Secret Service Agent Leaks Sensitive Information About US Vice President's Security

 

The United States Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments during the first week of November regarding the constitutionality and legal validity of the global tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. These measures were based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law that grants the executive branch extraordinary powers to act in declared national emergencies.

The case is of great significance because, in practice, it will test the boundaries between the executive and legislative branches in matters of international trade. The US Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations," but in recent decades, a process of delegation has expanded presidential discretion in this area. Under the Trump administration, this flexibility reached one of its most controversial points with the application of global tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other products, as part of his "America First" agenda and his trade war against China.

Proponents of the measure argue that the president must have agile tools to respond to global risks that affect national security and economic stability. In this regard, they argue that unfair competition in international trade, excessive subsidized imports, and strategic dependence on certain inputs can be considered threats that enable the use of emergency powers.

The Supreme Court's decision could have profound repercussions for US trade policy, both retrospectively and in the future. If the court upholds the validity of Trump's actions, it would reinforce broad presidential discretion in this area, consolidating a decades-long trend in which the executive branch has become the central player in international trade. If, on the other hand, it limits or invalidates the application of tariffs under the IEEPA, the ruling would set a precedent that would return some of the authority it had ceded to Congress and force a redefinition of the mechanisms of oversight over the executive branch.

The case, therefore, not only puts the Trump administration's trade policy under scrutiny, but also reopens a broader debate about the concentration of power in the presidential figure and the risks of governing through permanent emergencies.