Tariffs, immigration, energy: In all these areas, Donald Trump has granted himself exceptional and broad presidential powers by declaring “emergency” situations that his critics insist do not exist.”In the United States, there is no tradition of emergency powers (granted to the president) under the Constitution,” New York University professor Noah Rosenblum told AFP.But various laws allow the commander-in-chief’s powers to be expanded on an exceptional — and usually temporary — basis.Historically such emergency powers have been invoked to deal with natural disasters, to deploy responders or troops, and to unlock critical funding. “But that, of course, is not how Donald Trump is using it,” Rosenblum said.Since returning to the White House on January 20, the Republican president has repeatedly invoked states of emergency in a variety of areas — eight times in all, according to National Public Radio — thus green-lighting swift and forceful intervention on his administration’s part.They have had little to do with hurricanes, floods or earthquakes.On his first day in office, Trump declared a “national energy emergency” in the United States — the world’s leading oil producer.By early April, frustrated by the trade deficits the United States had with many countries, including some imbalances going back decades, Trump declared a national emergency, among other reasons, “to increase our competitive edge,” the White House said. The result? Tariffs slapped on adversaries and allies alike.The flow of migrants arriving from Mexico has prompted Trump to declare a state of emergency at the US southern border, and he apparently feels empowered to respond with massive import duties, or forced deportations of undocumented migrants.- ‘Aspiring autocrat’ -Now, Trump has sent the US military into Los Angeles to quell protests, invoking a seldom-used law that allows the president to deploy National Guard units if there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion.”The move countered the wishes of local authorities and California Governor Gavin Newsom, who accused Trump of a “dictatorial” drift.”The president is simply announcing emergencies when there aren’t any,” said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri, noting how local police have said they are capable of handling clashes with protesters opposed to raids by immigration agents.”All of these grants of potential emergency powers really don’t account for the election of a president like Mr. Trump, who is not entirely rational, who is not dedicated to the rule of law, who is, in fact, an aspiring autocrat who is looking… to exercise extraordinary power,” Bowman told AFP.Trump is not the first US leader to invoke exceptional circumstances to justify such moves, even if he does so in a way without precedent.His Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, for example, decided to forgive student debt given the “emergency” created by the Covid pandemic. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court was not convinced, however, and blocked the plan.- Eisenhower and Nixon -In Trump’s case, will the courts, which have been flooded by lawsuits, affirm the legality of actions taken in the name of imminent peril?The tendency of judges “in these kinds of things is to defer pretty heavily to the president,” Bowman said.On Thursday, a California court will consider a request by Governor Newsom to suspend Trump’s troop deployment.In a filing to the court, the administration said Trump’s judgment has historical precedent.Courts did not interfere when President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to protect school desegregation or when Richard Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail during a postal workers’ strike, “and courts should not interfere here either,” it said.Beyond the legal tussles, the relentless use of the language of urgency, of imminent threat or national peril, is part of a broader strategy, professor Rosenblum stressed.Trump, he said, “is using the perpetual rhetoric of emergency to keep us perpetually riled up and either on the defensive and so increasingly exhausted or scared and aggressive — and so demanding government intervention.”
