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.