In moments of crisis or uncertainty, free societies are tempted to hand their problems to a “strong man” – someone who promises swift, decisive action when the slow machinery of constitutional delegation feels too unwieldy. Economist F.A. Hayek warned, “The principle that the end justifies the means … becomes necessarily the supreme rule … It is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation.”
We are watching that impulse unfold in real time, as the executive branch imposes, retracts, and reimposes tariffs with the flick of a tweet. One day, they’re aimed at China’s trade practices; the next, they’re a tool to fight fentanyl, fund tax cuts, or create jobs. The justification shifts – but the power flows in one direction: unchecked.
Whether tariffs are the right policy tool is a different question from whether the executive is the right branch to decide when and how to use them. A tariff is simply a tax on imports, inescapably passed on to consumers.
Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution says Congress “shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” The question is, what are the limits of the authority Congress delegated to the executive, and should emergency powers be used to implement tax policy?
President Donald Trump is hardly the first to flex executive power. President Joe Biden tried to forgive hundreds of billions in student debt by executive fiat – authority the Supreme Court said he didn’t have. President Barack Obama bypassed Congress entirely, reshaping immigration policy through sweeping executive action. For more than two centuries, presidents have tested the limits of their power.
Andrew Jackson, faced with a Supreme Court ruling he didn’t like, refused to enforce it. Even Franklin Roosevelt – whose central planning prompted Hayek’s warning – used “emergency” powers to remake the economy from the top down. The pattern is clear: The more we cheer power when it suits us, the harder it becomes to resist when it doesn’t.
A free society must ask: Should one person hold the power to restructure the global economic order unilaterally?
President Trump’s April 2 executive order declared that U.S. trade deficits “constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.” The order chronicles U.S. trade policy since 1934 and argues the international post-war system was built on flawed assumptions. The result is a sweeping justification for tariff authority – and an unprecedented use of the word “emergency” that has already sparked legal challenges.
In response, the president argued that judges have no authority to review his emergency declaration.
Tariffs are now portrayed as an economic panacea, but when power is concentrated in one person, there is no one to challenge those conclusions. As Proverbs warns, “The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.”
The executive order conflates correlation with causation, relying on flawed premises to justify a predetermined conclusion. There was no argument, no competing analysis, no hearing – just a decision handed down from the top.
In effect, the executive branch launched a trade war against allies and adversaries with no vote, no debate, and no public process.
Even worse, proximity to power invites the kind of abject groveling that produces arbitrary carve-outs, exemptions, waivers, and favors. Yes, the legislative branch is messy – but its committees, fiscal notes, and public testimony provide at least some transparency and safeguards against favoritism and corruption. That’s a world apart from one person’s gut instinct driving tax policy.
In response to this chaos, members of Congress have introduced the Trade Review Act of 2025, which would require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of imposing tariffs. Without congressional approval, those tariffs would automatically expire after 60 days.
Other proposals to put Congress back in the driver’s seat on tax policy and limit emergency powers have also been introduced. Mountain States Policy Center recently joined a letter to Congress encouraging action on these constitutional safeguards. These proposals are a necessary reminder: policymaking belongs to the legislative branch.
Those applauding the president’s actions because they prefer the results should ask themselves: What happens when the next president uses the same authority for goals they oppose? Imagine a future president declares housing costs a national emergency and imposes a 2% rent cap nationwide. Is that an acceptable use of executive power, or does it depend on whose hand is on the lever?
The glacial pace of our government is a feature of the system, not a bug. Deliberation, debate, and limits aren’t flaws – they’re the point. In fear or frustration, humans prefer to trade freedom for order, process for speed, and law for force. But barriers around power protect us from ourselves.
Separation of powers isn’t a bureaucratic inconvenience – it’s a wall between liberty and coercion. When we bypass the measured legislative process for the rapid decisiveness of the “strong man,” we invite authoritarian rule. Under central planning, economic damage builds, frustration grows, and the public demands even more power in fewer hands – a vicious cycle Hayek warned against.
As he wrote, “We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for desirable purposes.”
We cannot defend freedom with the tools of central planning or by becoming what we once resisted. A free and virtuous society is not steered by the wisdom of one, but by the knowledge of many.
If we fail to limit power when we like the outcome, we’ll have no defense when we don’t.
Amber Gunn is a Senior Policy Analyst for the Mountain States Policy Center, an independent research organization based in Idaho, Montana, Eastern Washington and Wyoming. Online at mountainstatespolicy.org.
