So near as I can tell, there are 3 ways to end the Trump tariffs. Broadly speaking they are Executive, Legislative and Judicial. All 3 relate to the President’s Emergency Declaration Authority and its relationship to tariffs (or lack thereof). Let’s analyze each, starting with Executive.
1. Executive:
Looking at the statute governing termination of declared emergencies (50 U.S.C. §§1601-1651) it says:
Sec. 1622. National emergencies
(a) Termination methods
Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter
shall terminate if -
(1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency; or
(2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency.
Let’s take the second one (which I bolded), first. Pretty straightforward. The President issues a proclamation to end his declared emergency. Meaning Trump can end the “National Emergency” at anytime, and with it, end the tariffs, since the only “debatable” authority he has to impose tariffs is linked to being in a National Emergency (more on that later).
Will he do it?
Right now the chances seem very low. We have a situation where a Conman (Trump) is being fooled by another Conman (Navarro) into thinking that tariffs are the best economic thing since sliced bread. So he is pretty dug into his self-delusion that he is right about tariffs and it’s impossible for a narcissist to ever admit they are wrong. But given a fig leaf of a concession, he might declare victory and end the tariffs as he has done before. But there’s no sign of that yet.
UPDATE: Yes, I’m aware that Trump backed down some by reducing his Tariffs on all countries except China to 10% for 90 days, but this is not full concession by far. He also doubled down on China increasing his tariffs on them to a ridiculous 125%.
2. Legislative:
Warning, this gets complicated. While I think I have got it pretty much figured out, there are aspects that I’m not sure about. I will flag those as we go. So hang on as I try to guide you through the weeds.
Once again let’s start with the statute governing termination of declared emergencies (50 U.S.C. §§1601-1651), which with regard to Congress says:
Sec. 1622. National emergencies
(a) Termination methods
Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter
shall terminate if -
(1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency
Looking at the bolded part, it seems pretty clear that Congress has the power to terminate a Presidential Emergency Declaration by a joint resolution being passed by both Houses. But the part that I’m unclear about stems from the phrase “enacted into law”.
As some of you may remember from Schoolhouse Rock days, a bill passed by Congress cannot become a law until it is either signed by the President or a Presidential veto of the bill is overridden by a 2/3s majority in both Houses of Congress. However, there are such things as joint resolutions which do not involve the President. For example, Congress can overturn any regulation enacted by an executive branch agency within a set number of days of enactment by means of a joint resolution passed by both Houses. This type of joint resolution does NOT involve the President and becomes effective in terms of tossing aside said regulation immediately upon passage of both Houses. This was tried by the Republicans in Congress during the Biden administration. But it’s unclear to me whether Congress can terminate a National Emergency on its own like canceling a regulation or whether it has to initially go through the President like any other bill. The term in the statute (enacted into law) has me thinking it’s the latter, but I’m not sure. Anyone with a hard definitive answer, please chime in. I will cover why this is so significant later.
Now let’s dive a little more into the weeds by digging further into the statute to see how it prescribes how each House is supposed to process this termination resolution.
Sec. 1622. National emergencies
(c) Joint resolution; referral to Congressional committees; conference committee in event of disagreement; filing of report; termination procedure deemed part of rules of House and Senate
(1) A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall
otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
(2) Any joint resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall
otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
(3) Such a joint resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the
appropriate committee of the other House and shall be reported out by such committee
together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
First, looking at the first set of text I bolded with regard to the Senate, it states that debate is equally divided and that the resolution must be voted on within 3 calendar days of its introduction. Which I interpret to mean that Senate debate on such a resolution is limited to 3 days per the statute and therefore cannot be filibustered. This would explain why the Joint Resolution passed by the Senate earlier this month to end the National Emergency with regard to the Canadian tariffs, was not filibustered by a GOP MAGA Senator. So I think it’s safe to say that joint resolutions to end a Presidential National Emergency cannot be filibustered and must be given a simple majority vote within 3 days per the statute.
Next, let’s look at the second set of text I bolded with regard to referring such a joint resolution passed by one House to the other House. As an example, let’s look at the current joint resolution to end the “emergency” with regard to the Canadian tariffs which was passed by the Senate. The statute says the resolution passed by the Senate “shall be referred to the appropriate committee” of the House and “shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee” and “shall be voted upon within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported“. But so far, there’s been no action in the House on the Senate passed joint resolution, despite what seem to be mandatory timeframes in the statute. This left me scratching my head as to what’s going on?
Any regular piece of legislation coming over from the Senate, sits in a relevant House Committee until either the Committee votes to send it to the floor for a vote (at the Direction of the Speaker) or it is discharged from the Committee by means of a Discharge Petition. However, the above statute seems to set definitive timeframes for the joint resolution to be reported out by the Committee and voted on, on the House floor. So I was not sure what’s going on in this case, until I read this 1BQ comment. Here’s an excerpt from 1BQ’s comment:
The way they’re getting around the requirement is… they’re going to stop counting days. Not kidding:
Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.
Yes, this means the House Rules Committee controlled by Republicans voted to re-define the commonly used term a “calendar day” used in the emergency termination statute to mean a period of time that extends to the end of the 119th Congress, but only with respect to Trump’s Emergency Declaration.
WTF!!!!!
So as crazy as it sounds, the vote of a single House committee is supposed to change the meaning of the term “calendar day” to try to get around the simple language of the statute. For me, this doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test.
What’s even crazier is this 1BQ comment:
GOP House leaders are no doubt trying to protect Members in swing districts where Mr. Trump’s tariffs are unpopular.
So GOP House Leaders apparently think that their constituents who are angry as hell about the Trump tariffs will somehow accept the claim that Congress can’t do anything about it because of a stupid House Rules’ change they made. Can you say DELUSIONAL!
Furthermore, Democrats better damn well take this to court. Using a Committee Rule change to get around the clear language of a statute, you would think has got to be an illegal violation of the statute.
Also, you may have heard some rumblings about another Bipartisan Bill being introduced in the Senate. This one has nothing to do with terminating Trump’s FAKE National Emergency, but reportedly is structured to end the tariffs in 60 days unless Congress acts to extend them, basically directly taking back the Congresses Constitutional authority over tariffs that Trump stole. So far, 7 Senate Republicans have joined all the Democrats in support of this bill. Similar legislation is reportedly being considered in the House. However, since I don’t think it involves Trump’s Emergency Declaration, the above statute probably doesn’t apply. Meaning this legislation would be subject to a filibuster in the Senate and a Presidential veto. So it has very little chance of stopping Trump’s tariffs.
Going back to my original question of whether a joint resolution to terminate a Presidentially declared National Emergency can be vetoed, if it can be, it would mean we would need the votes of 20 GOP Senators and 76 GOP Representatives to override a Trump veto and end the emergency and tariffs. Presently a very high hill to climb.
3. Judicial:
The last option to halt the tariffs, which might be the best, or at least the least worse of the three options, is to take the Trump administration to court. It is the only option which Trump definitely has no direct control over. In a case of what could be called “strange bedfellows”, that is happening.
From EricAZ’s Diary:
In a twist that wouldn’t be believed in the worst TV movie, the surviving Koch Brother and Supreme Court shadow boss Leonard Leo are moving to crush Trump and his tariffs.
So the two most unlikely characters have filed suit in Federal Court, because let’s face it, he’s hurting the thing they value most, their pocketbooks. The premise of their case is this:
“Congress has sole authority to control tariffs, which it has done by passing detailed tariff statutes. The President cannot bypass those statutes by invoking ‘emergency’ authority in another statute that does not mention tariffs,” the group continued. “His attempt to use the IEEPA [an old law] this way not only violates the law as written, but it also invites application of the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine, which tells courts not to discern policies of ‘vast economic and political significance’ in a law without explicit congressional authorization.”
As a layperson, their case seems both Constitutionally and Legally solid. De-Coupling Congresses authority over tariffs from the President’s Emergency Declaration power, seems like a good legal strategy. But when it reaches this Supreme Court, which it will, pretty much anything can happen.
Although my knee jerk reaction is at least 5 of the 6 Republican appointed Justices will give Trump whatever power he desires, this case may be different for a couple of reasons.
Leonard Leo is the one who personally selected many of these 6 Justices and he didn’t do it to satisfy Trump’s interests, he did it to satisfy his own. So it’s possible that when these Justices are forced to choose between representing the mega-billionaires that got them nominated or Trump, they might choose the former over the latter.
The second reason is kind of obvious. These Justices likely have much of their fortunes tied up in the Stock Market. So there is definitely incentive for them to rule against Trump so they can preserve their personal fortunes.
Well that’s it! I wish I could have painted a more optimistic picture of the chances of stopping Trump’s tariffs in the near future, but unfortunately this is the reality of the situation as I see it, and this being a reality-based community, I tried to keep REAL.
Talk amongst yourselves. I will try to check in later.
