The Dangerous Expansion of Executive Power: Trump's Greenland Tariffs and Constitutional Concerns
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts: Emergency Powers and International Tensions
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared on Sunday that it is “very unlikely” the Supreme Court will overturn President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs on European nations regarding the Greenland situation. Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Bessent justified the administration’s position by stating, “I believe that it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president’s signature economic policy. They did not overrule Obamacare, I believe that the Supreme Court does not want to create chaos.”
The context for these comments stems from President Trump’s announcement via Truth Social that he would impose escalating tariffs on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. These tariffs would begin at 10% on February 1st and escalate to 25% by June 1st, all tied to Trump’s demand for the “Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”
The legal basis appears to be the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president broad authority to use economic tools in response to an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” Bessent remarkably claimed that “The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency,” describing the tariffs as “a strategic decision by the president… he is able to use the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war.”
European leaders responded with a joint statement from the affected nations, declaring that “Tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral. We will continue to stand united and coordinated in our response.” They emphasized their “full solidarity with the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland” and commitment to “sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
The administration’s pursuit of Greenland has involved high-level meetings, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio meeting with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Greenland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Vivian Motzfeldt. These discussions resulted in plans to establish a U.S.-Denmark working group on Greenland’s future.
Constitutional Crisis: The Erosion of Checks and Balances
The most alarming aspect of this situation is not the specific policy regarding Greenland, but the constitutional precedent being established. The administration’s assertion that the Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere with presidential emergency powers represents a fundamental threat to our system of checks and balances. The Founders specifically designed our government with separated powers to prevent exactly this type of executive overreach.
When Treasury Secretary Bessent confidently predicts judicial deference to presidential emergency powers, he’s essentially arguing that the executive branch can unilaterally declare emergencies to bypass congressional authority over trade and foreign policy. This contradicts the very essence of constitutional democracy, where no single branch should possess unchecked power. The IEEPA was never intended to become a tool for pressuring allied nations into territorial concessions.
The Dangerous Precedent of Economic Coercion
Using tariff threats to force negotiations over the sovereignty of another nation’s territory sets a profoundly dangerous precedent in international relations. Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, and its people have repeatedly expressed their desire to remain under Danish sovereignty. The administration’s approach treats international relations like a corporate acquisition rather than diplomacy between sovereign nations.
This heavy-handed tactic undermines decades of carefully built transatlantic alliances and could have long-lasting consequences for American leadership globally. When European allies—including some of our oldest and most reliable partners—must issue joint statements condemning American actions, we have entered dangerous territory for international stability.
The Human Dimension: Respecting Sovereignty and Self-Determination
At its core, this issue involves the fundamental right of peoples to self-determination. The people of Greenland have their own government, culture, and aspirations. Treating their homeland as a real estate transaction to be forced through economic pressure demonstrates a shocking disregard for human dignity and sovereignty.
The administration’s justification that acquiring Greenland is critical to national security to counter Russian and Chinese expansion raises serious questions about whether the ends justify the means. Even if one accepts the strategic importance of Greenland, using emergency powers and tariff threats to achieve this goal establishes a template for future administrations to bypass democratic processes in pursuit of their policy objectives.
The Supreme Court’s Critical Role
The impending Supreme Court decision on Trump’s use of IEEPA for tariffs represents a pivotal moment for American constitutional governance. The Court must carefully balance deference to executive authority in foreign policy matters with its responsibility to check potential abuses of power. The decision will either reinforce constitutional safeguards or effectively grant the president unlimited authority to declare economic emergencies for virtually any purpose.
Historical precedent suggests the Court should be extremely cautious about expanding executive power under emergency authorities. Past emergencies—whether real or declared—have often led to permanent expansions of executive authority that outlast the original crisis. The Court must consider whether allowing tariff emergencies for territorial acquisitions creates a slippery slope that future presidents might exploit for increasingly questionable purposes.
Conclusion: Defending Democratic Norms
This situation transcends partisan politics and speaks to fundamental questions about the nature of American democracy and its place in the world. The use of emergency powers to pressure allies, the confident prediction of judicial deference to executive authority, and the treatment of sovereign territory as a bargaining chip all represent dangerous departures from democratic norms.
As citizens committed to constitutional government, we must recognize that today’s emergency power precedent becomes tomorrow’s normalized executive authority. The mechanisms being tested today—whether upheld by the Supreme Court or not—will remain available to future administrations of all political persuasions. Once we accept that presidents can declare economic emergencies to bypass congressional authority for policy objectives, we fundamentally alter the balance of power established by our Constitution.
The Greenland situation serves as a stark warning about the fragility of democratic institutions when faced with assertions of unlimited executive power. Our commitment to constitutional principles requires vigilance against such expansions of authority, regardless of which party occupies the White House or which policy goals they pursue. The preservation of our democratic republic depends on maintaining the delicate system of checks and balances that has sustained American liberty for centuries.