U.S. President Donald Trump gestures during the American Business Forum Miami at the Kaseya Center Arena in Miami, Florida, U.S. November 5, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
On Wednesday, November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court listened to oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump. At issue in the case is President Donald Trump's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs without input from Congress using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), signed into law by President Jimmy Carter 48 years ago.
One of the MAGA arguments in support of Trump's trade policy is that President Ronald Reagan was a big supporter of tariffs; in fact, Reagan shared conservative economist Milton Friedman's view that steep tariffs were bad for both businesses and consumers.
Veteran conservative columnist Mona Charen, during the 1980s, actually worked in the Reagan White House, where she was a speechwriter for First Lady Nancy Reagan. And the Never Trumper is highly critical of Trump's trade policy in an article published on November 6.
Analyzing the November 5 testimony, Charen, now 68, speculates on how the justices might rule on Trump and tariffs.
"The question for the Court was whether IEEPA actually grants the president power to impose tariffs — though the word 'tariff' does not appear in the text of the law and no president has ever before interpreted the statute to grant taxing power," Charen explains. "The law does allow the president fairly wide latitude to 'investigate, regulate…. direct and compel…. prevent or prohibit' other actions in emergency situations. In the past, the law has been invoked to combat terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and cybercrime."
Charen continues, "Addressing the justices on Wednesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that because the law grants the power to 'regulate' trade in certain emergencies, it must also include the power to tariff. But that's a huge leap, and the reason should be obvious to conservative justices who have claimed to be suspicious of overweening executive power."
The Never Trump conservative argues that Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh is contradicting himself when it comes to a president's executive powers.
"During the oral argument for Biden v. Nebraska," Charen observes, "the 2023 case that struck down President Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that 'some of the biggest mistakes in the Court's history were deferring to assertions of executive emergency power,' while 'some of the finest moments in the Court's history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency power.' Yet when it came to Trump's imposition of crushing tariffs against every nation on the globe, Kavanaugh curled up at the feet of executive power like a purring cat. 'The tariff on India, right? That's designed to help settle the Russia-Ukraine war, as I understand it,' he said on Wednesday."
The Trump Administration's trade policy, Charen argues, blatantly ignores the powers that Congress has under the U.S. Constitution.
"Yes, the president has broad authority in the conduct of foreign policy and the courts are right to steer clear of interference," Charen writes. "But when the president claims sweeping authority to impose taxes (tariffs) without congressional approval, he obtains his own independent income stream and Congress becomes a nullity. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically vests power in Congress to 'lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.' And Article I, Section 7 specifies that 'All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.'"
Charen adds, "The Constitution carefully apportions power between the legislative and executive branches. The president is commander-in-chief, but the Congress must declare war. The president appoints judges, ambassadors, and other officers and negotiates treaties with foreign powers, but the Senate must give advice and consent."
Mona Charen's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.