Washington– president Donald Trump See Definitions – or the threat of it – as a powerful tool to subject nations to his will.
He used it in an unprecedented way, not just as a basis His economic agendabut also as its cornerstone Foreign policy In his second term.
He used import taxes as a threat To secure a ceasefireOf countries at war. He used it to force countries to promise to do more Stop people and drugs from flowing across their borders. He used them, In the case of Brazil, As political pressure because its judicial system prosecuted a former leader who was a Trump ally, and in a The last explosion With Canada, as a punishment for A TV commercial.
this week, The Supreme Court hears arguments On whether the Republican president overstepped federal law with many of his tariffs. Ruling against him It could limit or even eliminate that rapid and overt influence on which much of his foreign policy depended.
Trump has increasingly expressed alarm and concern about the impending decision in a case he says is one of the most important in US history.
He said it would be a “disaster” for the United States if the justices failed to overturn lower court rulings that found he went too far in using the Emergency Powers Act to put his tariffs into effect. Trump has indicated that he may take the highly unusual step of attending the arguments in person.
The Justice Department, in defending the tariffs, has highlighted Trump’s expansive approach, arguing that trade sanctions are part of his authority in foreign affairs, an area in which courts should not second-guess the president.
Earlier this year, two lower courts and most judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Trump did not have authority under the law. The law of international economic powers in emergency situations, Or IEEPA, to set tariffs — a power the Constitution gives to Congress. However, some dissenting justices on the court said the 1977 law allows the president to regulate imports during emergencies without specific restrictions.
The courts left the definitions in place while the Supreme Court considered the issue. On the other hand, Trump has continued to use them in his attempt to pressure or punish other countries over trade-related — and unrelated — matters.
“The fact of the matter is that President Trump acted lawfully by using the tariff authorities granted to him by Congress in the IEEPA to deal with a national emergency and protect our national security and economy,” White House spokesman Khush Desai said in a statement. “We look forward to a final victory in this matter with the Supreme Court.”
Contemporary presidents have used financial sanctions such as asset freezes or trade obstructions, not tariffs, to achieve their foreign policy and national security goals, said Josh Lipsky, a former White House and State Department staffer under Obama who is now head of the Atlantic Council’s international economics section.
There are other laws that presidents can use to impose tariffs. But it requires a months-long process to justify prices.
Trump, citing the International Economic Emergency Act, is moving faster and more dramatically. He is signing executive orders imposing new prices and making social media posts threatening additional import taxes, as he did in late October when he was angered by an anti-tariff television ad aired by the province of Ontario.
“Presidents have typically treated tariffs like a scalpel, not a sledgehammer,” Lipsky said.
In contrast, Trump has used tariffs as the backbone of his national security and foreign policy agenda, Lipsky said. He added: “All of this is interconnected and tariffs are at the heart of it.”
For example, earlier this year, Trump threatened to impose a 30% tariff on European imports, a significant increase from 1.2% before he took office. In an effort to secure Trump’s support for NATO’s military support and security guarantees for Ukraine in its war with Russia, the European Union Make a deal To settle customs duties at 15%.
European Union Commission It faced criticism from companies and member states To give up so much. but Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčović He said the settlement “is not just about trade. It is about security. It is about Ukraine.”
Trump was able to “use it in specific circumstances to get better deals — not just trade deals — but better deals overall than he could have gotten otherwise,” Lipsky said. “On the other hand, you might say there will probably be some backlash.”
Trump’s aggressive tariffs have destabilized relations with America’s friends and enemies. Some have responded by becoming more protectionist or looking to strengthen relations with China, which has exacerbated the problem He tried to be seen as a promoter of free trade.
There is also an impact on the pocketbook. Some companies have passed Some costs consumers by raising prices, while others waited to see where tariff rates would end.
Traditionally, tariffs have been used only as a tool to address trade practices.
“There is literally no precedent for the way President Trump is using it,” said Emily Kilcrease, who was deputy assistant US Trade Representative and previously worked on trade issues at the National Security Council as a civilian staffer during the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations.
“Using tariffs the way President Trump is is just a broad attack on the economy as a way to motivate a foreign government to change its position,” said Kilcrease, who is now director of the Center for a New American Security think tank.
But she said the issue was not clear-cut. Kilcrease said she believes there is a “good chance” the Supreme Court will side with Trump because the IEEPA gives the president “broad and flexible emergency powers.”
The case is also before the Supreme Court, which has so far been reluctant to examine Trump’s widespread use of executive powers.
If the court restrains Trump, it could leave foreign governments wondering whether they will try to renegotiate trade agreements recently struck with the Trump administration, experts said. But there are also political realities at play, because reneging on agreements may affect foreign policy or other economic priorities.
Kilcrease said the administration could focus on trying to use other laws to justify tariffs, although that could mean a more complicated and bureaucratic process.
“This certainly doesn’t take tariffs off the table,” she added. “It makes them a little slower.”
___
Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.