IMPOSING DUTIES TO ADDRESS THE SYNTHETIC OPIOID SUPPLY CHAIN IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

White House Link: Full Text of the Executive Order

1. Constitutional Violations and Executive Overreach

President Trump’s new executive order imposes a blanket 10% tariff on every import from China, a move that flouts the Constitution’s separation of powers [1]. Under our founding framework, Congress—not the President—holds the exclusive authority to set tariffs and regulate foreign commerce [1]. By stretching emergency powers to impose what is effectively a tax, this order seizes authority that rightfully belongs to the legislative branch, effectively bypassing checks and balances at the core of American governance [1]. In short, it repurposes the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a statute intended for genuine wartime or national security emergencies—into a vehicle for a trade agenda that Congress never approved [1].

Labeling fentanyl trafficking a “national emergency” to justify a sweeping trade measure is widely viewed as a constitutional overreach. The White House’s use of the National Emergencies Act grants powers the President ordinarily “does not have” under standard law [1]. It’s an attempt to write tariff laws by fiat—a brazen power grab that sidesteps the legislative process. Legal experts call it “an unconstitutional power grab,” noting that the President is essentially commandeering the tariff-setting power that belongs to Congress [1]. This maneuver distorts the real purpose of emergency authorities, which are supposed to be rare and extraordinary. Instead, the administration is using an emergency declaration to enact trade policies for which it lacks a clear congressional mandate. The result is a chilling example of executive overreach, turning emergency statutes into a tool for the President’s unilateral agenda [1].

2. Erosion of American Liberties Through Unilateral Control

By allowing the President to singlehandedly impose tariffs or taxes on imports, this order undermines American liberties. It bypasses democratic accountability and places power over critical economic decisions in the hands of one individual. Originally, IEEPA was crafted to grant the executive branch swift authority in legitimate crises—but it was never meant to serve as an all-purpose blank check for routine trade policy [2]. Now, by invoking that broad language, the public and their elected representatives have effectively been cut out of decisions about trade and taxation. This represents a troubling precedent: any future president could declare an “unusual and extraordinary threat” on a whim and then, in one stroke, exercise nearly unlimited power over large portions of our economy [2].

Because the order slaps a universal tariff on all Chinese goods, it underscores just how far executive power has expanded. If allowed to stand, nothing stops a president from deciding to “tariff the world within days” [2] or disrupt domestic economic life in countless ways, all under the banner of an “emergency.” This approach sidesteps the essential safeguards of congressional debate and public input, replacing them with rule by decree. Economic liberties—like the right to buy affordable products or run a business without sudden, arbitrary government-imposed costs—become vulnerable under such an unchecked system. Meanwhile, the “act-now, justify-later” attitude shows a disregard for legal limitations, as though the executive alone decides the reach of its own powers. Democratic governance suffers when one branch amasses such dominance. In sum, this vast expansion of unilateral control demonstrates the diminishing role of Congress and the precariousness of public freedoms. If a president can, under flimsy pretexts, impose sweeping constraints on the market, the American people are left with fewer channels to influence or challenge those actions [1][2].

3. Economic Impact on Everyday Americans

Tariffs function as taxes on imports, and this 10% charge on Chinese goods falls directly on the backs of ordinary Americans. From toys and clothing to smartphones and home appliances, consumers will face higher costs at the store [3]. Given that China supplies a huge share of U.S. consumer products—78% of smartphones and 79% of laptops, for instance [3]—these tariffs will escalate prices across the board. Economists estimate that overall consumer prices could jump 0.5–0.7% in response, fueling inflation that’s already a concern [4]. This policy may thus raise the cost of living and push vital goods out of reach for some. Everyday low-cost items, including budget-friendly apparel popular on online platforms, will climb in price [3]. American families end up paying more and getting less, all for a policy that doesn’t tangibly benefit them.

Additionally, these tariffs shake industries and disrupt businesses nationwide. U.S. manufacturers dependent on Chinese components face higher input costs, throwing their supply chains into disarray. Small businesses, with narrower profit margins and fewer supplier options, feel the pinch the most—a 10% cost hike can be the difference between profit and closure. Consumers will pay more, and retailers may lose sales due to higher prices. The ripple effect extends to workers, as companies scale back hiring, cancel raises, or even lay off employees to cope with rising expenses. Analysts predict U.S. growth could drop 0.6% of GDP within a year because of these tariffs, diminishing business investment and spending power [4]. If China retaliates, farmers and factory workers who rely on exports will be hit with lost markets and falling revenue [5]. Ultimately, this tariff is a self-inflicted wound on the U.S. economy—squeezing pocketbooks, unsettling supply chains, and harming the very “Main Street” interests it claims to protect.

Key economic consequences include:

Higher Consumer Prices: Americans will see real impacts on their wallets, from gadgets to clothing, as increased import costs trickle down to retail prices [3].
Worsening Inflation: Adding 0.5+ percentage points to inflation [4] disrupts the effort to keep prices stable.
Disrupted Industries and Supply Chains: Technology, automotive, and retail sectors will feel the brunt, facing cost spikes and potential shortages.
Strain on Small Businesses: Many can’t absorb or pass on a 10% tariff without risking customer loss or closure.
Pressure on Workers: Rising costs often lead to wage freezes or layoffs, meaning workers pay the price for these policies.

4. Comparison to Historical Precedents

This executive order is nearly unprecedented in modern times, and its rare historical parallels highlight how risky and extreme it is.

1971 – Nixon’s Emergency Tariff Surcharge: President Nixon imposed a 10% tariff across the board under the Cold War-era Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), citing balance-of-payments and currency issues [1]. Although courts upheld it, Congress was alarmed and replaced TWEA with the more restrictive IEEPA in 1977 to stop future overreach. The Trump administration’s use of IEEPA now in peacetime—without a tight link to an actual economic emergency—flips Nixon’s precedent on its head [1].
2018–2019 – Trump’s Trade Wars (Section 301 and 232 Tariffs): In his first term, Trump launched tariffs using Section 301 of the Trade Act for China and Section 232 for steel/aluminum. Though controversial, those moves followed specific congressional statutes, investigations, and public notices. The current order bypasses all that; it imposes a universal tariff without following established trade procedures [1]. Even at the height of those trade wars, no president tried to tariff all imports from a major trading partner by emergency decree.
2019 – National Emergency for Border Wall Funding: In 2019, Trump declared a national emergency to redirect military funds for a border wall after Congress denied full funding. Critics called it a power grab circumventing Congress’s role over the purse. Lawsuits followed, though funding continued until courts and a new administration ended the emergency. The new tariff order repeats that “emergency-as-pretext” playbook—this time on trade—signaling a troubling pattern of bypassing legislative authority [1].
Other National Emergency Abuses: Past episodes such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) illustrate how the Supreme Court has blocked overreaches even in wartime. Modern legislation like the National Emergencies Act (1976) and IEEPA were specifically intended to curtail open-ended presidential declarations [1]. By pushing those laws to extremes, the current order harkens back to precisely the abuses these reforms sought to prevent. It is broader in scope, thinner in justification, and more audacious in bypassing Congress than virtually any comparable modern action.

5. Legal Challenges and Repercussions

The legality of this executive order is highly doubtful, and strong legal challenges are almost certain. Importers, retailers, industry coalitions, and even state governments have clear incentives to sue. Their core argument is that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs on this scale, and the Constitution reserves the power to impose taxes (including tariffs) for Congress. Although IEEPA grants wide latitude to “regulate” economic transactions during emergencies, it has never been used to implement sweeping tariffs on imports [2]. Plaintiffs will note that if Congress had meant to give the President the authority to set universal tariffs, it would have explicitly said so—and it did not [2].

This conflict raises the major questions doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recently emphasized. Under that doctrine, executive actions of massive economic or political significance require clear authorization from Congress [2]. Slapping a 10% duty on all imports from a major U.S. trading partner is exactly the kind of transformative act the Court insists must be backed by explicit legislative approval. Given that IEEPA speaks generally about “unusual and extraordinary threats,” many legal scholars conclude it’s too vague to justify this kind of sweeping trade action [2]. Moreover, if this usage stands, it might trigger nondelegation doctrine concerns—did Congress improperly delegate its constitutionally granted tax power without sufficient limits?

If these lawsuits move forward, they’ll likely start in the U.S. Court of International Trade and could quickly reach the Supreme Court because of the high stakes. Plaintiffs may also seek injunctions to freeze the tariff immediately, though it’s historically difficult to stop a president from invoking an emergency power. Courts often defer to the executive branch’s national security justifications, no matter how tenuous [1]. Still, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has shown a willingness to rein in executive overreach in major regulatory and economic matters. That might bode well for those challenging the tariff as soon as it lands before the justices [2].

Congress also retains options, albeit politically fraught. Lawmakers can terminate a national emergency via a joint resolution, but doing so would require a veto-proof majority—a tall order in today’s polarized environment. Alternatively, Congress can rewrite or limit IEEPA to bar its use for broad-based tariffs or mandate that such moves require congressional sign-off. The very fact that the 1970s reforms tried to prevent TWEA-style abuses indicates that Trump’s actions contradict congressional intent [1]. If the courts let the President stand, then the onus is on Congress to step in. Otherwise, they tacitly accept a sweeping shift in tariff power from the legislative to the executive branch.

In the meantime, China has already lodged a complaint at the World Trade Organization, claiming these tariffs violate global rules [5]. The U.S. will likely invoke national security exemptions, which are notoriously broad, but the dispute further underscores the international uproar. Domestically, the legal uncertainty will cause businesses to hedge: pausing investments, re-routing supply chains, or stocking inventory in case the tariffs become permanent. If courts overturn the tariffs later, importers might get refunds—but only after absorbing serious disruptions. Ultimately, the fate of this executive order is up to the courts and Congress. There’s growing momentum to oppose it on legal and political grounds, not just to spare the economy but also to prevent a dangerous expansion of executive power [1].

6. Stakeholder Analysis: Who Benefits and Who Suffers

Most stakeholders see negative outcomes from this policy. Only a slim segment stands to gain.

American Consumers: Suffer. Prices rise on a wide range of everyday products—clothing, electronics, furniture [3]. Households with lower incomes feel the pressure the most, since the tariff effectively acts as a regressive tax. Shoppers also risk shortages or delayed product availability.
Importers and Retailers: Suffer. Companies that bring goods from China or sell low-cost imported merchandise face an immediate 10% surcharge. They’ll pass costs to consumers or absorb the blow themselves, hurting profits. Smaller and mid-sized businesses, in particular, can’t easily pivot suppliers without losing time or money.
American Manufacturers (Import-Competitors): Mixed/Short-Term Benefit. Firms that produce goods domestically competing with Chinese imports may gain a brief price advantage. But many also rely on Chinese parts, so they too encounter higher input costs. Moreover, if China retaliates, the same industries may get hit with counter-tariffs on exports [5]. Over the long haul, protectionism can stifle innovation and cut overall demand.
Exporters (Farmers, Energy Producers, Industrial Suppliers): Suffer. They’re the prime casualties of China’s retaliatory tariffs. Past experience—like the 2018–19 trade war—shows agricultural exports can plummet when China targets U.S. goods. Factories that sell machinery or resources abroad also lose market share under retaliatory measures.
U.S. Government (Tariff Revenue & Leverage): Mixed. The Treasury collects some additional revenue, but higher consumer prices and a slower economy could cancel out those gains. Also, there’s scant sign that punishing China’s economy will compel swift changes in fentanyl trafficking.
Law Enforcement and Opioid Trafficking Efforts: Suffer or No Improvement. Tariffs do nothing to stop smuggling networks or illicit drug labs. Customs officials may be diverted to collecting duties instead of focusing on illegal fentanyl. In the end, this strategy doesn’t meaningfully reduce fentanyl flow and may even inhibit cooperation with Chinese authorities [5].

In short, everyone from shoppers to farmers to local merchants stands to lose. The few domestic industries that see a small competitive benefit do so at the risk of higher production costs, possible Chinese retaliation, and overall economic disruption. It’s a policy that, at best, provides limited upside for a handful of firms and, at worst, imposes broad economic strain on households and businesses alike.

7. Long-Term Risks and Broader Implications

Looking beyond immediate fallout, the executive order creates severe long-term dangers for the economy, democratic structures, and U.S. global influence.

Damage to Trade Relations and Global Standing: The blanket tariff on China spurs more tit-for-tat economic warfare. Retaliation from Beijing can escalate, risking deeper decoupling of the two largest economies. Allies watch as the U.S. wields emergency powers unilaterally, eroding confidence in rules-based trade. They may seek other partnerships, diluting American leadership in global commerce [1].
Precedent for Future Administrations: If this overreach stands, any persistent challenge could be labeled an “emergency,” giving the executive branch near-limitless economic powers. This undermines the principle that major policies require collective debate. Businesses would face constant volatility if each administration can abruptly impose tariffs or broad sanctions.
Strain on Democratic Institutions: Letting a president bypass Congress whenever he claims an emergency nudges the U.S. closer to authoritarian rule. Citizens may lose faith in checks and balances. America’s reputation for upholding the rule of law is also at risk. A permanent cycle of retaliatory tariffs and sweeping economic decrees can stoke broader political polarization.
Undermining International Law and Cooperation: Other nations may follow suit, invoking national security to justify a range of protectionist barriers. The WTO and other global bodies struggle to remain credible if countries exploit emergency exceptions so broadly. This unilateral approach also hinders international collaboration on complex challenges, including stemming illicit drug flows [5].

Overall, the harm extends far beyond the tariffs themselves. By normalizing such sweeping unilateralism, the U.S. jeopardizes both its constitutional heritage and international standing. If not reversed, it invites a future of policy whiplash, weakened global alliances, and creeping executive dominance at home.

8. Final Reflections on Democratic Integrity

IMPACT

This executive order represents a stark turn in U.S. governance, undermining both our economic framework and the Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Major policies that affect everyone’s cost of living have no place being set by a one-man decree. By exploiting emergency powers to impose tariffs, the administration tramples on the oversight mechanisms that define a healthy democracy, amounting to a clear abuse of authority [1]. It revives the very threats of taxation without representation and executive fiat that the American Revolution fought to overthrow.

On nearly every front, this policy is a disaster. Constitutionally, it undercuts the legislature’s rightful authority. Economically, it inflicts harm on U.S. families, small businesses, and workers. Diplomatically, it estranges allies and hands competitors new opportunities. As a precedent, it legitimizes a path toward tyrannical executive rule. If tolerated, it signals that the President can unilaterally declare an “emergency” and effectively enact laws that Congress never sanctioned. That scenario contradicts the core of American constitutionalism.

Ultimately, this isn’t just about a trade dispute or an attempt to combat fentanyl. It’s a fundamental question: Will we preserve the rule of law, or will we cede power to a single leader wielding “emergency” edicts? The answer must be clear: such a policy is an affront to democratic principles and the Constitution. If it stands, it paves the way for further erosions of liberty—today it’s higher prices, tomorrow it could be far more intrusive measures, all in the name of a never-ending “crisis.” This approach betrays the public trust and weakens the nation from within.

In a democracy, the means matter. Even the urgent need to stop opioid trafficking doesn’t justify undercutting our system of checks and balances. Ironically, the 10% tariff won’t address the core fentanyl issue but will degrade constitutional integrity in the process. It’s the worst of both worlds: an ineffective policy secured by illegitimate means. The public deserves to see this order challenged—by the courts, by Congress, and by citizens outraged at such a dangerous power grab. America’s longstanding tradition of legislative oversight and constitutional limits must not be sacrificed under the guise of an “emergency.” We have faced challenges in the past without discarding our founding principles, and we must do so again. Our economic welfare and the vitality of our democracy both hang in the balance [1].

Sources

[1]
- Foreign Policy
- Reuters
- CBS News

[2]
- Lawfare
- ABA Journal

[3]
- Star Tribune

[4]
- S&P Global Ratings

[5]
- Holland & Knight
- CSIS