The Power Of The Presidency In Trade Policy: Why Executive Authority Gives U.S. Presidents Near-Total Control Over Tariffs

Trade policy in the United States has traditionally been shaped through a combination of congressional legislation, international agreements, and executive action. While Congress holds constitutional authority over trade, it has increasingly delegated significant power to the president through various statutes.

Donald Trump’s presidency demonstrated just how much control a U.S. president has over trade policy. Through executive action, Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on foreign goods, citing national security and unfair trade practices. These moves faced legal challenges both domestically and internationally, yet neither the World Trade Organization (WTO) nor U.S. courts could effectively restrain him.

Trump’s use of executive authority in trade policy set a new precedent, revealing just how difficult it is to legally challenge a president’s power over tariffs. This raises important questions about the balance of power in trade policy and whether future presidents will follow the same path.

The Legal Foundations of Presidential Authority on Trade

The U.S. president has considerable control over trade due to laws passed by Congress over decades. These statutes allow the executive branch to impose tariffs and other trade restrictions with minimal oversight. Three key laws stand out:

• Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (1962): Allows the president to impose tariffs on imports deemed a threat to national security. Trump used this to justify steel and aluminum tariffs, arguing that reliance on foreign metals endangered American industries.
• Section 301 of the Trade Act (1974): Grants the president authority to impose trade penalties on countries engaging in unfair practices. Trump leveraged this law to launch a tariff war against China.
• The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 1977): Originally intended to deal with national security threats, this law provides the president broad authority to regulate economic transactions during emergencies. Trump threatened to use it to impose tariffs on Mexico over immigration disputes.

These laws give the president enormous discretion, allowing them to bypass Congress and implement sweeping trade measures with limited checks.

Trump’s Use of Executive Power to Implement Tariffs

Trump’s presidency saw an aggressive use of these trade laws to reshape U.S. economic relationships. Some of the most notable actions included:

• The China Trade War (Section 301): Trump imposed hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs on Chinese goods, claiming Beijing engaged in intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices. China retaliated with its own tariffs, leading to a prolonged trade conflict.
• Steel and Aluminum Tariffs (Section 232): Citing national security concerns, Trump placed tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) from major trading partners, including the European Union, Canada, and Mexico. Critics argued that these measures harmed American manufacturers more than they helped.
• Tariff Threats Against Mexico (IEEPA): Trump threatened to impose escalating tariffs on Mexican goods unless Mexico cracked down on illegal immigration. This demonstrated how trade policy could be used as a bargaining tool for unrelated political objectives.

These actions showed that the president could unilaterally impose tariffs with little recourse for Congress or affected businesses.

The Failure of Legal and Institutional Challenges

Despite widespread criticism, Trump’s trade policies remained largely intact. Legal and institutional challenges proved ineffective for several reasons:

• WTO Rulings Had Little Effect: The World Trade Organization ruled against Trump’s tariffs, but its enforcement mechanisms were weak. The U.S. simply ignored unfavorable rulings, highlighting the limits of international law in restraining American trade policy.
• Domestic Courts Deferred to Presidential Authority: Several lawsuits challenged Trump’s tariffs in U.S. courts, particularly those based on Section 232. However, courts largely upheld the president’s broad discretion under national security provisions. Even when lower courts questioned the rationale for tariffs, higher courts tended to side with the executive branch.
• Congress Lacked the Political Will to Act: While some lawmakers objected to Trump’s tariffs, Congress failed to pass legislation to restrict presidential trade authority. The bipartisan reluctance to challenge executive power on trade left Trump free to act as he wished.

The Long-Term Consequences of Expanding Presidential Trade Powers

Trump’s actions set a precedent that future presidents—regardless of party—may follow. His use of unilateral trade policy has several long-term implications:

• Presidential Trade Power Is Now the Norm: Future presidents may feel emboldened to use tariffs as a tool of diplomacy, economic policy, or even domestic politics.
• Businesses Face Increased Uncertainty: Companies that rely on global supply chains must now factor in the unpredictability of trade policy, knowing that a president can impose tariffs at will.
• International Trade Relations Could Weaken: Allies affected by tariffs may rethink their trade relationships with the U.S., leading to long-term shifts in global economic alliances.
• Congress May Struggle to Reclaim Authority: While some lawmakers have pushed for legislation to curb executive power on trade, political divisions make it unlikely that significant reforms will pass.

Conclusion

The U.S. president has far more control over trade policy than many realize. Trump’s administration revealed the extent to which executive authority can shape global trade, overriding legal and institutional checks. His broad use of tariffs, justified through decades-old laws, demonstrated that neither courts nor international organizations could effectively constrain him.

As a result, trade policy has become a key tool of presidential power, with significant economic and geopolitical consequences. Whether future administrations continue this trend or Congress moves to rebalance power remains an open question. Until then, U.S. trade policy will remain heavily influenced by the will of whoever occupies the White House.

Author: Ricardo Goulart