On February 28, US president Donald Trump took the United States into a de facto, but not de jure, state of war with Iran. That is, he ordered the US armed forces to strike targets in Iran (the de facto part) without first securing the constitutionally required declaration of war from Congress (the de jure part).

Since then, we’ve seen a lot of questions — and received conflicting and mutually exclusive answers to those questions — from, among others, members of Congress.

Why did he do it?

Oh, there was an imminent threat to the US even though there clearly wasn’t.

Oh, yeah, now I remember, it was to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities Trump already claimed had been destroyed months ago, and to put an end to the Iranian nuclear weapons program that didn’t actually exist.

No, wait! It was because the Iranian regime was violently suppressing protests that had largely ended weeks ago! Yes, that must be it!

Or maybe the weather wasn’t right for a round of golf, or someone really annoyed him with a social media post, or Uber Eats messed up his hamberder order and put him in a bad mood, or who knows?

Why didn’t he go to Congress for that declaration of war as required by the Constitution, or at least seek an unconstitutional substitute for the  declaration (a “War Powers Resolution” or perhaps an “Authorization for Use of Military Force”), or even take the most minimal step, pre-briefing the entire “Gang of Eight” congressional leadership as required by 50 USC § 3093?

That’s an easy one: Because he didn’t have to.

When it comes to foreign policy, American presidents have been ignoring Congress at will and defying constitutional requirements for levying war, for decades. Longer than that actually  — Lincoln never sought or received a declaration of war for the Late Unpleasantness — and especially since the end of World War 2.

Occasionally a president bothered with an easily gotten “Authorization for Use of Military Force,” but more often he just did whatever he happened to want to do, then “reported” it to Congress per the War Powers Resolution’s requirements.

Even that bare minimum has broken down over the last 15 years, starting with Barack Obama’s war on Libya, which administration officials argued didn’t trigger reporting requirements because “kinetic military action,” isn’t the same thing as “hostilities.” Yes, really.

No president has ever been held to account by, and punished by, Congress for exceeding his powers and exercising its, not his, prerogative of declaring war or not.

Why would Trump consider himself an exception? And why wouldn’t he try to stretch past administrations’  ridiculous “unitary executive” claims even further?

We’d live in a much different world today if Harry Truman had been impeached and removed from office over his surprise Korean “police action” instead of receiving a retroactive congressional rubber stamp.

Tens of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, and millions of enemy soldiers and civilian non-combatants, could have lived instead of dying in American presidents’ illegal wars.

Trillions of dollars could have been kept by taxpayers in the productive economy, or at least spent on things other than ships, planes, tanks, ordnance, foreign military expeditions and bases, salaries for bloated armed forces rosters, etc.

As to the current situation, Congress shouldn’t be asking questions — it should be taking action.

If we lived in anything like a “constitutional” polity, the House would have already delivered Articles of Impeachment and the Senate would be trying the matter of Trump’s removal from office right now.

Can we at least agree to stop pretending the Constitution matters anymore (if, indeed, it ever did)?

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On February 20, the US Supreme Court ruled part of US president Donald Trump’s crazy-quilt tariff scheme illegal in its particulars. Specifically, SCOTUS noticed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not provide the authorization Trump claims for imposing tariffs as he pleases, in the amounts he pleases, on products from whatever country he pleases, when doing so pleases him.

The court did not, however, order refunds of the stolen money to the American importers that money was stolen from (and who passed the costs of the theft on to American consumers in the form of higher prices). It remanded the case back to lower courts so far as relief and restitution are concerned.

Tariff victims had already begun preemptively suing for the restitution they’re owed even before the Supreme Court ruling, and since that ruling other companies, including FedEx, have also initiated court proceedings.

The victims shouldn’t HAVE to sue.  President Trump SHOULD just order the US Treasury to refund the money immediately. That would be the honest thing to do.

Naturally, Trump disagrees. Instead of doing the right and honest thing, he’s throwing a tantrum over being held to the law and pursuing a new, just as legally suspect, tariff powers claim so that he can keep stealing money from American businesses and consumers … at least until the courts nix that scam too.

Here’s the thing, though: Refunding the money wouldn’t just be honest policy, it would be smart politics.

At the moment, the coming midterm elections look like an impending bloodbath for the Republican Party. The Democrats seem to be sitting pretty in their quest to become the majority party in the US House, and to have a decent shot at taking the Senate as well. Trump has already announced his fear of a third impeachment when … if … that happens.

Can he turn things around? It may not seem likely, but eight months is a long time in politics … and eight months of economic recovery would certainly help his party, and him, out.

Step one: Cut those refund checks and get that money back into the hands of the companies that directly paid the tariffs (sadly, in our partially cash-based economy, it just isn’t feasible to identify and reimburse individual consumers).

Step two: Watch those companies use the pseudo-windfall to get competitive again with lower prices and capital investments toward more, and more efficient, production. More jobs, more sales, more economic activity.

Step three: Republican candidates take credit for the improving situation, while hoping everyone forgets that what we’re recovering FROM is a Republican president’s economic idiocy and policy lawlessness.

Voters do tend to forget, and those who don’t forget might be inclined to forgive — if their wallets start getting fatter instead of thinner.

Six months of good economic news could make a big difference at the polls.

Or Trump can keep (family-friendly version) Fooling Around and Finding Out. Which, with this as with  many other things, seems to be his habitual inclination.

I guess we’ll see.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“[The International Emergency Economic Powers Act] does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

That’s the single really important sentence from the US Supreme Court’s February 20 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.

Trump’s ongoing tariff tantrums, starting with his “Liberation Day” schedule of “reciprocal” tariffs, were illegal under the law in question, and under the US Constitution, which gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to levy taxes.

Every dime taken by the US government via those tariffs is stolen money. Which is true of all taxes, but in this case, the money was stolen even according to the very political and legal systems which usually pretend otherwise.

There are four aspects of the court’s ruling which should be, but aren’t surprising.

One is that the court took months to finally just come out and say what everyone, including Trump, knew from the very beginning. The court granted certiorari for the case in September of last year. How long should it take nine justices to conclude that words mean things, and that the words in the Constitution and the IEEPA mean what they mean rather than meaning something else? This was an epic exercise in foot-dragging.

Unfortunately, foot-dragging is business as usual where SCOTUS is concerned.

A second is that the opinion wasn’t unanimous. Three  justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanagh — flushed their shared  supposed “originalism” down the toilet and then jumped in after it, holding in dissent that words don’t mean things, that history doesn’t matter, and that the powers of the presidency actually derive from the film Where The Buffalo Roam, in which Peter Boyle wanders around wearing a Nixon mask and bellowing “I’m the President of the United States and I can do anything I want.”

Unfortunately, Supreme Court justices round-filing their supposed principles in service to their political masters’ agendas is nothing new either.

The third should-be-but-ain’t surprising  aspect of the ruling is that SCOTUS kicked the can down (that is, BACK down) the road when it came to ordering a remedy.

In cases — civil or criminal — concerning theft, the most obvious remedy is restitution. It’s time for the US Treasury to start cutting refund checks to all the businesses it stole those tariff revenues from. But rather than simply so ordering, the court remanded the case back to lower courts, which will no doubt engage in protracted “struggle” over how to — and even whether — to deliver justice to the victims.

The fourth, and least surprising, outcome? After venting his spleen at the Supreme Court for daring to defy him by nixing his illegal tariff scheme, Trump immediately went to work on a new version. His next caper  will no doubt be as illegal as the previous one, and the courts will no doubt take their time addressing that one too.

The court’s ruling is correct as far as it goes, but don’t hold your breath waiting for relief, let alone recompense. To misquote the old Miller Lite commercial: Tastes great, less fulfilling.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY