Trump's Constitutional Abandonment Reflects Public Apathy on Executive Power
In a striking development during what has become known as the Greenland Crisis, President Donald Trump's recent tariff threats against European nations revealed a significant constitutional departure that has largely gone unchallenged by the American public. The president's declaration imposing tariffs on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland represented a notable escalation in executive overreach.
The Greenland Crisis and Constitutional Originalism
What began as a diplomatic incident involving European nations visiting Greenland escalated rapidly when President Trump issued his tariff ultimatum. The president's statement declared that these countries "have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown" and constituted "a very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet." His response threatened a 10% tariff starting February 1, 2026, escalating to 25% by June 1, 2026, until "a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland."
From a constitutional originalist perspective, what proved most remarkable about this episode was the complete absence of legal justification. Unlike previous tariff threats where the White House at least offered token legal arguments, this instance featured no reference to constitutional authority or statutory delegation. The Constitution clearly assigns tariff authority to Congress, requiring presidents to demonstrate specific statutory authorization for such actions.
The Erosion of Legal Formalities
Historically, the executive branch has relied on various legal mechanisms to justify tariff adjustments. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 has frequently been invoked, allowing presidents to regulate foreign trade during declared national emergencies. However, legal scholars question whether IEEPA actually permits tariff increases, as these constitute taxes rather than regulatory measures. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this matter, though the decision has been pending for what observers describe as a suspiciously lengthy period.
Other statutes provide more explicit presidential authority for tariff adjustments, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. These laws typically contain conditions, time limitations, and procedural requirements. Appellate courts have generally granted the executive branch considerable leeway in applying these authorities, though several constitutional challenges continue working through the American judicial system.
A New Normal of Executive Disregard
The Greenland Crisis marked a departure from even these tenuous legal formalities. President Trump felt no need to reference IEEPA, the Trade Expansion Act, or any other statutory authority. The White House offered no legal theory justifying tariffs imposed specifically because European nations visited Danish territory. Remarkably, neither the president's supporters nor his administration attempted to provide constitutional cover for these actions.
Equally telling was the public and international response—or lack thereof. No one seemed to expect legal justification. The constitutional requirement that presidents demonstrate specific statutory authority for tariffs has become so eroded that its absence no longer generates significant controversy. This represents a profound shift in constitutional norms regarding executive power and congressional authority over trade policy.
Constitutional Implications and Public Complicity
The constitutional framework clearly separates powers regarding tariffs and foreign policy. Apart from potential IEEPA powers, which the Supreme Court may significantly restrict, existing statutes authorize presidential action only in trade-specific contexts. These laws permit intervention when trade channels threaten American manufacturers, the balance of payments, or national security—not as instruments of general foreign policy, which remains constitutionally within Congress's domain.
What the Greenland Crisis reveals is not merely presidential overreach but public complicity in constitutional erosion. The American public's apparent indifference to the abandonment of legal formalities represents a significant development in the relationship between executive power and constitutional governance. As constitutional norms erode without public challenge, the very foundations of American governance face unprecedented stress, with implications extending far beyond trade policy to the core principles of democratic accountability and separation of powers.
