In February, President Trump issued executive orders raising tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico. In April, he slapped a 50 percent tariff on countries that the U.S. has a trade deficit with and a minimum 10 percent tariff on all others.
The administration claimed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1997 gives the president the authority to declare a national emergency and take immediate action to protect the country. Illicit trafficking in fentanyl along with threats to border security allegedly justified the tariffs imposed on China, Canada and Mexico.
America’s large trade deficit was the justification for the “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed on countries throughout the world.
Trump’s actions marked the first time the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been used to increase tariffs.
Last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court on International Trade (comprised of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees) declared that Trump had overstepped his authority. The tariffs, the judges noted, were not relevant to reducing fentanyl trafficking or illegal immigration. And since the U.S. has had a trade deficit for each of the last 47 years, it is difficult to argue that it constitutes a national emergency. A few days later, an appeals court allowed the administration to continue to collect tariffs while litigation moves through the courts.
In the meantime, the silence from Republican members of Congress — the body which, according to Article I of the Constitution, alone has the authority to raise and spend revenue — is deafening.
It is worth noting that before Jan. 20, 2025, many of congressional Republicans endorsed a proposal limiting the president’s power to act unilaterally by declaring national emergencies.
In 2019, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the “Article One Act.” The bill would have terminated all national emergency declarations after 30 days unless both houses of Congress voted to extend them. Calling for “real action, as opposed to symbolic show votes that don’t address the root of the problem,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) signed on as a cosponsor.
Fifteen senators, including nine Republicans, signed a bipartisan letter urging Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to have the full Senate consider the Article One Act. The aim of the legislation, the letter indicated, “is simple but fundamental: Congress cannot continue to cede its powers to another branch, regardless of who is president, and which party holds a majority.” Members of Congress “who are troubled by emergency declarations,” Lee emphasized, “only have themselves to blame.”
Nothing happened.
In 2023, Lee reintroduced the Article One Act. “Law-making by proclamation,” he asserted, “runs directly counter to the vision of our Founders and undermines the safeguards protecting our freedom. It is high time that Congress reclaimed the legislative power and restored constitutional balance to our system.” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), as he endorsed the Article One Act in the House, reminded his colleagues that “the presidency was never meant to have monarchical power over the American people.” The legislation did not get a floor vote in either chamber.
Executive orders and national emergency declarations — used all too frequently by Obama, Trump and Biden to bypass Congress — pose a clear and present danger to the system of checks and balances that has served this country well for over 200 years. And the problem of executive overreach is getting worse. In the first 100 days of his second term, Trump has issued executive orders and declared national emergencies at a faster pace than any president in modern history.
But Republicans in Congress no longer seem troubled by executive orders based on emergency declarations. In March, Lee introduced a bill that differed dramatically in substance and tone from the Article One Act. The “Restraining Judicial Insurrectionists Act of 2025” mandated that a three-judge panel review all lower court injunctions against the president and grants of declaratory relief, followed by an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court. “American government cannot function if the legitimate orders of our commander-in-chief can be overruled at the whim of a single district judge,” Lee declared.
In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) refused to permit a floor vote to repeal Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs.” Every president, “no matter the party,” Johnson opined, has “a broad degree of latitude” over trade. The Senate rejected a similar measure with a 49-49 vote; neither Lee, Grassley nor any other Republican who signed onto the 2019 Article One Act letter supported the legislation.
Justice Anthony Kennedy warned in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the case declaring the line-item veto to be unconstitutional, that the separation of powers is violated and liberty is threatened when spending is “determined by the executive alone” and the president has the power “to reward one group and punish another, help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, favor one State and ignore another.”
Clearly, many congressional Republicans agree. But if they continue to choose partisan self-interest over principle, voters will have good reason to blame them — and the Trump administration — for the weakening of our democratic institutions.
Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.