The legal ground beneath Trump’s tariff strategy
Critics say Trump is abusing the laws and using powers intended for rare national security threats as tools of economic warfare
Published: 04:04 PM,Apr 29,2025 | EDITED : 07:04 PM,Apr 29,2025
I do not know about you, but I’ve grown increasingly confused about the legality of President Trump’s tariffs on imported goods.
An endless parade of legal scholars and self-proclaimed experts tell us that Trump’s tariff policies are unconstitutional, illegal and economically reckless. Yet despite all the noise, no one seems able to stop him — especially when it comes to China. So what’s going on here?
In this article, I’ll lay out the legal framework behind Trump’s use of tariffs — and why his critics insist Trump’s tariff policies are illegal.
However, are they right? Trump’s opponents argue that only Congress can impose tariffs. They cite Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which grants Congress the power to levy duties and regulate foreign trade.
On paper, they are correct. But over the past few decades, Congress has passed laws that delegate sweeping authority to the executive branch in matters of trade. Critics say Trump is abusing the laws and using powers intended for rare national security threats as tools of economic warfare. However, intent is not the same as legality. Until the Courts rule otherwise, Trump remains on firm legal ground. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 allows the President to impose tariffs if the Department of Commerce determines that certain imports pose a national security threat.
Trump used it to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium, including from allies like Canada and the EU. Critics claimed this was absurd — economic competition, they said, isn’t a national security threat.
However, the law doesn’t define “national security” precisely, leaving plenty of room for interpretation. Trump used that legal ambiguity to his advantage.
Section 301 of the Trade Act 1974 allows the President to retaliate against unfair trade practices. Trump used it to target China, citing intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers.
Critics argued his actions were excessive. Supporters said he was finally doing what past presidents hadn’t dared. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act 1977 allows the President to regulate commerce during a national emergency involving foreign threats. Trump threatened to use it to impose tariffs on Mexico unless it curbed illegal immigration. Legal experts were stunned — but Mexico quickly complied, and the tariffs were never enforced.
Critics say Trump’s approach is 'constitutionally questionable' — a phrase that sounds damning but carries little legal weight. The Courts have mostly refused to intervene, deferring to the President’s discretion.
Congress could rewrite these laws to limit Presidential power — but it hasn’t. Maybe it lacks the will. Or maybe, deep down, it agrees with the policy. Even when the World Trade Organisation ruled against some of Trump’s tariffs, the US simply ignored the decision, citing national interest and sovereignty. So has Trump turned national security into a trade weapon?
Absolutely. However, one could argue that economic power is national security and that China’s massive export surplus poses a long-term threat to America’s industrial base. The US Constitution may be sacred, but it is not a straitjacket.
Over the years, Congress gave away powers it no longer used. Trump didn’t seize those powers — he simply used what Congress gave him, aggressively and unapologetically. He may occasionally say bizarre things, but when it comes to power, he is no fool.
“If this is truly unconstitutional,” said one trade lawyer, “then someone should stop him. But no one has — and maybe no one can.” And to those threatening Trump with lawsuits over tariffs? My advice is simple: put up or shut up.
Karim Easterbrook
The writer is a former Cambridge School Principal and an Interview Skills Advisor
An endless parade of legal scholars and self-proclaimed experts tell us that Trump’s tariff policies are unconstitutional, illegal and economically reckless. Yet despite all the noise, no one seems able to stop him — especially when it comes to China. So what’s going on here?
In this article, I’ll lay out the legal framework behind Trump’s use of tariffs — and why his critics insist Trump’s tariff policies are illegal.
However, are they right? Trump’s opponents argue that only Congress can impose tariffs. They cite Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which grants Congress the power to levy duties and regulate foreign trade.
On paper, they are correct. But over the past few decades, Congress has passed laws that delegate sweeping authority to the executive branch in matters of trade. Critics say Trump is abusing the laws and using powers intended for rare national security threats as tools of economic warfare. However, intent is not the same as legality. Until the Courts rule otherwise, Trump remains on firm legal ground. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 allows the President to impose tariffs if the Department of Commerce determines that certain imports pose a national security threat.
Trump used it to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium, including from allies like Canada and the EU. Critics claimed this was absurd — economic competition, they said, isn’t a national security threat.
However, the law doesn’t define “national security” precisely, leaving plenty of room for interpretation. Trump used that legal ambiguity to his advantage.
Section 301 of the Trade Act 1974 allows the President to retaliate against unfair trade practices. Trump used it to target China, citing intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers.
Critics argued his actions were excessive. Supporters said he was finally doing what past presidents hadn’t dared. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act 1977 allows the President to regulate commerce during a national emergency involving foreign threats. Trump threatened to use it to impose tariffs on Mexico unless it curbed illegal immigration. Legal experts were stunned — but Mexico quickly complied, and the tariffs were never enforced.
Critics say Trump’s approach is 'constitutionally questionable' — a phrase that sounds damning but carries little legal weight. The Courts have mostly refused to intervene, deferring to the President’s discretion.
Congress could rewrite these laws to limit Presidential power — but it hasn’t. Maybe it lacks the will. Or maybe, deep down, it agrees with the policy. Even when the World Trade Organisation ruled against some of Trump’s tariffs, the US simply ignored the decision, citing national interest and sovereignty. So has Trump turned national security into a trade weapon?
Absolutely. However, one could argue that economic power is national security and that China’s massive export surplus poses a long-term threat to America’s industrial base. The US Constitution may be sacred, but it is not a straitjacket.
Over the years, Congress gave away powers it no longer used. Trump didn’t seize those powers — he simply used what Congress gave him, aggressively and unapologetically. He may occasionally say bizarre things, but when it comes to power, he is no fool.
“If this is truly unconstitutional,” said one trade lawyer, “then someone should stop him. But no one has — and maybe no one can.” And to those threatening Trump with lawsuits over tariffs? My advice is simple: put up or shut up.
Karim Easterbrook
The writer is a former Cambridge School Principal and an Interview Skills Advisor