Tariffs aren't a presidential power, says California's attorney general

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 3:00: Constitution, rule of law, Supreme Court, affordable healthcare
2. 3:00 – 6:00: Congress, Trading with the Enemy Act, Federal Government, National Guard
3. 6:00 – 9:00: Congress, Constitution, executive branch, article one

Notable quotes from "Tariffs aren't a presidential power, says California's attorney general"

• That people like the rule of law. They like democracy. They like the constitution. They want hungry people to be fed. They want Americans to have affordable healthcare. They…

  about Constitution · at 0:33

• Congress has the power to tax. It's in article one of the United States Constitution. The statute upon which the president relies to impose tariffs of 10% to 145% across nearly all of.

  about Congress · at 1:53

• President. And that's the though about the precursor to AIPA which was the trading with the enemy act which was enacted then during World War I and that has been brought up in this case.

  about Trading with the Enemy Act · at 4:08

• Have been withheld by the Trump administration. There was another suit over the use of the National Guard in the state of California. Some observers might take a look at the…

  about National Guard · at 5:03

• Trump administration is really continuing a trend that we've seen politically for decades of the executive branch claiming these broad powers.

  about executive branch · at 6:19

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Paloma Mami — Person · 1 mention · first at 1:17
  Continuing to need help with the cost of living. New York City's new mayor Mr. Mami made that his key issue and he's speaking to voters and there was an intensity behind him.…
• California Attorney General Rob Bonta — Person · 1 mention

Books & papers

• United States Constitution — Book · 1 mention · first at 1:56
  Congress has the power to tax. It's in article one of the United States Constitution. The statute upon which the president relies to impose tariffs of 10% to 145% across nearly all of our trading partners it doesn't.

Companies & orgs

• Congress — Company · 6 mentions · first at 1:53
• Supreme Court — Company · 4 mentions · first at 1:31
  Let's turn now to those tariffs and to the Supreme Court and your role as attorney general of the state of California. You filed a friend of the court brief in this case and as I understand at the core of your argument,.
• Federal Government — Company · 2 mentions · first at 2:12
  Our trading partners it doesn't mention the word tariffs once. And in other statutes where if the federal government wants to give authority to the president, they mention the…
• executive branch — Company · 2 mentions · first at 6:21
• National Guard — Company · 1 mention · first at 5:06
• ICE — Company · 1 mention

Concepts & topics

• Constitution — Concept · 5 mentions · first at 0:36
• rule of law — Concept · 2 mentions · first at 0:33
  The ballot. folks were pushing back against his policies. And it turns out that people like the rule of law. They like democracy. They like the constitution. They want hungry…
• article one — Concept · 2 mentions · first at 1:56
  Congress has the power to tax. It's in article one of the United States Constitution. The statute upon which the president relies to impose tariffs of 10% to 145% across nearly all of our trading partners it doesn't.
• Trading with the Enemy Act — Concept · 2 mentions · first at 4:12
• affordable healthcare — Concept · 1 mention · first at 0:39
  Constitution. They want hungry people to be fed. They want Americans to have affordable healthcare. They don't want our cities to be militarized. and they don't want tariffs…
• International Emergency Economic Powers Act — Concept · 1 mention · first at 1:43
  One that is supported by California's governor Gavin Newsome is that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IPA, it does not cover the use of tariffs. Am I understanding that correctly?
• trading partners — Concept · 1 mention · first at 2:07
  President relies to impose tariffs of 10% to 145% across nearly all of our trading partners it doesn't mention the word tariffs once. And in other statutes where if the federal…
• World War I — Concept · 1 mention · first at 4:13
  The precursor to AIPA which was the trading with the enemy act which was enacted then during World War I and that has been brought up in this case.
• article two — Concept · 1 mention · first at 6:45
  Co-equal branches of government. It has authority in that it vests in through article one in congress through article two in the president through article three in the judicial…
• article three — Concept · 1 mention · first at 6:46
  Authority in that it vests in through article one in congress through article two in the president through article three in the judicial branch. The president has been acting…
• AIPA — Concept · 1 mention
• unitary executive theory — Concept · 1 mention

Places & events

• New Jersey (Jersey) — Place · 1 mention · first at 0:08
  Party, a big day for Democrats up and down the ballot yesterday. Democrats achieved two governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. There was a big vote in your state supporting redistricting.
• Virginia — Place · 1 mention · first at 0:11
  Down the ballot yesterday. Democrats achieved two governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. There was a big vote in your state supporting redistricting.
• New York City, New York — Place · 1 mention · first at 1:14
  Constitution adhered to and people are continuing to need help with the cost of living. New York City's new mayor Mr. Mami made that his key issue and he's speaking to voters…

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 So, I just want to start with this. Obviously, we'll turn to tariffs in just a moment, but it was a big day for your party, a big day for Democrats up and down the ballot yesterday. Democrats achieved two governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. There was a big vote in your state supporting redistricting. What message do you take away from what we saw from voters last evening?

0:19 A couple. Uh, one that the status quo is not working for uh voters. It was very much a referendum on Trump. He wasn't on the ballot, but he was essentially on the ballot. Uh, folks were pushing back against his policies. And it turns out that people like the rule of law. They like democracy. They like the constitution. They want hungry people to be fed. They want Americans to have affordable healthcare. They don't want our cities to be militarized. Uh, and they don't want tariffs that raise costs. Um, and they don't want ICE as mass agents all over our our cities either. So, that was I I think declared loud and clear by the the voters who came out. was um these are broad margins and intense um uh voter blocks here and I think it bodess well for energy going forward to to bring us back to where we need to go. Uh we need to have the rule of law. We need to have rights and freedoms protected. We need the

1:10 constitution adhered to and people are continuing to need help with the cost of living. Uh New York City's uh new mayor Mr. Mami uh made made that his his key issue and he's speaking to voters and there was an intensity behind him. So, um, big wins across the board and, uh, I think that'll carry on into the months ahead.

1:29 Let's turn now to those tariffs and to the Supreme Court and your role as attorney general of the state of California. You filed a friend of the court brief in this case and as I understand at the core of your argument, one that is supported by California's governor Gavin Newsome is that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IPA, it does not cover the use of tariffs. Am I understanding that correctly?

1:49 100% correct. Uh tariffs are taxes. Congress has the power to tax. It's in article one of the United States Constitution. The statute upon which the president relies to impose tariffs of 10% to 145% across um um nearly all of our trading partners um it doesn't mention the word tariffs once. And uh in other uh statutes where if the federal government wants to give authority to the president, they mention the word tariffs. They they delegate that authority clearly. Also, AIPA has never been used in nearly 50 years uh of its existence to impose a tariff by any prior president. So, he doesn't have the authority. We think it's very clear and the US Supreme Court argument today I think surfaced those key issues very clearly.

2:32 What was your biggest takeaway from hearing those arguments at the court that the court has a very strong grasp of understanding of the arguments that I and my fellow states are making. I think they have a lot of resonance. We saw a lot of signs for hope. We will not uh predict or um try to speculate on what the court will do, but the discussion and the questions showed that they they have a strong command of our arguments and there's a lot of it appeared from my perspective um uh support and and sympathy for those arguments because uh a lot of the the justices are are strong constitutionalists textualists originalists, and the the fact that um Congress has this power to tax and they didn't clearly delegate it um to the president and the president is using it in a in a essentially unlimited way to have imposed taxes against any country for any amount for any period of time. I think uh rubbed some of them, many of

3:24 them the wrong way. And so we're hopeful. Uh a heavy dose of skepticism was um um shared with the federal government uh when they were making their argument. So don't know what the court will do, but I think they really had um our arguments really had a lot of traction. There have though been other other rulings under a previous statute that said that tariffs are indeed within the president's power to regulate trade. How would you respond to that?

3:48 When a statute gives the the power to to impose tariffs by the president, they say it and they use the word tariff um or other clear language. Um there's no such clear expression of delegation of tariff uh authority to the president in in IPA. So AIPA has never been used for tariff imposing tariffs by any president. And that's the though about the precursor to AIPA which was the trading with the enemy act which was enacted then during World War I and that has been brought up in this case.

4:17 It has been brought up and that was not a US Supreme Court case. Um AIPA uh was a statute that was uh passed by Congress after the trading with the enemy act and it was meant to create constraints and restrictions and uh every other statute that that confers tariff making authority on the president says it did not. And so um the the uh prior case of trading with the enemy uh on the trading with the enemy act does not get the government where they hope to go here with the the the broad ranging unlimited authority to impose tariffs against any country for any amount for any amount of time.

4:53 This tariff case is one of a number in which you're fighting the Trump administration if I'm correct. There are 46 lawsuits to be exact. Some of these aimed at accessing federal funds that have been withheld by the Trump administration. There was another suit over the use of the National Guard in the state of California. Some observers might take a look at the number of lawsuits out there and say that you are using the courts as a way to thwart policies that you simply do not agree with politically. What would you say to that?

5:19 I think it's interesting that they would draw that conclusion as opposed to saying, "Wow, the president is really violating the law a lot." Um because that's what's happening and that's all that we look at. It's not partisan. It's a legal question. Is he breaking the law? Do the facts uh justify our our case? is he hurting our states? And so we only have one position. If he breaks the law, we sue him. If he doesn't break the law, we don't. He has a lot of authority. He can exercise that authority lawfully. But if he cannot um try to advance his agenda unlawfully. So um I think the proof is in the pudding.

5:47 We've brought 46 cases in 41 weeks, more than one a week. We're winning over 80% of the time, securing temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, permanent final uh in injunctions and judgments in cases. So that means he's breaking the law and that we're right. and we only um you know look at these cases from a sterile dispassionate perspective. Is he breaking the law? If the answer is yes, we sue him and uh the court's decisions have shown that we're right and that he's breaking the law.

6:13 Now, as I take stock of all of these suits, they're really all about the use and limits of presidential power and the Trump administration is really continuing a trend that we've seen politically for decades of the executive branch claiming these broad powers. Explain to me why this case is different.

6:28 This is part of the sort of uh fringe theory of a unitary executive that that the executive branch has expansive power that is not conferred upon it by the US constitution. The US constitution very clearly has three co-equal branches of government. It has authority in in that it vests in through article one in congress through article two in the president through article three in the judicial branch. The president uh has been acting as if he's a king, a monarch, a tyrant and the constitution rejects that fact. And so this tariffs case is an example of the president overreaching um again trying to seize authority that is not his, trying to take from Congress their authority, trying to trespass on Congress's constitutionally uh given authority. And so it it it requires the court to interpret the law and render an order that says, "Get back in your lane, Mr. President. You do not have the authority here. You're exercising

7:19 authority that does not belong to you, belongs to Congress, and you cannot impose tariffs." This is a court that we've seen in the past though the makeup of this particular court that has seemed inclined to preserve a rather muscular identity of the executive power muscular understanding of what that looks like. Do you expect this case to be any different? I do uh based on what I heard in in the courtroom today, there there's definitely some on that on the court, not not all, but some who believe in a more muscular executive branch, but they also uh read the constitution um are going to interpret the constitution as it should be interpreted and they can clearly read like anyone else can that the constitution says that congress has the power to tax and that tariffs are taxes and that uh unless clearly delegated to the president, the president cannot exercise that congressional authority. And they did a

8:03 lot had a lot of discussion today about the plain and unambiguous text, the the legislative history, the historical uh precedent uh and context and I think a lot of signs for hope that there's no indication that the president has the authority that he thinks he has.

8:16 Before I let you go, I do just want to bring this back to the stakes for American households, for American consumers. If the Supreme Court does indeed uphold President Trump's use of emergency powers to impose these tariffs, what does that mean for everyday people, including in your state?

8:30 Devastating. And it's already been devastating to um workers, to families, to small businesses, to moms and pops just trying to survive. Costs have gone up. California is projected to um have an economic hit of $25 billion, lose 64,000 jobs. Um California is the biggest state in the nation, fourth largest economy in the world. We uh are the largest importer of any state, the second largest exporter, the largest agricultural exporter, the largest manufacturer. We are an outsized economy. And so these tariffs have an outsized impact on California. And it's about everyday people who deserve better than to have a president who is breaking the law, making their cost of living higher and hurting them. And businesses don't have predictability or certainty.

9:11 Uh this has been a war on on Christmas. Uh the the the shelves uh will be empty um or the costs and or the cost will be much higher. Um, and Americans deserve better than a a lawless president making their costs higher in a time when they need their costs and they deserve their costs to be lowered.

9:29 California Attorney General Rob Bont, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me, Wana.

Questions about this episode

What is discussed in "Tariffs aren't a presidential power, says California's attorney general"?

In order: 0:00 Constitution, rule of law, Supreme Court, affordable healthcare; 3:00 Congress, Trading with the Enemy Act, Federal Government, National Guard; 6:00 Congress, Constitution, executive branch, article one.

What is mentioned in this NPR episode?

24 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Congress, Constitution, Supreme Court, rule of law, article one, Federal Government. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Tariffs aren't a presidential power, says California's attorney general"?

The episode runs 10 min; the transcript is about 1,971 words in 20 timestamped sections.

More from NPR

• All analyzed episodes
• Books mentioned on NPR
• People mentioned on NPR
• Sponsors mentioned on NPR
• Topics mentioned on NPR