In recent times, the United States has faced a convergence of national crises, prompting President Donald Trump to declare various emergencies including those related to the southern border, energy supplies, and economic challenges.
These declarations have been a cornerstone of Trump’s administration, enabling him to implement extensive policies ranging from increasing fossil fuel production, advancing the completion of the southern border wall, to imposing significant tariffs.
Since taking office, President Donald Trump has rapidly utilized emergency powers, invoking them eight times in just the first 100 days of his administration—more than any other modern president during a similar timeframe.
While the occurrence of presidential emergency declarations has been on the rise, concerns have emerged regarding the constitutional implications of Trump’s actions.
Legal experts warn that if the Supreme Court were to align with the administration’s broader interpretations of emergency powers, it could disrupt the constitutional balance of power and grant the president unprecedented authority, potentially allowing for actions to proceed without the necessity of congressional approval.
Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor of sociology and international affairs at Princeton University and a scholar on emergency powers, emphasizes this concern.
“This is pedal to the metal on executive power,” she states, explaining that the current trajectory could mirror patterns seen in historical instances leading to the erosion of democratic norms in other nations.
According to the White House, President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers is presented as a necessary response to address what they describe as failures inherited from the previous administration.
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt points to challenges in border security, global conflicts, climate regulations, inflation, and trade deficits as justifications for the president’s actions.
Critics, however, argue that some of Trump’s emergency declarations lack the urgency typically associated with genuine emergencies, suggesting they should be resolved through legislative measures rather than unilateral executive action.
One example highlighted is Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency, which cites the need for a secure and diverse energy supply despite the absence of a current fuel shortage in the U.S.
Similarly, the president’s assertion that a large and persistent trade deficit constitutes a national emergency raises eyebrows since the U.S. has maintained trade deficits for decades.
Legally, the framework for declaring national emergencies is broad and somewhat nebulous, as it allows presidents to enhance their powers temporarily in times of crisis without requiring congressional consent.
What the term ’emergency’ entails remains undefined by law, giving presidents significant discretion to determine when such a situation exists.
As Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice notes, emergency powers can be unsettling.
“The entire purpose of them is to give the president a degree of legal leeway that Congress does not think would be appropriate during nonemergency times,” she explains.
Goitein and her team have compiled a list of approximately 150 legal powers accessible through the declaration of a national emergency, many of which are rarely utilized.
While some powers necessitate congressional approval, many do not, creating room for interpretation and, consequently, extensive executive action.
Concerns are heightened not merely by the frequency of Trump’s emergency declarations—21 in total including eight in his second term—but also by the nature of their application.
Presidents have traditionally invoked emergency powers for specific situations, such as imposing sanctions against foreign nations or addressing immediate crises like the September 11 attacks and the COVID-19 pandemic.
In contrast, Trump’s approach is characterized by an emphasis on swiftly implementing domestic policy priorities without waiting for legislative approval.
“In President Trump’s second term, we’ve seen really heavy reliance on emergency powers to implement the president’s policy agenda,” Goitein highlights, indicating a shift from the original intent of emergency powers.
This pattern was first established during Trump’s initial term when he declared a national emergency to facilitate funding for the southern border wall after Congress denied full financial support.
While that move resulted in multiple lawsuits, the cases did not reach the Supreme Court prior to Biden’s entry into office, which subsequently revoked the border emergency.
President Biden has also utilized emergency powers, such as for student loan forgiveness after Congress rebuffed his proposals, a move that was later ruled against by the Supreme Court.
Elena Chachko, a professor at Berkeley Law School, asserts that the evolving use of emergency powers, coupled with ensuing legal challenges, will ultimately shape the framework surrounding their application.
“You use it to do novel things with questionable legal basis, and what you do is invite pushback and invite criticism and invite limitations,” she warns.
Expectations of limitations on presidential emergency powers remain fraught with uncertainty and complexity.
The passage of the National Emergencies Act in 1976 aimed to establish some boundaries around executive authority, primarily in response to controversies surrounding President Richard Nixon’s unauthorized military actions during the Vietnam War.
The Act permitted Congress to terminate an emergency declaration at any time via a process termed a ‘legislative veto.’
However, a Supreme Court ruling in 1983 deemed legislative vetoes unconstitutional, meaning it has become substantially more challenging for Congress to exert influence over emergency declarations.
While Congress retains the ability to conclude a national emergency, this process remains rare due to the necessity for a two-thirds majority in both chambers, often leading to stagnation on potential reforms.
As noted by Jennifer Hillman of Georgetown University Law Center, we might be approaching a critical point where the checks established in the 1970s no longer suffice.
“Maybe Trump is pushing that envelope in terms of how far he’s going, and wanting, if you will, the unitary executive, this notion that the president is all powerful,” she observes.
Various avenues for limiting presidential emergency powers exist, primarily through legislative efforts.
A bipartisan initiative aimed at reforming this power structure gained traction in 2019, following Trump’s border wall declaration, receiving overwhelming support during committee votes in both the House and Senate; however, it has since stalled.
Challenges to Trump’s emergency declarations are also being pursued in the courts, particularly concerning tariffs, with some lower courts ruling that he has exceeded his authority.
The administration has signaled its intention to fight legal battles up to the Supreme Court.
In a statement from May, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt remarked that they expect the disputes over tariffs to reach the highest court.
Opinions among legal experts remain divided on the potential outcomes of such Supreme Court cases, but Scheppele cautions that the implications extend beyond tariffs alone.
“I’m extremely worried that there’s a bigger thing at stake here,” she expresses, stressing that the primary question is whether Congress can impose limitations on the president regarding emergency declarations.
Should the courts determine that Congress lacks the authority to impose such constraints, it could further jeopardize the constitutional balance between the legislative and executive branches.
In conclusion, the growing reliance on emergency powers by President Donald Trump raises significant questions about their appropriate application and the long-term implications for American democracy.
As both the legislative and judicial branches grapple with these challenges, the future of executive authority and its constraints will likely continue to unfold in a contentious and evolving landscape.
image source from：https://www.npr.org/2025/06/09/nx-s1-5424666/trump-national-emergencies-democracy-supreme-court-constitution
