Ian Millhiser

So the statute, the federal law that Trump relied on when he put the tariffs in place, it's called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. And the key word there is emergency. Emergency.

The statute says that Trump is allowed, does have sweeping power to regulate the importing of foreign goods, but only when there is, and this is the language that the statute uses, an unusual or extraordinary threat to which a national emergency has been declared. Much of the argument yesterday focused on what those words unusual and extraordinary threat is.

The statute says that Trump is allowed, does have sweeping power to regulate the importing of foreign goods, but only when there is, and this is the language that the statute uses, an unusual or extraordinary threat to which a national emergency has been declared. Much of the argument yesterday focused on what those words unusual and extraordinary threat is.

The statute says that Trump is allowed, does have sweeping power to regulate the importing of foreign goods, but only when there is, and this is the language that the statute uses, an unusual or extraordinary threat to which a national emergency has been declared. Much of the argument yesterday focused on what those words unusual and extraordinary threat is.

Trump claims that the reason we need these tariffs is because the United States has trade deficits. It buys more stuff from many countries than it sells. And we've had trade deficits for decades. Like trade deficits aren't really an unusual thing. I have a trade deficit with the grocery store. I buy more stuff from them than, you know, than I sell. So the argument is pretty straightforward here.

Trump claims that the reason we need these tariffs is because the United States has trade deficits. It buys more stuff from many countries than it sells. And we've had trade deficits for decades. Like trade deficits aren't really an unusual thing. I have a trade deficit with the grocery store. I buy more stuff from them than, you know, than I sell. So the argument is pretty straightforward here.

Trump claims that the reason we need these tariffs is because the United States has trade deficits. It buys more stuff from many countries than it sells. And we've had trade deficits for decades. Like trade deficits aren't really an unusual thing. I have a trade deficit with the grocery store. I buy more stuff from them than, you know, than I sell. So the argument is pretty straightforward here.

It's just like trade deficits are ordinary, right? Like, even if you think that trade deficits are bad, they're not unusual or extraordinary. And so the argument is that this statute, which only lets Trump respond to unusual and extraordinary threats, doesn't apply in this case.

It's just like trade deficits are ordinary, right? Like, even if you think that trade deficits are bad, they're not unusual or extraordinary. And so the argument is that this statute, which only lets Trump respond to unusual and extraordinary threats, doesn't apply in this case.

It's just like trade deficits are ordinary, right? Like, even if you think that trade deficits are bad, they're not unusual or extraordinary. And so the argument is that this statute, which only lets Trump respond to unusual and extraordinary threats, doesn't apply in this case.

So the government's primary response to this argument is essentially to tell the courts, you can't touch us, ha ha ha. They put that in a legalistic way. They claim that the question of whether such a threat exists is what's called a political question. And political question is legalese for the courts don't get to decide it. You know, it has to be decided by the other two branches of government.

So the government's primary response to this argument is essentially to tell the courts, you can't touch us, ha ha ha. They put that in a legalistic way. They claim that the question of whether such a threat exists is what's called a political question. And political question is legalese for the courts don't get to decide it. You know, it has to be decided by the other two branches of government.

So the government's primary response to this argument is essentially to tell the courts, you can't touch us, ha ha ha. They put that in a legalistic way. They claim that the question of whether such a threat exists is what's called a political question. And political question is legalese for the courts don't get to decide it. You know, it has to be decided by the other two branches of government.

And so they're primarily just saying, look, courts, it doesn't matter if this is an unusual threat or not. You don't get to make that decision. Donald Trump gets to make that decision. The president gets to make that decision. You know, often, especially in constitutional cases, the core question is who gets the final word on this?

And so they're primarily just saying, look, courts, it doesn't matter if this is an unusual threat or not. You don't get to make that decision. Donald Trump gets to make that decision. The president gets to make that decision. You know, often, especially in constitutional cases, the core question is who gets the final word on this?

And so they're primarily just saying, look, courts, it doesn't matter if this is an unusual threat or not. You don't get to make that decision. Donald Trump gets to make that decision. The president gets to make that decision. You know, often, especially in constitutional cases, the core question is who gets the final word on this?

And the plaintiffs say that the court should have the final word on this. And Trump says that he should have the final word on it.

And the plaintiffs say that the court should have the final word on this. And Trump says that he should have the final word on it.

And the plaintiffs say that the court should have the final word on this. And Trump says that he should have the final word on it.

But since no one has yet cited a dictionary definition for unusual or extraordinary, I thought I would offer one. Unusual just means not usual. That's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, and extraordinary is going beyond what is unusual, regular, or customary. That fits with the state of affairs that this executive order describes. It explains, again,