President Trump’s recent tariffs bypassed traditional procedures by invoking the 1970s-era , a move accelerating tariff implementation but sparking legal and congressional backlash. Here’s how the process unfolded and its implications:
### How Tariffs Normally Work
Imposing tariffs typically involves a months- or years-long process requiring economic analyses, public hearings, and industry consultations before a president approves final rates. This system, governed by laws like Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, ensures transparency and stakeholder input.
### Trump’s Unconventional Approach
Trump sidestepped this process by declaring a over trade deficits, leveraging IEEPA—a law traditionally used for sanctions—to impose tariffs immediately. His administration justified the emergency by citing “large and persistent” U.S. trade deficits ($1.2 trillion in 2024) and nonreciprocal foreign trade practices. The tariffs included:
– A on all imports starting April 5, 2025.
– for countries with large trade surpluses with the U.S., calculated by halving the percentage of their perceived unfair tariff advantage over American goods.
This method avoided extensive economic reviews but drew criticism for its legal fragility. Even Trump’s advisors reportedly warned that IEEPA’s use for broad tariffs was legally untested.
### Congressional Pushback
Lawmakers from both parties are challenging Trump’s strategy:
– : The Trade Review Act of 2025 (modeled on the War Powers Act) would require congressional approval for tariffs within 60 days.
– : Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) criticized the tariffs as “taxes on consumers” that risk inflation and recession. Four GOP senators joined Democrats in a symbolic vote to block tariffs on Canada.
– : Critics argue Trump’s use of emergency powers infringes on Congress’s Article I authority over trade. Senator Paul emphasized, “Taxes should not be enacted by one person”.
### Legal and Economic Risks
– : Legal challenges could target the emergency declaration’s validity, as trade deficits aren’t a conventional national security threat.
– : China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU have already retaliated with tariffs on U.S. goods, risking a cycle of escalation.
– : Stocks plunged after the tariffs were announced, reflecting investor anxiety about prolonged economic disruption.
### The Upshot
While Trump’s tactics expedite tariff implementation, they rely on contentious legal reasoning and have galvanized bipartisan efforts to reclaim congressional trade authority. The outcome hinges on whether courts uphold the emergency declaration and if legislative challenges gain traction in the GOP-controlled House. For now, the tariffs stand—but their long-term viability remains uncertain.
