Cato Institute challenges Trump’s emergency tariffs as executive overreach

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, is raising concerns about President Donald Trump’s use of emergency tariffs and its impact on executive power. In a new amicus brief filed in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Cato argues that the president has exceeded his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing steep tariffs on imports from countries such as China, Mexico, and Canada.

According to Cato, the president’s actions undermine the Constitution’s separation of powers and expand executive authority over trade in ways that were not intended by Congress. Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at Cato, explained in an interview with Fox News Digital that the administration has failed to provide a clear limit on its authority under IEEPA. He pointed out that tariff rates have gone up to 145% on some products from China, and the lack of a defining principle indicates that the administration believes there is no real cap on its authority.

The U.S. Court of International Trade previously ruled that the president’s use of IEEPA in this case was not legally authorized. The court stated that the law does not permit the use of tariffs as a general tool to address issues such as drug trafficking or trade imbalances. Skorup emphasized that the administration’s inability to articulate a cap on its authority under IEEPA highlights the need for judicial intervention to draw the line on executive power.

While the administration has defended its actions by citing national emergencies such as the fentanyl crisis and trade vulnerabilities, Cato argues that these justifications go beyond what most Americans would recognize as a legitimate use of emergency powers. Skorup noted that businesses like V.O.S. Selections, which rely on imports, have faced challenges in planning ahead due to the uncertainty surrounding tariffs.

If the appeals court rules in favor of the administration, it could set a precedent for future presidents to wield immense economic power with little oversight. Skorup warned that such a decision would blur the separation of powers that the Constitution aims to protect. A decision from the appeals court is expected later this year.

In conclusion, the Cato Institute’s amicus brief highlights the need for clear limits on executive authority in the realm of trade policy. By challenging the administration’s use of emergency tariffs, Cato seeks to uphold the principles of separation of powers and ensure that presidential powers are not unchecked.