## Trump’s Emergency Button: A National Habit or a Dangerous Game? It’s become a familiar refrain: a crisis, real or manufactured, and President Trump declaring a “national emergency.” From border security to the opioid epidemic, his administration has wielded this powerful tool with alarming frequency. But what exactly does a national emergency declaration mean? And is Trump abusing this power for political gain? Vox.com delves into the murky waters of Trump’s emergency declarations, exploring the potential consequences and raising critical questions about the future of this crucial presidential power.
The Organic Nature of Emergency Powers
The challenges of the system, including the lack of a clear framework and the potential for abuse.
President Donald Trump has made a habit of declaring emergencies. Since he took office for his second term, Trump has issued declarations of emergency at the southern border. On energy and trade. About drug trafficking and cartels, and even the International Criminal Court. In all, he’s declared eight emergencies in his first 100 days, a rate that far outstrips any previous president, including his own first term. It’s unclear whether all these things meet the legal standard for an “emergency” — a situation so unusual and extraordinary that it can’t wait for congressional action.
The US trade deficit with China, for instance, has been the status quo for decades. But by declaring it an emergency, Trump unlocks special authorities that wouldn’t otherwise be available to him. The question of whether Trump can use his emergency powers this way is currently making its way through the courts, and our colleague Ian Millhiser has been following along as proceedings kicked off in the Court of International Trade.
Evolution of the System
Congress has been providing these powers to the president since the founding. Our current system, in which the president declares a national emergency, and that declaration unlocks powers that are included in other statutes, dates back to World War I. This system where Congress would talk about national emergencies and then the president started issuing declarations of national emergency evolved organically.
In fact, the organic nature of it turned out to be a problem, because there was no overarching law that governed the process. There was no time limit on how long an emergency could stay in place. There was no reporting to Congress. This is why Congress, in the 1970s, enacted the National Emergencies Act. It placed a time limit on how long an emergency declaration could stay in place without being renewed by the president. The NEA also, as originally enacted, gave Congress the power to terminate an emergency declaration using a legislative veto.
The Implications of Trump’s Emergency Powers
Enhanced Powers and Unchecked Authority
The practical implications of Trump’s use of emergency powers, including the ability to bypass Congress and the potential for abuse of authority.
A national emergency declaration is an extraordinarily powerful thing. It unlocks enhanced powers that are contained in 150 different provisions of law, all of which say something like, “In a national emergency, the president can do X,” or, “In a national emergency, the president doesn’t have to do Y.” These are powers that allow the president to take actions that go beyond what Congress has authorized in nonemergency situations. In some cases, they allow him to take actions that Congress has expressly prohibited in nonemergency situations.
This can be a very tempting tool in order to implement policy in situations where there’s not sufficient support from Congress or where Congress has actually prohibited that policy. You can see why the temptation is there for presidents to use these powers rather than go through the normal policy-making and law-making process.
The Courts and Congressional Oversight
The role of the courts and Congress in checking the president’s emergency powers, including lawsuits and legislative actions.
The question of whether Trump can use his emergency powers this way is currently making its way through the courts, and our colleague Ian Millhiser has been following along as proceedings kicked off in the Court of International Trade.
The Future of Emergency Powers
The potential long-term consequences of Trump’s use of emergency powers, including the erosion of the system and the potential for future abuses.
In the meantime, we at Today, Explained wanted to understand why Trump is so keen to tap these powers to achieve his agenda, so we called up Elizabeth Goitein. She’s a senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice and an expert on presidential emergency powers. Goitein spoke with Today, Explained co-host Noel King about the history of national emergencies, what Trump can do with his powers, and whether Congress should do something about it.
Analysis and Insights
The Psychology of Emergency Declarations
The psychological factors behind Trump’s use of emergency declarations, including the appeal of declaring emergencies as a means of achieving policy goals.
President Trump sometimes behaves as if the emergency powers were granted by God, but actually what you’re saying is: They come from Congress. This is Congress saying, “We will allow you to have additional power in times of emergency.”
The Fear of Not Acting
The fear of not acting in times of crisis and the temptation to declare emergencies as a means of addressing perceived threats.
You can see why the temptation is there for presidents to use these powers rather than go through the normal policy-making and law-making process.
The Need for Congressional Action
The need for Congress to take action to reform the system of emergency declarations and ensure that the president’s powers are balanced with congressional oversight.
It’s unclear whether all these things meet the legal standard for an “emergency” — a situation so unusual and extraordinary that it can’t wait for congressional action.
Conclusion
Trump’s repeated declarations of national emergency, often bypassing Congress and sparking legal challenges, raise serious questions about the balance of power and the very definition of a national emergency. Vox’s article meticulously dissects these declarations, exposing their questionable justifications and highlighting the president’s propensity to utilize this extraordinary power for seemingly partisan ends. From building his border wall to redirecting funds for military projects, Trump has consistently weaponized the national emergency declaration, eroding democratic norms and setting a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
The implications of this trend are profound. Weakening the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution, Trump’s actions threaten to empower the executive branch at the expense of Congress and the judiciary. This unchecked authority could be easily exploited by future presidents, regardless of their political affiliation, to advance their own agendas and circumvent the will of the people. The very fabric of democratic accountability is at stake.
As we move forward, it is imperative to engage in a robust national conversation about the proper use of emergency powers. We must demand transparency and accountability from our elected officials and resist any attempt to normalize the abuse of such extraordinary authority. The future of our democracy hinges on our willingness to safeguard its foundational principles and ensure that power remains firmly in the hands of the people.