By New York Post (Opinion) | Created at 2025-04-04 22:10:51 | Updated at 2025-04-05 02:15:58
4 hours ago
The Trump administration is using Humpty Dumpty rules to justify its new tariffs.
The anthropomorphic egg famously said in the Lewis Carroll novel “Through the Looking Glass,” “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
For the Trump team, that word is “emergency.”
President Donald Trump has imposed sweeping global tariffs based on his purported authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
The president has declared the trade deficit an emergency, which supposedly unlocks his power to impose tariffs that would otherwise have to pass Congress.
“Pernicious economic policies and practices of our trading partners,” says a White House fact sheet, “undermine our ability to produce essential goods for the public and the military, threatening national security.”
This an abuse of language and logic in the service of bad policy that hardly interacts with the alleged threat to national security.
In a typical congressional botch-job, the IEEPA was meant to be a limitation on presidential emergency powers after the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act led to ceaseless states of emergency.
But according to the Congressional Research Service, as of January 2024, presidents had declared 69 national emergencies under IEEPA, with 39 of them ongoing.
As a House committee noted around the time of the IEEPA’s passage, “emergencies are by their nature rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal ongoing problems.”
Prior declarations of emergency have tended to involve specific countries, events or groups — the Iran hostage crisis, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the civil war in Yugoslavia — that have resulted in very specific sanctions.
As the IEEPA itself says, the law should be used “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat.”
The US trade deficit is neither of those things. We’ve been running a deficit since the 1970s. This is the very definition of a chronic issue, the causes of which are complex and not amenable to a simple solution.
Trump’s tariffs are obviously a product of his utterly sincere belief that tariffs are good. This is a long-term priority for the president, not the result of his hand being forced by exigent circumstances.
The policy doesn’t even match up with the legal pretext. If national security were really the justification, we wouldn’t be tariffing the very same allies who will — if we don’t fundamentally alienate them — provide supplies and manufacturing capacity to us in a true crisis.
All sorts of foodstuffs, from fruits and vegetables to chocolate and coffee, are getting tariffed, and they have nothing to do with national security.
Our ability to make precision missiles doesn’t depend on the price or availability of Australian beef and Guatemalan bananas.
In some cases, the tariffs aren’t even in response to a trade deficit. We are imposing a 10% tariff on countries with which we have a surplus.
More particularly, how can our trading relationship with our dear friend Israel be in a state of a crisis, when the Jewish state reduced its tariffs on all US goods to zero?
We imposed a 17% tariff on Israel, anyway.
Likewise, Vietnam, an anti-China bulwark, slashed its tariffs on a variety of US goods, and we hit its goods with one of highest rates announced, 46%.
Trump’s insistence that a non-emergency that requires congressional legislation is instead an emergency that allows him to act unilaterally may pass muster with the courts; they are loath to second-guess such presidential determinations.
Yet, the declaration is still a very bad idea.
The free hand that Trump has arrogated to himself could undermine his own policy — businesses may be slow to respond to the new tariff regime if they believe it can be changed just as easily as it’s been imposed.
A congressional enactment would be much more stable.
And, there’s no doubt that a future progressive president will pick up where Trump left off. What’s to stop President Ocasio-Cortez from declaring a climate emergency?
It’s best, especially when making consequential determinations, to adhere to the true meaning of words, even the much-abused “emergency.”
Twitter: @RichLowry
