When President Donald Trump announced his tariffs last week, he didn't just mention economic policy—he declared a national emergency! But what exactly is this emergency? According to the White House, the crisis stems from "the large and persistent trade deficit," meaning the U.S. imports more than it exports.

If you're scratching your head, don't worry—so are many experts. While declaring a trade deficit as an emergency seems baffling, Trump's strategy is crystal clear: he invoked his emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to fast-track his trade policies. Without this declaration, he could implement tariffs, but it would have meant jumping through bureaucratic hoops.

The Power of 'Emergency'—What Does It Really Mean?

Here's the kicker: there's no legal definition of what constitutes an emergency. Essentially, anything can be classified as one as long as the president deems it so. This leads many to feel like America's in a state of eternal crisis. Since assuming office, Trump has declared emergencies related to immigration, drug trafficking, and even international court actions against foreign leaders.

But Trump's approach isn't entirely unprecedented. Elena Chachko, a Berkeley Law professor, points out that previous presidents have similarly exploited emergency powers without strong justification.

Why This Trend is Dangerous

The growing trend of relying on emergency powers poses several issues. It allows presidents to sidestep Congress, effectively nullifying legislative responsibilities to tackle pressing issues. Moreover, it creates an environment ripe for potential abuses of power.

In 1976, Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act, providing a framework for declaring emergencies. Following this, in 1977, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was created, granting presidents the authority to enact economic measures like sanctions without Congress's advance approval.

The Alarming Evolution of Emergency Powers

While the post-9/11 environment heightened the abuse of emergency powers, the roots of this concern go back even further. For instance, during World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt claimed constitutional powers to intern Japanese Americans, showcasing the dangers of unchecked authority. The current system allows declarations to languish for decades—after all, George W. Bush's post-9/11 emergency declaration has never been lifted!

Presidents now wield a startling array of over 130 powers during emergencies. While some, like waiving public comment periods, may make sense during genuine crises, others—such as the ability to seize citizens' assets or control media—raise serious alarm bells.

Why Do Presidents Keep Using Emergency Powers?

The growing inaction within Congress over recent years has encouraged presidents to act unilaterally. The last congressional session resulted in the fewest laws passed in decades! This stagnation incentivizes presidents to wield emergency powers to bypass legislative gridlock.

Biden's use of emergency powers to cancel student loan debt exemplifies this growing trend, showcasing how emergencies can justify bold actions.

The Pressing Need for Reform

With emergency declarations becoming a political tool, limits on presidential power are eroding. As seen in the aftermath of Bush's controversial policies post-9/11, unchecked power can wreak havoc. Calls for Congress to reform emergency powers for increased oversight are growing louder.

If left unaddressed, this pervasive culture of declaring emergencies for non-crises will persist, with presidents wielding excessive power under the guise of protecting national interests. Ultimately, the real crisis might not be trade or immigration—it could very well be the emergency declarations themselves!