Trump’s tariff roller coaster
Arbitrary and unpredictable taxes are, quite literally, what the Founders rebelled against
As of writing, tariffs on our two largest trade partners appear to be either 10 percent, 25 percent, or 35 percent; no one seems to know for sure. Depending on how you count, Trump either just massively folded on tariffs (after insisting he wouldn’t) or the average effective tariff rate actually went up from 21 percent to 26 percent. Or maybe it’s the same as it was this morning, just more concentrated on China? Again, no one seems to know for sure.
What is clear is that the U.S. and world economy is on a roller coaster defined purely by the whims of a single person. Markets are rising and falling by trillions based on unilateral and capricious tax decisions — made with no deliberation or representative process — by a president who sees himself as accountable to no one and unconstrained by the law or Constitution.
That is, quite literally, what the Founders rebelled against.
Trump’s tariffs are the definition of taxation without representation
If you haven’t read it since grade school, I recommend picking up the Declaration of Independence again. You’ll be surprised by how many of the grievances — from “obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners” to “excit[ing] domestic insurrections amongst us” — still resonate today.
Here’s one passage:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences;
Sound familiar?
The American Revolution was born of a tax revolt over what were essentially tariffs — largely on paper, sugar, and, yes, tea. These tariffs weren’t, by modern standards, particularly high. The Tea Act of 1773, which led to the Boston Tea Party, was effectively an eight percent tariff on imported tea to the colonies.
But it wasn’t tax rates themselves that the Founders rebelled against — indeed, taxes were lower in the colonies than in England — it was taxation without a representative process. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation:
[F]or champions of American independence, the problem was not that taxes were high, but that they were arbitrary, occasionally capricious and punitive, and most importantly, adopted without the consent of the governed.
This is why, when it came time to set up a post-revolutionary government, they started with a central principle — maybe the central principle — that taxation must be tied to representation. Congress had the power to tax and spend. Whatever taxes would be laid on the American people, they must come from their representatives, not the president.
Read more: The purse and the sword.
It’s right there in the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
So how did we end up stuck in a situation where the president is able to make completely unilateral tariff decisions? How on earth can the global economy be so radically reshaped by his social media posts?
Congress delegated tariff powers for emergencies only. And Congress should take the power back
The short answer to a long and legally complicated question is that Congress, in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), delegated powers to the president to “regulate… importation” when he has declared a national emergency.
Emergency powers are meant to give the president flexible authority to act quickly, but only in actual emergencies, sudden events that require an immediate response. The U.S. has had a trade deficit since the 1970s. While it’s gone up and down, and there are heated debates over whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, it’s hardly an “emergency” (here’s how The Economist summed up the pre-tariff American economy). But President Trump declared it to be one in order to claim unfettered control over tariffs.
For more, I recommend:
Steve Vladeck: Tariffs, Non-Delegation, and the Major Questions Doctrine
Samuel Estreicher and Andrew Babbitt: Are Tariffs an Emergency Power?
Furthermore, emergency powers aren’t whatever a president decides they want to do; they are limited by statute. Interestingly, the IEEPA doesn’t specifically mention tariffs, which raises the question of whether Congress really meant to give the president such sweeping powers even in emergencies.
But what is absolutely clear is that, regardless of Congress’ intent, this vulnerability is an untenable corruption of our constitutional order that needs to be remedied immediately.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has proposed a fix with the Trade Review Act of 2025. It would:
Require the president to notify Congress of new tariffs,
Require the president to provide a justification of new tariffs to Congress and,
Sunset new tariffs after 60 days if they are not approved by Congress through a joint resolution.
This would be a big step forward in preventing Trump from continuing to abuse emergency powers in such an arbitrary, unpredictable, and capricious manner. It also makes clear that Congress has a role in pushing back on an out of control president — that it can still be a check on the executive branch.
This is, in all honesty, the clearest pushback from Republicans in Congress that we’ve seen yet. It’s backed by, among others, Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley, Jerry Moran, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis, and Todd Young. They all signaled to Trump that Congress may not be willing to continue rubber stamping his policies if they hurt millions of their constituents.
And Trump got the message — in addition to the market meltdown, pushback from other Republicans may help explain why he appears to have backed down (although again, it’s unclear at the moment if that’s actually what he did).
Either way, we’re all stuck on this roller coaster until Congress decides to get off.
How is this not market manipulation?
Impeach him