I Challenge Anyone To Come Up With the Statutory Support for This
Via the WSJ (free link here)
The U.S. will impose an additional 10% tariff on Canada, President Trump said on Saturday, a punitive measure in response to an ad campaign that he said misrepresented comments by former President Ronald Reagan.
“Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Saturday.
The ad campaign, released by the Canadian province of Ontario, uses audio from a 1987 radio address delivered by Reagan, in which he explains that despite putting tariffs on Japanese semiconductors that year, he was committed to free-trade policies. While tariffs can look patriotic, Reagan said, “over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer,” lead to “fierce trade wars” and result in lost jobs.
Obviously based on the law where Congress delegates the power to set tariffs to the President in any case where another country is perceived as dissing us. To the extent there is a funny part in all this, it is this portion:
Trump had threatened to cut off trade talks with Canada on Thursday over the ad, claiming it misrepresents Reagan’s comments, and was being used to influence the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of a hearing on the administration’s tariffs next month.
The Supreme Court is set to evaluate several complaints that have argued (with much justification, imo) that President Trump's tariffs go well beyond any statutory authority he might have (the President very clearly has zero Constitutional authority to set tariffs as the power to do so is 100% explicitly vested in Congress, so any power he does have must be an explicit delegation of power from Congress). If the WSJ is correct in the above statement, it is hilarious to think that Trump believes his case on tariffs at the Supreme Court will be aided by an even more outrageous arbitrary exercise of such unilateral taxing power.
Silver lining: At least future economists will have solid data and case studies about the impact of ending the rule of law.
Coyote: President Trump's tariffs go well beyond any statutory authority …
The claimed authority is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S. Code § 1701, which grants the president authorities to respond to an “unusual and extraordinary threat”. Trump seized power the traditional way—through emergency powers.
The USA republican form of government is broken, with the president essentially ruling by decree. The Congress and the Supreme Court have enabled Trump. Even if the Court or Congress try to rein in presidential powers at a later date, much of the damage is permanent.
Apparently, there are multiple sources for his authority to negotiate rates. https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_16bb0d8e-0b18-49d7-a47e-34e04f4307c5
It always amuses me that Trump is so much better at theater than the democrats and can kick them repeatedly just by talking.
Robert Briggs: Apparently, there are multiple sources for his authority to negotiate rates.
Only the IEEPA provides the power for direct presidential action. The NEA and Trade Act only provide the procedural foundation for the IEEPA. Courts have found that the president exceeded his authority under IEEPA and under Article I of the US Constitution, but the decision is on appeal to the Supreme Court in United States v. V.O.S. Selections.
The point remains that the republican form of government does not envision providing the power to a single person to upend the entire US and global economies, to unilaterally start wars, and to use the justice system to punish opponents. Anyone who supports Trump's wielding of such autocratic power is no friend of republican government.