Could Trump Impose More Tariffs Without Congressional Approval?
If he is returned to the White House, former President Donald Trump promises new rounds of higher tariffs that would target nearly all imports into the United States, drive up prices for consumers and businesses, and weaken America’s economy.
But campaign trail promises often melt away under the practical and legal realities of governing. To implement their visions for the country, presidents usually need to gain approval from Congress and/or the courts rather than applause from the fanatical partisans who show up to campaign rallies. That’s fundamental to how the federal government is supposed to work, thanks to the Constitution’s emphasis on separating powers and providing checks and balances.
Surely, then, a policy as dramatic and sweeping as what Trump has promised—10 percent (possibly 20 percent) universal tariffs, with higher tariffs targeting goods from China—would require approval from more than a single person. Right?
Probably not, warn Clark Packard and Scott Lincicome in a new report published this week by the Cato Institute, where the pair work as trade policy experts.
“Several US laws provide the president with vast and discretionary authority to unilaterally impose sweeping trade restrictions, and no institution—not Congress, not domestic courts, not US international agreements—provides a quick, surefire check on such actions,” they write. “Thus, while the durable implementation of broad and damaging US tariffs is not guaranteed, its risk—and related economic and geopolitical risks—will remain real and substantial until US law is changed to limit presidential tariff powers.”
Check the U.S. Constitution, and you’ll see that Article 1, Section 8 clearly gives Congress sole authority over “Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” Unfortunately, Congress traded away much of that power during the 20th century, beginning in the aftermath of the Great Depression—which was considerably worsened by a series of tariffs passed by Congress—and continuing with various laws passed in the 1960s and 1970s, as the Cato report details.
In theory, handing over those powers made sense. Lawmakers were more likely to be influenced by parochial interests and would favor protectionism that benefited some
Article from Latest
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.