Will Trump’s tariffs awaken a sleeping legislature? ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

Donald Trump’s tariffs are the biggest tax increase in decades and have upended global markets — the actions of one man possibly plunging the country into recession. The abrupt move scrambled political alliances: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is likely to sue, while the United Auto Workers endorsed the tariffs.

Amid market carnage and political chaos, it can be easy to overlook one key question. I’ll ask it: Wait, can a president do this?! After all, presidents cannot unilaterally set income tax rates. Why is this ok? Conservatives and liberals alike are asking this question.

For answers, I turned to Elizabeth Goitein and Katherine Yon Ebright of the Brennan Center, two of the country’s leading experts on emergency powers (and thus very busy people these days).

Here’s their answer in a nutshell:

Trump used emergency powers to set these tariffs. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act grants presidents special authorities if a national emergency has been declared. Presidents of both parties have stretched the concept of an emergency

[link removed]

. But Trump’s proclamation that the decades-old U.S. trade deficit constitutes an emergency — by definition, something sudden and unforeseen — is particularly brazen. The trade deficit may or may not be a problem, but it’s simply not an emergency.

Trump’s deployment of this law is extraordinary for a second reason: it doesn’t include a tariff power. Presidents have used this emergency powers law

[link removed]

to restrict imports from targeted countries or to freeze the assets of enemies, but it contains no reference to tariffs and no president has ever used it for this purpose. Yet Trump has slapped tariffs on more than 180 trading partners under the law, including the uninhabited Heard Island and McDonald Islands. Take that, penguins.

[link removed]

That’s a rather stunning report. This declaration of a trade war against the world turns out to be one of the most audacious and consequential power grabs yet for this imperial presidency.

As I wrote in November, tariffs can produce a frenzy of lobbying

[link removed]

as companies and countries clamor for exemptions and special rates. The conservative National Review

[link removed]

put it well: “Lobbying isn’t an unfortunate side effect of protectionism. It’s an integral part.” In the 1800’s, those interests pressured Congress. This time the deals will be made at the White House, with even less transparency.

Will courts step in? Maybe. Judges are generally reluctant to probe a president’s decision that there is a national emergency, but they can (and should) when a president acts in bad faith or conjures up nonexistent crises. And judges may be less reticent to tackle the question of whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes tariffs.

A conservative group, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, has gone to court

[link removed]

already. It points out that in West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court created

[link removed]

a new “major questions” doctrine. If something is important enough, the supermajority of conservative justices ruled, Congress should make policy, not the president. A cynic might observe that “major questions” was devised to stop Democratic presidents from pursuing, say, climate change rules. Will the Court follow its own rhetoric and apply it to a Republican president too?

The Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the “power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”

The real constitutional crisis of 2025 is not just an overreaching executive but a supine legislature. Trump’s abuse of emergency powers to impose tariffs, however, could be enough to prompt some institutional pushback. After all, many Republican lawmakers supported emergency powers reform under the first Trump administration. Already, four Republican senators have joined Democrats in voting to terminate a separate emergency declaration that Trump used to levy tariffs on Canada, and seven senators have cosponsored a bipartisan bill to declare that a tariff can only last 60 days if Congress doesn’t specifically approve it.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke powerfully on the Senate floor yesterday. “I don’t care if the president is a Republican or a Democrat. I don’t want to live under emergency rule. I don’t want to live where my representatives cannot speak for me and have a check and balance on power.”

Tariffs may seem an arcane topic for a resetting of checks and balances. But they have been part of the autocrat’s playbook from the start — and resistance to arbitrary taxes imposed by a too-powerful executive goes back a long way. After all, the Declaration of Independence charged King George III with “cutting off our trade with all parts of the world” while “imposing Taxes on us without our consent.”

“No taxation without representation.” Now that's a message.





Supreme Court Weighs in on Deportations

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 to overturn a lower court’s order blocking deportations of Venezuelan immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act

[link removed]

, a dangerous and outdated wartime authority. In theory, there are some bright spots in the decision, but in practice, there’s much reason for concern. “It is far too possible that in the short term, the administration will take advantage of the Court’s vague directive and send hundreds of additional Venezuelans to El Salvador without a meaningful opportunity for judicial review,” Elizabeth Goitein writes. Read more

Another Test of the Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court is considering a redistricting case from Louisiana that could undermine the Voting Rights Act. At issue in the case, argued in March, is whether a Black-majority congressional district drawn to address the illegal dilution of Black voters under a previous map is itself an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. “The result could further weaken the landmark civil rights law and fair representation for the nation’s growing communities of color,” Michael Li writes. Read more

[link removed]

PODCAST: Presidents Don’t Control Our Elections

In our latest podcast episode, Brennan Center experts discuss how Trump’s executive order on voting and elections, paired with the SAVE Act, threatens to disenfranchise millions of Americans and upend our election system. Listen on Spotify

[link removed]

, Apple Podcasts

[link removed]

, or your favorite podcast platform

[link removed]

.





Coming Up

VIRTUAL PREMIERE — Legislating in the Dynamic South

[link removed]

Thursday, April 10, 3–4 p.m. ET



With its racially and economically diverse landscape and a growing population, the South is an actively changing region. But the politics of Southern states do not reflect that dynamism. Most Southern state legislatures are controlled by one-party supermajorities, and their members do not resemble the public they represent.



The status quo may not last, though. Newly elected legislators are tearing down barriers to effective policymaking and working to pass laws that respond to the changing electorate. It’s possible to imagine a totally different Southern political landscape just over the horizon, with competitive elections staffing governments that are responsive to the people.



Watch the virtual premiere of a previously recorded conversation with some of the South’s emerging lawmakers, who discussed the challenges and opportunities of their work. RSVP today

[link removed]



Produced in partnership with the National Center for the Study of Civil Rights and African-American Culture at Alabama State University

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Elizabeth Goitein on legal challenges against new tariffs // POLITICO

Douglas Keith on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race // WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL

Sean Morales-Doyle on the executive order on elections // NEWSDAY

Lawrence Norden on the risk of voter confusion ahead of the 2026 midterms // ASSOCIATED PRESS

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]