President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs through executive orders has reignited a longstanding debate over presidential authority. During his administration, Trump enacted tariffs on imports from numerous countries. Although the courts have ruled against many of these tariffs, this approach reflects a broader trend of executives leveraging ambiguous laws to expand their powers. You can review the details of the legal battle here.
The foundation of Trump’s tariff initiatives lies in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, a law intended to restrict—not extend—presidential authority during national emergencies. Historically, the IEEPA’s predecessor, the Trading with the Enemy Act, was used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to exert substantial control over the U.S. economy, as discussed here.
Despite legislative efforts in the 1970s aimed at restoring Congress’s power in economic and emergency policies, successive presidents have found loopholes in existing statutes, enabling them to navigate around Congress. The post-9/11 era has seen all presidents authorize extensive electronic surveillance programs, often justifying them under vague statutory and constitutional references.
Similarly, President Joe Biden used the COVID-19 crisis to justify canceling up to $400 billion in student loans. This move faced legal challenges, culminating in the Biden v. Nebraska decision, where the Supreme Court invalidated the loan cancellation for lacking statutory authority.
The Supreme Court has begun to counteract the expansion of executive power. Recent rulings, such as West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), highlight a judicial push for clearer legislative authorization on issues of economic and political significance.
The narrative of presidential power stretches beyond Trump and Biden to a systemic issue where Congress remains passive as executive powers expand, often under the guise of “emergencies.” Traditionally, once power is acquired under such circumstances, it proves challenging to revoke. For a more comprehensive analysis, Thomas Berry and Brent Skorup of the Cato Institute offer insights into the historical context and judicial responses to these trends, which you can read about further on their article.