‘No Kings’ Isn’t a Gotcha

Looking back at fear, freedom, and what we were really fighting for

You may have seen a viral post making the rounds recently. It reads like this:

No kings, but put your mask on.
No kings, but lock us down.
No kings, but I’m firing you for not vaccinating.
No kings, but you can’t go outside.
…but you need 12,380 boosters.
…but you can’t worship the REAL King.
…but you’re responsible for my health.
…but no family gatherings over 10.

It’s meant to expose what some see as a contradiction: that people who claim to oppose authoritarianism were too comfortable with government control during the pandemic. And let’s be honest—many of us did feel powerless at times, confused, even angry. The rules changed quickly. Our routines were disrupted. Our sense of control was shaken. That frustration is real, and it deserves to be acknowledged.

But that post—and others like it—draw the wrong conclusion. It treats “No Kings” as a punchline, not a principle. It frames democratic decision-making during a crisis as the same thing as tyranny. And that’s where we need to pause, step back, and take a closer look at what “No Kings” actually means.

No Kings Doesn’t Mean “No Rules”

At its core, “No Kings” is about opposing unchecked, absolute power. It doesn’t mean no one ever tells you what to do. It means no one person decides everything for everyone.

In a monarchy, power is centralized in one figure. There are no votes. No accountability. No appeals. No participation.

In a democracy, even under strain, decision-making is distributed—among elected officials, public health agencies, school boards, local governments, and yes, even private businesses. The pandemic created pressure, urgency, and sometimes confusion. But the power was still divided. The decisions were still debated. And the people still had recourse.

If you disagreed with a rule, you could protest. People did.
If you thought a mandate went too far, you could sue. People did.
If you didn’t like how your leaders handled it, you could vote them out. People did that too.

That’s not tyranny. That’s democracy under pressure—still functioning, still flawed, but still ours.

You Had a Say. You Still Do.

That’s the key difference. In a real monarchy, you don’t get a say. There are no protests without punishment. No courts to appeal to. No elections to change the course.

But in our system—even when the stakes are high—you still have power. You may not get your way every time. No one does. But you are part of the system that shapes the rules.

That’s what “No Kings” is supposed to mean: that no one person gets to rule over you without limits or consequences.

And if our idea of freedom can’t coexist with shared responsibility, maybe what we’re calling freedom isn’t really that at all.

Some of This Wasn’t Even the Government

Another important piece often left out of the conversation: not all the frustrations people faced during the pandemic came from the government.

A lot of mandates and restrictions came from private companies—firings, customer policies, event rules, travel protocols. That’s not federal overreach. That’s private actors making decisions within a capitalist system that already gives them enormous latitude.

That doesn’t make it feel any better—but it does change the accountability equation.

If you’re angry about how much influence corporations have over your life, you’re not alone. That’s a conversation we should absolutely be having. But let’s not confuse that with democratic governance. In many cases, government was the only thing limiting corporate overreach, not causing it.

The Irony: Be Careful What We Call “Freedom”

Here’s what gives me pause: some of the loudest critics of the “No Kings” message today are cheering for a political figure who says things like:

• “I alone can fix it.”

• “I will be your retribution.”

• “If you come after me, I come after you.”

These aren’t the words of someone who believes in checks and balances. That’s not local control. That’s not collaborative governance. It’s unilateral power with vengeance attached.

And if we’re going to oppose kings, that opposition has to be consistent. It has to apply even when the would-be king shares your values—or your enemies.

Because history has shown us over and over: concentrated power never stays friendly for long.

What “No Kings” Really Means

So what does it really mean to say “No Kings”?

It means:

• No one person drags us into war.

• No one person jails us without trial.

• No one person decides what we believe, say, or do.

• No one person uses the machinery of government to punish dissent.

It doesn’t mean we always agree. It doesn’t mean the system always gets it right.

But it means we decide—together. Through law. Through debate. Through elections. Through systems designed to correct course, not cement control.

It’s slower. It’s messier. And in a crisis, it can feel frustrating.

But it’s not tyranny. It’s freedom with guardrails. And it’s worth protecting.

So yes:

No Kings.
Not then.
Not now.
Not from the left.
Not from the right.
Not from anyone.

How Presidents Abuse Emergency Powers to Bypass Congress

Power Without Accountability

Emergency powers were intended to allow presidents to respond swiftly during genuine crises—wars, natural disasters, or financial emergencies. However, in recent years, these powers have increasingly been used to bypass Congress, sidestep public debate, and implement significant policy changes under the guise of national security.

Previously, we’ve examined the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act, two pivotal laws granting presidents extensive authority upon declaring a national emergency. Another critical statute in this context is the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, specifically Section 232, which empowers presidents to regulate trade if imports are deemed a threat to national security.

This post explores how these overlapping emergency powers have been stretched beyond their original intent, posing risks to the constitutional balance of power.

The Original Purpose of Emergency Powers

Emergency powers in democracies are designed for rare, urgent situations requiring immediate action. In the U.S., key laws include:

• The National Emergencies Act (NEA)

• The IEEPA

• The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (TEA)

• The Stafford Act, addressing natural disasters

These laws often contain vague language and lack stringent safeguards, making them susceptible to misuse by presidents seeking to circumvent the standard legislative process.

When Trade Becomes a National Security Emergency

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, enacted during the Cold War, allows the president to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security. Historically underutilized, this provision gained prominence when President Trump invoked Section 232 to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from allies like Canada and the EU. Critics argued this was a misuse of the law, but courts upheld the action, granting the executive branch significant discretion in defining national security threats in trade.

In 2025, President Trump further expanded the use of emergency powers by invoking the IEEPA to impose broad tariffs, including the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs. These actions faced legal challenges, and on May 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president had overstepped his authority under the IEEPA, blocking the enforcement of these tariffs. However, the following day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a temporary stay on the ruling, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect pending appeal.

Why It’s So Easy to Abuse These Powers

Several factors contribute to the ease with which presidents can exploit emergency powers:

• Vague statutory language: Terms like “unusual and extraordinary threats” (IEEPA) and “national security” (TEA) are not clearly defined.

• Lack of automatic expiration: Many emergency declarations remain active indefinitely without periodic review.

• Executive control over information: The president can classify or selectively release information to justify actions.

• Judicial deference: Courts often hesitate to challenge the executive on national security grounds, although recent rulings indicate a shift.

• Congressional inaction: Political divisions and reluctance to confront the executive branch hinder legislative oversight.

These systemic issues create an environment where emergency powers can be used to implement significant policy changes with minimal checks and balances.

This Isn’t Just an American Problem

Globally, the misuse of emergency powers has been a tool for democratic backsliding:

• Hungary: Prime Minister Viktor Orbán used emergency decrees to bypass parliament.

• India: Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared an emergency in 1975, suspending civil liberties.

• Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan expanded his powers following a failed coup attempt.

In the U.S., similar patterns emerge. For instance, IEEPA has been used to target not only foreign governments but also companies and platforms like TikTok, extending the reach of emergency powers into areas like technology and information control.

How We Fix It

To prevent the abuse of emergency powers, several reforms should be considered:

• Implement time limits: Emergency declarations should expire after a set period unless renewed by Congress.

• Clarify definitions: Statutory terms like “national security” need precise definitions to prevent broad interpretations.

• Enhance transparency: Require detailed justifications and regular reporting on the use of emergency powers.

• Strengthen legislative oversight: Provide Congress with mechanisms to review and, if necessary, terminate emergency declarations.

• Ensure judicial review: Courts should have a clear mandate to assess the legality of emergency actions promptly.

These measures aim to restore the balance of power and ensure that emergency powers serve their intended purpose without undermining democratic governance.

It’s Time to Pull These Powers Back

Currently, the U.S. operates under numerous ongoing emergency declarations, some dating back decades. As recent events demonstrate, emergency powers are increasingly used to enact significant policy changes without congressional approval. To safeguard democracy, it’s imperative to re-evaluate and reform the legal frameworks governing emergency powers, ensuring they are used appropriately and with adequate oversight.

Court Limits Trump’s Tariff Powers Under IEEPA

Today (28 May 2025), the U.S. Court of International Trade made a big decision: it ruled that President Trump went too far when he used emergency powers to impose broad tariffs on imports from around the world.

This is a major development for anyone watching how U.S. trade policy works—or doesn’t—and it puts real limits on what a president can do without Congress.

A Quick Reminder: What’s IEEPA?

In case you missed it, we recently covered the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in this earlier post. IEEPA was passed in 1977 to give presidents tools to respond to national emergencies involving foreign threats—mostly by freezing assets or blocking trade with specific countries. But it wasn’t meant to be a blank check.

What the Court Said

The Trump administration had used IEEPA to put tariffs on a wide range of goods from countries like China, Canada, and Mexico. The justification? That the U.S. trade deficit was a national emergency.

But the Court wasn’t buying it.

“The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country’s trade policy dependent on his whims.”
— AP News

In short, the Court ruled that IEEPA doesn’t let the president slap tariffs on whoever he wants just by declaring a trade emergency. That kind of decision belongs to Congress.

You can also read more from Axios and the Wall Street Journal if you want additional context.

Here’s what this Ruling Means

• The tariffs are struck down — Imports affected by Trump’s emergency tariffs are no longer subject to those extra costs.

• Trade deals may be shaken up — Negotiations with countries like the UK and China could be impacted since those tariffs are now off the table.

• Presidents can’t go it alone — The Court made it clear that major trade decisions need input from Congress, not just a presidential proclamation.

What Happens Now?

The Trump team is likely to appeal, and this could eventually end up at the Supreme Court. But for now, it’s a big win for those who believe in checks and balances.

Update

As of 29 May 2025, this ruling was appealed and there is a temporary stay leaving the tariffs in place. Parties have until June 5th to respond.

“The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t say anything at all about tariffs,” Bruce Fain, a former US associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, told Al Jazeera.

Fein added that there is a statute, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs in the event of a national emergency. However, he said, it requires a study by the commerce secretary and can only be imposed on a product-by-product basis.

Why It Matters

This ruling isn’t just about trade. It’s about the limits of executive power. IEEPA was never meant to give any president a free hand to reshape the global economy. This decision reminds us that even emergency powers have boundaries.

IEEPA in 2025: Tariff Tool or Abuse of Power?

In the first two posts, we explored how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was created in 1977 to limit unchecked presidential power — and how it became a go-to tool for freezing assets, punishing rogue regimes, and blocking terrorist funds.

Now we’re in 2025, and President Trump is using IEEPA in a way no president ever has before.

Not for sanctions.

Not to stop terrorism.

Not for national security in the traditional sense.

He’s using IEEPA to impose global tariffs.

Let’s break down what’s happening — and why it matters.

What Just Happened?

In April 2025, President Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency over America’s trade deficits— especially with countries like China, Vietnam, and Japan.

Using IEEPA, he announced two things:

1. A 10% tariff on all imports from every country.

2. Higher tariffs (up to 54%) on countries with the biggest trade surpluses or trade barriers.

These new tariffs went into effect within days.

IEEPA had officially entered the world of global trade wars.

Wait — IEEPA Was Meant for Emergencies, Right?

Exactly.

IEEPA was passed to deal with “unusual and extraordinary threats” that come from outside the United States — threats to national security, foreign policy, or the economy.

It’s been used for things like:

• Hostage crises

• Terror attacks

• Cyberwarfare

• Nuclear proliferation

Trade deficits — while a serious policy issue — don’t exactly fit the same category.

That’s why this move is raising alarms.

The Legal Pushback

Almost immediately, a lawsuit was filed to challenge Trump’s tariffs.

The argument?

IEEPA doesn’t give the president the power to set tariffs, which is normally Congress’s job.

Legal experts say this use of IEEPA stretches the law far beyond what it was intended to do — and could set a dangerous precedent.

If the president can use IEEPA to tax imports during a trade dispute, what’s stopping future presidents from using it to control prices, regulate entire industries, or bypass Congress completely?

Supporters Say: It’s About Economic Survival

Trump and his allies argue that massive trade imbalances and foreign trade barriers are a serious threat to America’s economy — and therefore qualify as a national emergency.

They say IEEPA gives the president the flexibility to act fast, especially when other countries are “cheating” or undercutting American businesses.

To Trump, this is about restoring “economic justice” — and showing the world that America won’t be pushed around.

Critics Say: This Isn’t What IEEPA Was For

Opponents — including legal scholars, economists, and even some business groups — say this is a misuse of emergency powers.

Their main concerns:

• IEEPA isn’t a trade law — it was never meant to be used for tariffs.

• Congress should decide tax and trade policy, not the president alone.

• This could open the door to even more abuses of emergency powers in the future.

Some are calling it a “power grab in plain sight.”

Why It Matters

This isn’t just a debate about trade.

It’s a question about how far a president can go using emergency powers — and what counts as a national emergency in the first place.

If this use of IEEPA is allowed to stand, future presidents (from either party) might feel empowered to:

• Bypass Congress on major economic policy

• Declare vague or political issues as “emergencies”

• Use emergency laws to reshape the economy by executive order

That’s a big deal.

What Happens Next?

The legal case is moving through the courts — and it could end up at the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the tariffs are already affecting prices, businesses, and global supply chains.

Other countries are preparing to retaliate with their own tariffs, potentially escalating a full-blown trade war.

The stakes are high — not just for the economy, but for democracy itself.

Final Thoughts: IEEPA’s Future

IEEPA was meant to give presidents tools to protect the country — not tools to bypass Congress.

Over time, those boundaries have blurred. Now, in 2025, they’re being tested like never before.

So the big question is:

When everything is an emergency… what powers does a president not have?

Thanks for reading this series.

If this raised questions or gave you a new perspective, reach out on BlueSky.

Let’s keep the conversation going — about power, policy, and how we protect both security and democracy.

From Tehran to TikTok: How Presidents Have Used IEEPA to Shape the World

In the last post, we looked at how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was created in 1977 to give presidents limited powers to deal with real foreign threats — not to wage economic war whenever they felt like it.

So how has that worked out?

Well… over the past 40+ years, presidents have used IEEPA a lot — often for good reasons, sometimes in surprising ways, and occasionally in ways that stretch the law’s original intent.

Let’s walk through the major moments that shaped how IEEPA is used today.

1979: Hostages in Iran — IEEPA’s First Test

The first use of IEEPA came fast. In 1979, militants in Iran stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage. President Jimmy Carter needed a fast, peaceful way to pressure Iran.

He turned to IEEPA.

Carter used it to freeze all Iranian government assets in the U.S. — over $12 billion. It was the first economic punch thrown with IEEPA, and it worked: the asset freeze helped bring Iran to the negotiating table.

Believe it or not, that national emergency is still in effect today, over 40 years later.

The 1980s: Cold War Conflicts and Sanctions

Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush used IEEPA in Cold War hotspots:

• Libya (1986): After a terror attack in Berlin, Reagan froze Libyan assets and banned trade.

• Nicaragua (1985): Sanctions were placed on the Sandinista government to weaken their grip on power.

• Iraq (1990): When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, President Bush used IEEPA to freeze Iraqi assets and ban trade.

IEEPA had become the go-to tool for punishing hostile regimes — without sending in troops.

The 1990s: New Targets — Terrorists and Drug Lords

President Bill Clinton took things a step further.

He used IEEPA not just against countries, but against individuals and non-government groups:

• 1995: Sanctions on Hamas and Hezbollah for terrorism.

• 1998: Sanctions on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

• 1995–1999: IEEPA used to freeze the assets of Colombian drug cartels.

This was a turning point: now, presidents could target people—not just governments.

Post-9/11: The War on Terror Supercharges IEEPA

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush used IEEPA to go after terrorist financing networks worldwide.

Within days, he signed Executive Order 13224, freezing the assets of anyone linked to terrorism.

Congress also gave him more power by allowing the government to not just freeze, but confiscate assets of anyone involved in an attack on the U.S.

IEEPA was now a front-line weapon in the Global War on Terror.

2010s: Cyber Threats, Human Rights, and Russia

President Obama expanded IEEPA’s use to:

• Human rights abusers (through the Magnitsky Act)

• Cybercriminals and hackers (like North Korean and Chinese cyber ops)

• Russia (after the 2014 invasion of Crimea)

These sanctions froze assets, banned travel, and cut off financial access. They were powerful — and coordinated with U.S. allies.

Trump’s First Term: New Uses, Big Controversies

President Trump used IEEPA aggressively — and sometimes in legally questionable ways.

• Venezuela: He imposed broad sanctions on Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

• China: He targeted Huawei and tried to ban TikTok and WeChat, citing national security.

• ICC (International Criminal Court): In 2020, Trump used IEEPA to sanction officials at the ICC — the first time U.S. sanctions were used against an international court.

Some of these moves were blocked in court. Judges said banning TikTok might violate IEEPA’s free speech protections, which prevent the government from restricting personal communications or information sharing.

Still, Trump pushed the boundaries of what IEEPA could be used for — and set the stage for even more controversial actions in his second term.

What We’ve Learned So Far

Since 1979, IEEPA has been used by every president to:

• Freeze assets

• Cut off trade

• Target terrorists, cyber criminals, and human rights violators

• Punish governments and individuals — sometimes in creative ways

It’s become one of the most powerful tools in the president’s toolbox.

But with great power comes… well, you know the rest.

Next Time: How Trump Is Using IEEPA in 2025

In the final post in this series, we’ll look at how Trump is using IEEPA right now — not just for sanctions, but for something that’s never been done before:

Imposing global tariffs using emergency powers.

We’ll break down what it means, why it’s controversial, and how it could reshape U.S. economic policy.

What the National Emergencies Act Enables

Understanding the National Emergencies Act (NEA) and the Scope of Presidential Emergency Powers

The National Emergencies Act (NEA), passed in 1976, is a foundational law that governs how the President of the United States can declare and utilize emergency powers. While the NEA itself does not provide any specific powers, it creates the legal framework that allows the President to activate emergency authorities contained in more than 120 other laws.

What the NEA Does

• Requires the President to formally declare a national emergency to access certain statutory powers.

• Mandates that the President specify which emergency powers are being invoked.

• Requires publication of the emergency declaration in the Federal Register.

• Imposes a requirement that the emergency be renewed annually or it expires.

• Provides Congress with the theoretical ability to terminate the emergency.

In essence, the NEA is a procedural law that governs how emergency powers are triggered—not what those powers are.

Powers Unlocked by Declaring a National Emergency

Once a national emergency is declared, the President can access a wide array of contingent powers from other statutes. These include:

• Economic controls: Through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the President can freeze assets, block financial transactions, and impose sanctions on foreign entities.

• Military readiness: Call up reservists, redirect military construction funds, or control navigation in U.S. waters.

• Transportation and communication controls: Restrict movement or regulate electronic communications infrastructure.

• Property seizure: Prohibit or regulate property transactions involving foreign interests.

The specific powers vary depending on which laws are cited in the emergency declaration.

How the NEA Relates to IEEPA

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one of the most frequently invoked laws under the NEA. Passed in 1977, IEEPA allows the President to take sweeping economic actions to respond to any unusual and extraordinary foreign threat.

However, IEEPA can only be used after a national emergency is declared under the NEA and must pertain to a foreign threat. It has been used in a variety of contexts—from targeting terrorist financing after 9/11 to sanctioning foreign governments.

In practice, this means the NEA is the gateway law that makes IEEPA usable.

The Insurrection Act and the NEA

The Insurrection Act is often mentioned in the same breath as emergency powers, but it operates independently of the NEA. The President does not need to declare a national emergency to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the use of military force within the U.S. to suppress civil unrest, rebellion, or insurrection.

While not legally tied to the NEA, a President could theoretically use both laws in tandem—one to justify economic control and the other to authorize domestic military deployment.

Can Congress Revoke a National Emergency?

Yes—but it’s harder than it sounds.

The NEA originally allowed Congress to end an emergency by a simple majority vote in both chambers. However, the Supreme Court’s 1983 ruling in INS v. Chadha struck down the legislative veto, requiring that any termination resolution must pass both the House and Senate and be signed by the President—or override a presidential veto.

In practical terms, this means:

• Congress can pass a joint resolution to terminate a national emergency.

• The President can veto this resolution.

• Congress must then override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

Given modern political polarization, this makes it extremely difficult for Congress to unilaterally end a national emergency without bipartisan consensus.

When the Guardrails Don’t Hold

The National Emergencies Act provides a critical legal structure for the exercise of emergency powers by the executive branch, but it also highlights the limits of congressional oversight in practice. While designed to impose transparency and checks on presidential authority, the NEA has evolved into a tool that grants significant flexibility to the President—especially when combined with laws like IEEPA. Understanding this framework is essential in evaluating how emergency powers are used—or potentially abused—in times of crisis.

What Is IEEPA? The 1977 Law Behind U.S. Sanctions

IEEPA: Born from Crisis — Why the U.S. Needed a New Emergency Law in 1977

Ever wonder how U.S. presidents can suddenly freeze a foreign country’s bank accounts, ban certain imports, or slap sanctions on international criminals — all without waiting for Congress? That’s thanks to a law most Americans have never heard of: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

Today, it’s the backbone of U.S. sanctions. But when it was passed in 1977, it was actually meant to rein in presidential power — not expand it.

Let’s go back to where it all started.

The Problem: Presidents Had Too Much Power

For decades, U.S. presidents had been using a World War I-era law called the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) to deal with all sorts of situations — even ones that had nothing to do with war or enemies.

Here’s the wild part:

From 1933 to 1976, the U.S. was technically under a continuous national emergency. That meant the president could control international trade, freeze assets, and block financial transactions — with almost no checks from Congress.

At one point, President Nixon even used this power during a postal workers’ strike. That had nothing to do with foreign threats — and people in both parties started asking:

“Is this really how we want emergency powers to work?”

Congress Steps In: The National Emergencies Act

After years of concern about unchecked executive power — especially during the Vietnam War and Watergate — Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976.

The NEA required:

• Presidents to formally declare emergencies

• Emergencies to be reviewed annually

• Reports to Congress so lawmakers could keep tabs

It was a big step toward restoring the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.

Then Came IEEPA

But Congress still needed a law to let the president respond quickly to real foreign threats — just without the loopholes and lack of oversight that came with TWEA.

So, in 1977, Congress passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

IEEPA was supposed to be:

• A narrower, more focused tool

• Only usable in true national emergencies

• Limited to threats that come from outside the U.S.

• Bound by rules that protect free speech and personal communication

In short, it was meant to give the president power with limits.

The Big Idea: National Security, Not Political Power

Congress didn’t want presidents using emergency powers for everyday policy fights or domestic issues.

IEEPA was supposed to be reserved for “unusual and extraordinary threats” — things like terrorism, foreign wars, cyberattacks, or weapons trafficking.

It was about protecting the country, not helping presidents win trade disputes or punish political opponents.

But as we’ll see in the next post, that original intention hasn’t always held up.

Up Next: How Presidents Have Actually Used IEEPA

From the Iran hostage crisis to sanctions on TikTok, IEEPA has been used to freeze billions in assets, isolate hostile regimes, and go after terrorists, hackers, and even app developers.

In the next couple of posts, we’ll show how the National Emergencies Act (NEA) interacts with IEEPA, and we’ll explore how IEEPA evolved from a little-known reform law into one of the most powerful tools in the presidential toolbox.