The United States is currently facing a multitude of crises, as highlighted by President Trump's administration. Among these are a national emergency at the southern border, an energy emergency, and an economic emergency. Each of these emergencies has been leveraged by the president to implement significant policies, ranging from boosting fossil fuel production to accelerating the construction of the border wall with Mexico, as well as instituting steep tariffs. The use of emergency powers by presidents has been increasing in recent years, but Trump made headlines by invoking these powers eight times within his first 100 days in office—more than any other modern president during the same time frame.
While challenges to Trump's emergency declarations have yet to reach the Supreme Court, legal experts express concern that his approach could disrupt the constitutional balance of power. If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, it could grant the president broader authority to act without congressional approval. Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor of sociology and international affairs at Princeton University, warns that this aggressive use of executive power may lead the nation down a perilous path, comparing it to the decline of democracies in other regions.
The White House maintains that Trump's invocation of emergency powers is justified. According to press secretary Karoline Leavitt, these powers are essential to rectify failures inherited from previous administrations, citing issues like border security, the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, climate regulations, inflation, and trade deficits as pressing matters that necessitate immediate action.
However, critics argue that many of Trump's declared emergencies lack the immediacy that warrants such measures. For instance, the declaration of a national energy emergency claims the need for a reliable and diverse energy supply, despite the absence of a current fuel shortage in the United States. Similarly, Trump characterized the persistent trade deficit as a national emergency, despite the fact that trade deficits have been a long-standing issue.
The president holds the authority to declare a national emergency at any time without congressional approval, thereby temporarily enhancing executive powers. This mechanism is designed for rare moments of crisis, enabling the president to act swiftly when legislative procedures may be too slow. However, the definition of what constitutes an emergency remains ambiguous, relying heavily on the president's judgment.
Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice has expressed concerns about the potential abuse of these powers. She notes that while some emergency powers require congressional approval, many do not, leaving room for interpretation that could lead to overreach. Goitein emphasizes the need for courts to act as a safeguard against misuse of emergency powers, acknowledging that the framework established by Congress has few built-in protections.
Trump has declared a total of 21 national emergencies during his tenure, with eight in his second term and 13 in his first term. In comparison, President Joe Biden declared 11 emergencies, President Barack Obama declared 12 over eight years, and George W. Bush declared 14. This alarming frequency of emergency declarations raises eyebrows among constitutional experts, particularly because Trump has utilized these powers to expedite his domestic policy agenda rather than responding to crises, which has traditionally been the precedent.
Goitein points out that Trump's reliance on emergency powers to bypass Congress is an inappropriate use of these authorities. This trend began in his first term when he declared a national emergency to fund the southern border wall after Congress denied full funding. Legal challenges ensued but did not reach the Supreme Court before Biden's administration took office and canceled the border emergency.
Efforts to limit the scope of emergency powers have been ongoing but face significant hurdles. The National Emergencies Act, enacted in 1976, was intended to impose checks on presidential power in response to abuses by previous administrations. However, a Supreme Court ruling in 1983 deemed legislative vetoes unconstitutional, making it more challenging for Congress to terminate emergency declarations. While Congress can still end a national emergency, such actions are rare and require a two-thirds majority in both chambers.
Jennifer Hillman, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, suggests that the limitations established in the 1970s may no longer be sufficient, especially as Trump pushes the boundaries of executive power. Calls for reform have emerged, including a bipartisan effort in 2019 aimed at curbing these powers, which gained traction in committee votes but ultimately stalled.
Legal challenges to Trump's emergency declarations, particularly regarding tariffs, are currently progressing through the courts. While some courts have ruled that Trump has overstepped his authority, the administration has appealed these decisions. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has stated that the administration intends to pursue these legal battles all the way to the Supreme Court.
Experts remain divided on how the Supreme Court may rule in these cases. As Scheppele warns, the implications of the Court's decision extend beyond tariffs; it could fundamentally alter the relationship between Congress and the presidency concerning the declaration of emergencies. If the Court determines that Congress cannot impose rules on the president regarding emergency declarations, it could significantly undermine the constitutional balance of power in the United States.
