Really obscure laws and legal doctrines are being increasingly utilized by Trump to unleash a growing global trade war — especially for non-economic objectives. (The 1798 Alien Enemies Act, Reciprocal Tariffs from the late 1800’s, and the 1950’s States Secret’s Privilege.) More obscure and old, the easier they will be set aside by the federal courts. It’s as simple as that. (Of course, Congress’s exclusive authority over trade and the ‘non-delegation doctrine’ don’t help the administration.) The administration will spend millions of dollars on legal bills with nothing to show for it, but pure domestic and international chaos and inevitable self-destruction. Bullies will always backdown when forcefully confronted (by dometic and international players). The federal courts are now taking the lead in reestablishing some sense of law and order that have become the essence of the post-war era and former American leadership. (The Congress may not be far behind.) The recent Trump decision to quit or defund the WTO is the most egregious disregard of international law and the exceptionalism of post-war U.S. foreign policy.

“The emergency powers Trump is invoking — based on provisions of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act — are intended for use in legitimate emergencies related to foreign threats and adversaries. This law is typically used to place sanctions on bad actors like cartels and dictators, but Trump’s rationale for an “emergency” that justifies billions in taxes on American consumers doesn’t make sense in Canada’s case. He has made spurious claims of a fentanyl crisis at the northern border on par with the drug situation at the southern border, but his numbers don’t add up …. Fortunately, the National Emergencies Act of 1976 included a provision allowing any senator to force a vote to block emergency powers (“there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency “) being abused by the president. I (Tim Kaina) will be pulling that procedural lever to challenge Trump’s Canada tariffs early next week.” “Senate Voting on ‘Emergency’ Tariff Policy (Kaine).’ (March 28, 2025).

“A federal appeals court in Washington on Wednesday kept in place, for now, a block on the Trump administration’s use of a rarely invoked wartime statute to summarily deport Venezuelan migrants accused of being members of a violent street gang. By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the Venezuelan migrants were likely to succeed in their claims that the government cannot use the wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to summarily transfer them to a prison in El Salvador without a hearing. “Appeals Court Blocks ‘Alien Enemy Act’ from Venezuelan Migration Cases.” New York Times (March 27, 2025).

“[The 1798 Alien Enemies Act states ….]  “Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government . . . all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government   . . who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.” “Trump and 1798 Alien Enemies Act.” Wall Street Journal (3.23.25).

“Much like his trade tactics, Trump doubles or quadruples retaliatory threats whenever a judge pauses one of his actions. But he has not yet unequivocally refused to comply with an order. It’s a game of chicken.” “Trump Assault on the Rule of Law.” Financial Times (March 23, 2025).

“Trump quietly signed a proclamation invoking the law, known as the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. It grants him the authority to remove from the United States foreign citizens he has designated as “alien enemies” in the cases of war or an invasion …. Legal scholars have long criticized the law as prone to abuse. During World War II, in one of the darker chapters in the nation’s history, the law paved the way for citizens of Germany, Italy or Japan to be searched and detained.” “Alien Enemy Act and Warrantless Searches.” New York Times (March 22, 2025).

“Barriers to open trade are rising across the world at a pace unseen in decades, a cascade of protectionism that harks back to the isolationist fervor that swept the globe in the 1930s and worsened the Great Depression …. If Trump follows through on all his remaining tariff threats, tariffs on U.S. imports could hit 18% on average, Fitch Ratings estimates—the highest level in 90 years.” “Trade War Explodes.” Wall Street Journal (March 24, 2025).

“Trump has promised to unleash the largest sweep of his trade policy agenda next week, with a raft of new tariffs to be applied globally and armed with a set of legal justifications for a range of actions beyond just tariffs. April 2, which Trump is now calling “Liberation Day,” will be the most important turning point in reversing the last 80 years of US economic integration with the world in favor of implementing America First. Trump has promised “Liberation Day” on April 2, when his reciprocal tariff agenda goes global …. Reciprocal tariffs, to recap, are meant to include five key assessments.¹² These include mirroring high foreign tariff levels with higher US tariff levels,¹³ any domestic Value Added (VAT) or Goods and Services (GST) taxes, non-tariff barriers, “burdensome requirements” on American businesses, and any other “structural impediments” deemed “unfair.” This means that reciprocal tariffs can be applied to any and all countries, even those with free trade agreements in place and those with lower or zero tariffs, as the concept is not simply limited to tariff rates alone. The difficulty of managing this system is going to be high. “Trump’s ‘(Tariff) Liberation Day’.” Hinrich (March 25, 2025).

” Trump’s policy turns the traditional meaning of reciprocal trade on its head. He wants to achieve reciprocity only by raising tariffs, almost certainly triggering retaliation. Reciprocal trade policy as envisioned by President William McKinley recognized that by the dawn of the 20th century America had emerged as an economic colossus capable of producing an abundance of products that could be profitably exported. McKinley’s reciprocal trade policy was aimed at opening markets for U.S. products with agreements that lowered tariffs on imported products proportionately as other countries lowered theirs on U.S. products. Roosevelt used reciprocal trade policies to back the world out of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. The Trump perversion of reciprocal trade co-opts a politically appealing phrase to justify his preferred policy.” “Wiliam McKinley is Turning in is Grave.” Wall Street Journal (March 20, 2025).

“Trump appeared to invent a new tariff altogether. Secondary tariffs — a mash-up of secondary sanctions and tariffs — will be imposed by the US on any nation that buys oil or gas from Venezuela. The import duties will take effect from April 2, the day when the world expects to hear what the US administration’s plans are for its headline agenda of reciprocal levies ….  Trump says America would apply a 25 per cent tariff on buyers of Venezuelan crude on top of existing tariffs ….  In January, the president threatened Colombia with 25 per cent tariffs, among other sanctions, for its refusal to take deported migrants …. Beyond trying to coerce other nations, there isn’t a coherent strategy here.” “Trump’s Tariffs & Foreign Policy Goals (Secondary Sanctions).” Financial Times (March 26, 2025).

“The administration is invoking an extraordinary national security power, the state secrets privilege, under highly unusual circumstances …. The doctrine can allow the executive branch to block the use of particular evidence in open court — or in some cases even to shut down entire lawsuits — when litigating a matter would risk disclosing information that could jeopardize national security. Nothing in the Constitution says this power exists. It was created by judges during the early Cold War. In a 1953 case, United States v. Reynolds, the Supreme Court said information can be blocked if there is a “reasonable danger” that the disclosure “will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.” “State Secrets Privilege.” New York Times (March 26, 2025).