Trumped-Up Tariffs
- WULR Team
- 9 hours ago
- 4 min read
Legality or Just a Power Grab?
Written in Spring, 2025
Written by Leo Xiao
Long before entering politics, Donald Trump championed tariffs as a cornerstone of his economic philosophy — a stance as consistent as his hairspray regimen. In a 1990s interview with Diane Sawyer, a brash pre-politics Trump declared, “I believe very strongly in tariffs,” criticizing Japan, West Germany, Saudi Arabia and South Korea for “ripping off” America and stating that we have to tax, tariff, protect — that's how we save this country.” Fast forward to 2025, and Trump’s tariff playbook has become more aggressive. Doubling down on his “America First” doctrine has unleashed a new wave of import taxes on Taiwanese semiconductors, Italian leather goods and Canadian timber, some of America’s closest allies. But as resistance from the Democrats rises and anger from his Republican allies grows, the billion-dollar question remains: Are these levies a legitimate economic shield or just a ridiculous flex of executive muscle?
While Trump's affinity for tariffs isn’t new, his rationale has evolved. In the ‘90s, his complaints mostly focused on trade deficits with allies like Japan and Germany. Still, fast forward to his presidency, tariffs have become a cudgel against China and framed as retaliation for intellectual property theft and unfair subsidies, with the White House now claiming tariffs as essential to “protect national security” and not to “render our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries”. Rewinding to his first term, Trump invoked Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This Cold War-era statute allowed tariffs for “national security” reasons and was used to justify steel and aluminum tariffs on Western allies like Canada and the European Union. The move baffled legal experts. “This is not the way we do business, and certainly not between longstanding partners, friends and allies,” scoffed European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.
In 2025, this brazen use of tariffs faced unprecedented scrutiny. One of the most striking blows came from within Trump’s party. Senators Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell broke ranks to openly criticize the administration’s tariff spree. Consumer Choice Center reports that Senator Paul lambasted the tariffs as “taxation without representation,” arguing, “Unchecked executive actions enacting tariffs tax our citizens, threaten our economy, raise prices for everyday goods and erode the system of checks and balances that our founders so carefully crafted”. Senator McConnell, typically a Trump ally, voiced uncharacteristic alarm over collateral damage to Kentucky’s bourbon and automotive sectors, stating on X that “tariffs are bad policy, and trade wars with our partners hurt working people most”. As legal scholars parsed Paul’s “unchecked executive actions” statement, the debate crystallized a defining tension of the 2025 tariff story between executive ambition and the limits of power.
The legality of Trump’s tariffs hinges on a thorny question: How much power should Congress cede to the executive on trade? While the Constitution grants Congress authority over commerce, lawmakers have, over several decades, decided to delegate significant leeway to presidents through statutes like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. These laws, designed as tools to address emergencies and unfair trade practices, have become cornerstones in debates over executive overreach, particularly as Trump’s tariffs test the boundaries of what constitutes “national security” and “economic fairness.” Historically, the uses of Sections 232 and 301 were rare and narrowly targeted, with one example being President Ronald Reagan’s invocation in 1986 to limit machine tool imports from Japan to mitigate supply chain risks for the defense industry, but they have largely remained dormant since then.
By contrast, Trump wielded these sections as sledgehammers. His 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs, applied to allies like Canada and the EU under Section 232, marked the first time the law was used broadly against friendly nations. “This is dumb. Europe, Canada and Mexico are not China, and you don't treat allies the same way you treat opponents,” argued Senator Pat Toomey during congressional hearings, reports Politico. Legal experts noted that the Commerce Department's 2023 report justifying the tariffs cited economic factors like job losses, not just military needs, stretching the law's original intent.
The administration’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has also raised eyebrows. Designed primarily to address crises like terrorism or nuclear proliferation, Trump used it in 2025 to declare a national emergency over fentanyl trafficking, imposing tariffs on Mexican and Canadian goods. The Michigan Law Review reports legal scholars like Vanderbilt's Professor Sitaraman and UMich’s Professor Meyer argue this stretches IEEPA beyond recognition, stating how Trump's use of it “is likely to run afoul of the MQD when used for national security purposes”.
Faced with executive overreach, bipartisan efforts to claw back tariff authority have gained momentum. In April 2025, the Senate passed a landmark measure to repeal tariffs on Canadian goods, with four Republicans breaking ranks to join Democrats in defiance of Trump’s protests. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and Democrat Senator Maria Cantwell spearheaded the Trade Review Act of 2025, a bipartisan bill requiring congressional approval for tariffs imposed under Section 232 or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Yet the bill faces hurdles, with many Republicans wary of crossing Trump and opposing constraints on presidential power. Democrats are split as well, with progressives like Warren supporting reining in Trump but fearing limiting future presidents’ ability to combat climate change or labor abuses abroad. The debate unveils a fascinating paradox where Congress wants oversight but lacks the political will to reclaim it.
The long-term stakes are profound. If Trump's tariffs aren’t opposed, future presidents could exploit national security claims to justify tariffs on everything from pharmaceuticals to rare earth minerals. Conversely, a judicial rebuke could reassert congressional authority only if lawmakers enforce it. Trump’s tariffs have exposed a constitutional fault line. The president insists they defend America, yet many critics see it as a power grab that weakens Congress, alienates allies and destabilizes global trade. As legal battles continue to rage and Congress dithers, the question remains: Can a modern democracy balance national security with institutional checks?
