tariffs and expressed faith in the courts inevitably ruling against Trump over his attempts to singularly mould trade policies.
Despite such concerns, the White House argues that Trump’s aggressive use of executive authority is warranted. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, is most frequently invoked by Trump to justify the imposition of tariffs on imports. This law, enacted in 1977, was designed to confine some of the expansive powers granted to the presidency earlier.
This law is meant to take effect only when the country faces an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat’ to its ‘national security, foreign policy, or economy’ from overseas. A study comparing executive orders since 2001 found that Trump had invoked this law in 21 of his directives.
Furthermore, the Trump administration has leveraged an antiquated law, the Alien Enemies Act from the 18th century, to deport Venezuelan immigrants to other nations. However, the realization of this law is based on allegations of Venezuelan government’s association with the Tren de Aragua gang, a claim not confirmed by intelligence agencies.
Congress has bestowed the president with certain emergency powers, acknowledging that the executive branch can react quicker than lawmakers in times of crisis. There are about 150 such powers, including sweeping waivers of various actions, which become accessible post declaring an emergency.
In emergent situations, these powers grant administrations the ability to override environmental norms, approve novel drugs or treatments, take over transportation systems, or even dismiss bans on human subject testing with biological or chemical weapons.
Previous administrations, across party lines, have explored the limits of these powers. For instance, a president used a law enacted post-9/11 to erase federal student loan debts. However, this came under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny and ultimately resulted in the rejection of the attempt.
Historically, presidents have resorted to controversial measures, pursuing warrantless domestic wiretapping, and ordering the detention of civilians in conflict times. Trump’s first term saw a significant feud with Capitol Hill when he declared a national emergency for the construction of a border wall.
Although Congress voted to nullify his decree, they couldn’t gather ample support to trump the subsequent veto. ‘Instead of reacting swiftly to inconsistent obstacles, presidents now use emergency powers to step into political rifts because Congress elected not to act,’ a legal expert commented.
Trump’s moves, however, are not without supporters. Some conservative legalists standing by President Trump argue that his steps are justified. One such individual stated last week, ‘We’re convinced—and rightly so—that we’re facing an emergency’.
Attempts to restrict a president’s emergency powers have seen bipartisan support. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers from the House and Senate championed legislation that would have terminated a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to extend it, but the effort didn’t move forward.
A senator, who co-sponsored a bill on emergency powers reform in the last Congress, asserted, ‘He has consistently proven himself to be reckless and lawless. Oversight and safeguards are Congress’s duty to ensure’. There are criticisms that historically, leaders who perpetually rely on emergency declarations are taking steps towards an autocratic and repressive regime.