Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
- What Congress Intended in 1977
- The Statute’s Text: Does “Control” Include Tariffs?
- How “Emergency” Became “Routine”
- The Cuba Order’s Novel Mechanism
- Why Congressional Oversight Stopped Working
- The Reform That Keeps Failing
- What the Supreme Court Might Do
- Effects on Prices, Supply Chains, and Constitutional Limits
- Where This Goes Next
The legal authority Trump cited? A 1977 law called IEEPA, which Congress designed to limit presidential power after decades of overreach.
What Congress Intended in 1977
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act—IEEPA for short—emerged from one of those rare moments when Congress reins in power.
One emergency from 1933 addressed a banking crisis that had been resolved for four decades. Another, declared during the Korean War, was still on the books 27 years later. Presidents had simply renewed these emergencies annually, like magazine subscriptions nobody remembered canceling.
The catalyst for reform came when the Nixon administration invaded Cambodia without Congressional authorization, then threatened to fund the operation using a Civil War-era statute called the Feed and Forage Act when Congress tried to cut off money. The brazenness of repurposing a 19th-century law about feeding Army horses to circumvent Congressional war powers finally pushed lawmakers to act.
Congress passed two laws. One, the National Emergencies Act of 1976, created procedures for declaring and terminating emergencies. IEEPA, passed the following year, was supposed to clarify and restrict economic powers—replacing the sweeping authorities of the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act with something more carefully bounded.
The key restriction: presidents could only invoke IEEPA when facing an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy, or the economy that originates abroad. Congress wanted powers reserved for genuine emergencies—sudden crises requiring immediate action before the legislative process could respond.
The Statute’s Text: Does “Control” Include Tariffs?
IEEPA’s key language seems simple but isn’t. Does “control” mean the president can impose tariffs? The administration says yes—tariffs are one form of control, a traditional tool for managing trade flows.
The distinction matters because the Constitution explicitly gives Congress—not the president—the power to tax and raise revenue. The Framers remembered what happened when King George III claimed the power to tax without representation. They didn’t want American presidents having that power either.
In 1971, Nixon imposed a 10% tariff on all imports under the Trading with the Enemy Act, using language nearly identical to what Congress later adopted in IEEPA. A court upheld Nixon’s tariff. Two years later, when Congress passed IEEPA using the same “regulate importation” phrase, did that mean Congress approved the idea that “regulate” means tariffs?
Except Congress also passed something else in 1974: Section 122 of the Trade Act, which explicitly granted presidents tariff power—limited to 15% and lasting no more than 150 days. If Congress thought IEEPA’s “regulate” language already authorized unlimited tariffs for unlimited duration, why bother passing Section 122 with its careful restrictions?
The Supreme Court heard arguments on this question in November 2025. A decision is expected soon. The outcome will determine whether the Cuba tariffs—and the broader regime affecting virtually every trading partner—can survive legal challenge.
How “Emergency” Became “Routine”
The Iran sanctions declaration from 1979 is still in effect. Forty-seven years later, it has been renewed annually by every president since Carter, regardless of party. What began as a response to a specific crisis that ended in 1981 has become a permanent sanctions regime administered under perpetual authority.
Clinton declared emergencies regarding Iraq, Sudan, and Libya. Bush added North Korea and Myanmar. Obama declared emergencies for Somalia, Libya, and transnational criminal organizations. Each president added layers, and most never terminated.
The statute designed for rare, extraordinary circumstances now gets invoked an average of 1.5 times per year.
Some of these declarations stretch the meaning of “emergency” past recognition. The drug trafficking declaration addresses a serious problem that’s persisted for years and is fundamentally a domestic law enforcement matter Congress could legislate about. The one regarding trade deficits and foreign economic practices—used to justify tariffs on virtually every country—cites problems that have existed for decades.
If persistent, longstanding policy challenges constitute “unusual and extraordinary threats,” then the threshold for IEEPA has effectively disappeared.
The Cuba Order’s Novel Mechanism
The Cuba order does something previous IEEPA declarations haven’t tried: it creates a system for imposing tariffs on third countries based on their private commercial decisions involving a nation the U.S. has sanctioned.
The mechanism works like this: The Commerce Department determines which countries supply oil to Cuba, including “indirectly” through intermediaries. The State Department then consults with Treasury, Commerce, Homeland Security, and the Trade Representative to decide whether tariffs should be imposed and at what rate. The president makes the final call.
The order characterizes Cuba’s relationships with Russia, China, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah—plus its hosting of Russian signals intelligence facilities—as an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to American national security. These relationships aren’t new. Cuba’s ties to these actors are longstanding features of Caribbean geopolitics, not sudden developments.
The order’s innovation is using tariff power not to regulate imports from Cuba itself, but to penalize entirely separate countries for their trade with Cuba. This extends IEEPA’s reach in a way that raises questions even some supporters of broad power find troubling.
Venezuela already operates under U.S. sanctions, so additional tariffs might have limited practical effect. But the precedent matters. If the president can impose tariffs on any country that trades with a nation he’s declared a threat, then American market access becomes a lever for controlling global commerce far beyond U.S. borders.
Why Congressional Oversight Stopped Working
IEEPA was supposed to restore Congressional checks on power. As originally written, IEEPA included what’s called a “legislative veto”—Congress could cancel an emergency with a simple majority vote, a vote that didn’t need presidential approval. This was a genuine check: a simple majority of both houses could end things regardless of opposition.
Then came a 1983 Supreme Court case about immigration. The Court said Congress couldn’t cancel things with a simple vote because that let Congress take binding action without giving the president a chance to veto. The decision was meant to protect prerogatives. Instead, it devastated Congressional oversight of emergencies.
Congress replaced the legislative veto with a formal vote to cancel the emergency—which the president can veto. Now, to terminate one, Congress must pass legislation with simple majorities in both houses, then get two-thirds of both houses to vote against the president. This means support from over one-third of either house can maintain any emergency indefinitely.
Congress has almost never successfully terminated an emergency.
Presidents can declare emergencies with a signature. Ending them requires overcoming a veto—a threshold rarely achieved on contested matters.
The Reform That Keeps Failing
A straightforward fix exists: flip the burden. Instead of requiring Congress to muster supermajorities to terminate emergencies, require them to expire automatically unless Congress affirmatively approves them.
The ARTICLE ONE Act would do exactly this. Any declaration would expire after 30 days unless Congress passed a joint resolution approving it.
The proposal has drawn bipartisan support in principle. Scholars from both sides of the political divide support it. If powers are supposed to be temporary responses to genuine crises, the default should be expiration, not perpetuation.
Yet the ARTICLE ONE Act hasn’t been enacted. When a president believes something serves his interests, he opposes reform. Opposition party members face difficult choices: voting against a national security declaration risks being portrayed as weak, even when the objection is about constitutional principle. Meanwhile, the president’s party has little incentive to constrain power they currently control—an incentive that will reverse when power changes hands.
Even though scholars and good-government advocates agree IEEPA needs reform, the politicians who could enact reform face incentives not to. The current Congress hasn’t seriously pursued the ARTICLE ONE Act. Structural problems persist because the people in power benefit from those structures.
What the Supreme Court Might Do
The legal challenge to the tariffs—a case called V.O.S. Selections against Trump—was argued before the Supreme Court in November 2025. A decision is expected soon, and it could reshape power in ways that extend far beyond trade policy.
The government’s argument emphasizes deference to national security judgments and the plain language of “regulate.” The challengers argue that “regulate” doesn’t include taxation, that Congress’s separate grant of limited tariff power in Section 122 shows IEEPA wasn’t meant to authorize unlimited tariffs, and that allowing presidents to impose taxes without Congressional approval violates the system where Congress, the president, and courts each have separate powers.
When an agency or branch claims to discover vast powers in modest statutory language, the Supreme Court has increasingly demanded clear Congressional authorization. If forgiving student loans requires explicit Congressional approval, how can unlimited power to tax imports spring from the word “regulate” in a statute about emergencies?
The Court has historically been deferential to national security claims. In a landmark case from the Iran hostage crisis, the Supreme Court upheld Carter’s emergency powers, establishing that courts should give presidents substantial latitude in genuine emergencies.
But genuine emergencies are sudden and require immediate action before Congress can respond. Longstanding features of geopolitics that Congress could address through legislation present different questions.
If the Court upholds the government’s interpretation, IEEPA’s transformation from emergency power to routine policy tool will be complete. Presidents will have discovered in a 1977 statute designed to limit their power an ability to impose worldwide tariffs without Congressional approval—exactly the kind of unilateral taxation power the Constitution was designed to prevent.
If the Court rules against the government, the entire tariff regime collapses, along with the Cuba order. Importers would likely be entitled to refunds already collected. Future presidents would need to either persuade Congress to grant explicit power or find different tools for economic coercion.
Effects on Prices, Supply Chains, and Constitutional Limits
The constitutional questions here affect prices Americans pay for goods, the stability of supply chains, and whether the government operates under the idea that everyone follows the same rules, including the president.
If the Cuba order stands and Mexico faces substantial tariffs for supplying oil to Cuba, those costs get passed to American consumers. Mexican-origin goods and components are embedded throughout the economy—automobiles, electronics, agricultural products, manufactured goods. A 25% tariff on Mexican imports would ripple through prices at grocery stores, car dealerships, and electronics retailers.
If presidents can impose tariffs through declarations without Congressional approval, then one of the Constitution’s core checks—Congress’s control over taxation and revenue—becomes meaningless. The Framers gave Congress the power of the purse precisely because they feared unilateral taxing power. That’s not a theoretical concern when tariffs can be imposed, modified, or removed based on a single person’s assessment of what constitutes a crisis.
If decades-old policy challenges can be recharacterized as sudden crises requiring immediate action, then the line between normal governing and emergencies disappears. Presidents govern through declarations not because genuine crises exist, but because emergency authorities are easier than persuading Congress.
Where This Goes Next
The Supreme Court’s decision in the tariff case will arrive soon—probably within weeks. If the Court upholds IEEPA tariff power, expect the Cuba order to be implemented and expect future presidents to discover even more creative uses for economic powers.
If the Court strikes down tariff power, the administration will need to either negotiate with Congress for explicit authorization or find different tools. Congress could grant tariff power—with limits, procedures, and genuine oversight. Or Congress could decline, forcing the president to pursue foreign policy through the tools the Constitution grants: diplomacy, treaty-making subject to Senate approval, and persuading Congress to legislate.
The larger question—whether IEEPA will be reformed to restore its original purpose—remains unanswered. The ARTICLE ONE Act sits dormant. Scholars continue documenting how powers have been misused. But reform requires Congress to constrain its own leadership, and the political incentives for doing so remain weak.
The 1977 law designed to limit power continues expanding that power instead. What Congress created to restore checks and balances has become a tool for circumventing them. The question of whether “emergency” means anything anymore—or whether it’s another word for “policy the president wants to implement without negotiating with Congress”—awaits an answer from nine justices who will decide what “regulate” means and whether the Constitution’s separation of powers still constrains a president who declares a crisis.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.