In light of the new wave of liberal lawfare being waged against President Trump’s tariffs, it’s worth considering: Do the liberals have a point?

Rand Paul certainly thought so—recall that a few weeks ago he brought the Senate to a tiebreaking vote to halt the tariffs.

This is because Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” Strictly speaking, Congress has these powers—not the president.

Congress also has the authority, however, to delegate powers to the executive branch for specific purposes. This is typically done because everyone knows—even corrupt congressmen—that the president can be far more responsive and nimbler than Congress, and he is the one who carries out the duties on the ground. Accordingly, the executive branch is often better suited to exercise certain congressional powers.

Given this fact, over time Congress has delegated—and thus authorized—significant powers over tariffs to the executive branch.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 provides the president with broad powers over commerce in cases of national emergency. This is why President Trump declared fentanyl smuggling to be a national emergency before imposing the first round of tariffs under this authority.

The legal questions swirling around this particular exercise of the power include whether fentanyl smuggling in fact constitutes a national emergency, and whether broad-reaching tariffs are a relevant and proportional remedy to that emergency.

Given that over 50,000 Americans die every year from opioid overdoses—and a further 25,000 people die because of other drugs smuggled across our borders—the argument that this constitutes a national emergency seems sound. Consider that Hurricane Katrina—which was unequivocally considered a national emergency—killed 1,392 people.

In terms of a remedy, I don’t see how one could possibly attempt to solve this problem without tariffs—particularly by eradicating the de minimis exemption through which these drugs are smuggled.

The reality is that an estimated $1.4 billion worth of goods came into the United States through the de minimis exemption in 2024. This included a significant portion of the fentanyl causing our problems. Why? Because these are goods that came in under the radar. President Trump is right and justified in wanting to address the fentanyl crisis as a national emergency, and using tariffs and, particularly, eliminating the de minimis exemption, are reasonable steps to take in this effort.

Another important example of the way Congress has delegated this power to the president is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. That measure authorizes the president to impose tariffs if the Commerce Department finds that imports threaten national security. President Trump imposed tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobile components under this jurisdiction.

While these tariffs were not impacted by the courts’ recent ruling (which is stayed pending appeal), it is still very clear that imports of these items constitute a national security risk. In fact, I would go further: The reality is that imports of just about any good can pose a national security risk, if the imports threaten the vitality of America’s domestic industry. Why?

The final product about which people are concerned—at jetfighter or computer, for example—depends on an incredibly complex supply chain. Any disruption in the supply chain can disrupt every other link and undermine the final product. Think of the famous O-ring vulnerability we faced with the space shuttle Challenger disaster.

Ultimately, America’s national security can only be adequately protected by self-sufficiency. Imports should be considered a luxury, rather than necessary for the economy to function. Tariffs are the most sensible and least intrusive way to remedy our security problem of not being self-sufficient.

The Trade Act of 1974 justifies varying levels of tariffs. Section 122 authorizes 15 percent tariffs for up to 150 days to redress trade balance issues. Meanwhile, Section 301 allows the executive to impose tariffs to remedy unfair foreign trade practices—President Trump relied on this provision successfully in his first term.

Again, America clearly has a balance-of-trade issue: There has been a trade deficit every year since 1974. The cumulative value of these balances, after adjusting for inflation, is over $25 trillion. Tariffs are the most effective and least intrusive way to remedy this situation.

Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930 permits the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent if said countries are discriminating against American commerce. Although countries like Great Britain, Australia, and Canada engage in mostly free trade with us, even they discriminate against certain American goods—it is well-known, for example, that Canada vigorously protects its dairy industry.

This should be no surprise and we should expect it. Foreign countries have the right to protect their industries from American competition—just as America has the right to protect her industries from foreign competition.

Whatever the free trade brigade may say, the reality is that every country on earth discriminates against American commerce in some form or fashion—whether it’s imposing tariffs or other non-monetary barriers to entry. This has been standard practice for decades. Accordingly, President Trump is justified in imposing tariffs in return.

In a perfect world, Congress itself would have the gumption to act and protect American industry from unfair foreign competition. But that’s not going to happen. Why? Because members of Congress are bought and sold by Wall Street, the Chinese Communist Party, and a litany of other special interest groups who profit handsomely from America’s industrial decline.

The only ray of hope is that Congress has delegated significant authority to the president, who is not so compromised, and he may impose tariffs and otherwise regulate foreign commerce in the name of national security. President Trump was elected precisely to fix these problems, he is trying to do so, and his remedies fall within the letter of the law.

This matter was already debated and decided in the Senate—and Rand Paul lost.

The courts should respect the Senate and the will of the people.