Tariffs aren't a presidential power, says California Attorney General

Summary

Episode Overview

Podcast: Consider This from NPR
Episode: Tariffs Aren't a Presidential Power, Says California Attorney General
Date: November 5, 2025
Host: Juana Summers, NPR

This episode examines whether the President of the United States has the constitutional authority to impose tariffs unilaterally under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), focusing on former President Donald Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs. Featuring California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who challenges Trump's authority, the discussion situates the Supreme Court battle within a broader debate about executive power, its constitutional boundaries, and the real-world stakes for American consumers and states.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Supreme Court Case: Trump's Use of Tariffs

• Background: President Trump invoked IEEPA to impose massive tariffs on foreign imports, claiming it would rebuild American manufacturing (00:48).
• Central Issue: The Supreme Court is considering whether the President can impose tariffs without an explicit grant of power from Congress (01:30).
• Arguments For Presidential Power:
  • The administration, represented by Solicitor General John Sauer, argues the power to impose tariffs falls under the power to regulate foreign commerce, which the President can exercise under IEEPA (00:07).
• Arguments Against Presidential Power:
  • Multiple legal scholars and state officials, including Rob Bonta, argue this power rests explicitly with Congress according to the Constitution. IEEPA does not mention tariffs or delegate this authority (05:38).

Notable Quote:

“Tariffs are taxes. Congress has the Power to tax. It’s in Article I of the United States Constitution.”
— Rob Bonta (05:38)

---

The Constitutional Debate: Congressional vs. Presidential Authority

• Michael McConnell’s Perspective: (Stanford law professor, plaintiff’s attorney)

  • He frames the case within a decades-long trend of presidential overreach, warning it undermines stable trade policy and international trust (01:41).

  Notable Quote:

  "There can be no confidence by the international system that the United States is going to stick with a policy or comply with trade negotiations the way we have in the past."
  — Michael McConnell (02:14)

• Rob Bonta’s Argument:

  • The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to tax and impose tariffs. Only when statutes explicitly delegate this authority (using clear language) can the President act on tariffs.
  • Previous statutes (like the Trading with the Enemy Act) are not comparable; IEEPA was designed to constrain, not expand, executive authority (06:53).
  • Bonta links the case to a larger pattern, describing Trump’s approach as a “fringe theory” of a unitary executive, seeking powers the Constitution denies to prevent a “monarch, a tyrant” (08:52).

Notable Quote:

"The president has been acting as if he's a king, a monarch, a tyrant, and the Constitution rejects that...this tariffs case is an example of the President overreaching again, trying to seize authority that is not his."
— Rob Bonta (08:52)

---

Partisan Lawsuits and the Rule of Law

• California’s Activism:

  • California has filed 46 lawsuits in 41 weeks against Trump administration actions, frequently winning legal victories (07:52).
  • Bonta rebuffs the idea that these lawsuits are purely partisan, stressing they are driven by legal questions—whether the President is breaking the law.

  Notable Quote:

  "If he breaks the law, we sue him. If he doesn't break the law, we don't. I think the proof is in the pudding."
  — Rob Bonta (07:52)

---

The Stakes for Americans

• Economic Impact:

  • Bonta highlights the severe negative effects on California and the broader U.S. economy if tariffs are upheld—projected $25 billion economic hit, 64,000 lost jobs, disrupted businesses, and increased consumer prices (10:43).
  • He warns of "empty shelves" and holiday hardship, painting a picture of tariffs as a “war on Christmas.”

  Notable Quote:

  "This has been a war on Christmas. The shelves will be empty and or the cost will be much higher. And Americans deserve better than a lawless president making their costs higher."
  — Rob Bonta (11:19)

• Constitutional Principle:

  • Bonta frames the fight as a defense of democracy, constitutional checks and balances, and protection of ordinary Americans’ interests.

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00–01:30: Introduction and background on tariffs case
• 01:30–02:30: Broader implications for presidential power (Michael McConnell)
• 04:03–05:18: Interview begins: Bonta on political climate and voter sentiment
• 05:18–06:45: Legal arguments against executive tariff power under IEEPA
• 06:45–07:52: Precedent statutes and legal history
• 07:52–08:37: California’s lawsuits against Trump: motivations and outcomes
• 08:37–09:38: Limits of presidential power; Bonta on Trump’s overreach
• 09:38–10:30: Supreme Court’s history with executive power, Bonta’s optimism
• 10:30–11:37: Practical impact: what is at stake for consumers and states

---

Memorable Quotes

• Rob Bonta (05:38): “Tariffs are taxes. Congress has the Power to tax. It’s in Article I of the United States Constitution... [IEEPA] doesn’t mention the word tariffs once.”
• Michael McConnell (02:14): “There can be no confidence ... that the United States is going to stick with a policy or comply with trade negotiations…”
• Rob Bonta (08:52): “The president has been acting as if he’s a king, a monarch, a tyrant, and the Constitution rejects that...”
• Rob Bonta (07:52): “If he breaks the law, we sue him. If he doesn’t break the law, we don’t. I think the proof is in the pudding.”
• Rob Bonta (11:19): “This has been a war on Christmas. The shelves will be empty and or the cost will be much higher. And Americans deserve better...”

---

Tone & Language

The episode maintains a clear, urgent, and principled tone. Bonta is direct and assertive, positioning the case as a defense of constitutional law and the well-being of Americans. The conversation is fact-driven but punctuated by vivid analogies (“monarch, a tyrant”; “war on Christmas”) to stress the stakes.

---

Conclusion

This episode of "Consider This" dives into a pivotal question for balance of powers in the U.S.: Does the President have the authority to impose tariffs on their own? Through the lens of California’s Attorney General and supporting legal experts, listeners are presented with a nuanced, high-stakes debate—one with constitutional, economic, and everyday ramifications for Americans.

Transcript

[Juana Summers]

President Donald Trump's trade agenda is on the line Wednesday. That's when the Supreme Court hears arguments about his broad use of tariffs.

[Rob Bonta]

The power to impose tariffs is a core application of the power to regulate foreign commerce.

[Juana Summers]

That's John Sauer, solicitor General, arguing on behalf of the government. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against Sauer's argument on tariffs not being a tax.

[Donald Trump]

I just don't understand this argument. It's not an article. It's a congressional power, not a presidential power tax. And you want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are.

[Juana Summers]

Trump has been talking about the power of tariffs for some four decades. But this battle began back in April. Standing in the Rose Garden, President Trump proclaimed Liberation Day.

[Donald Trump]

April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn.

[Juana Summers]

The day carrying out his campaign pledge to impose massive tariffs on foreign imports.

[Donald Trump]

Few moments, I will sign a historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world. We will.

[Juana Summers]

Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers act, or iepa, when he imposed the sweeping tariffs. The goal, he said, was to rebuild American manufacturing.

[Donald Trump]

We're going to build our future with American hand, with American heart. This will be indeed the golden age of America.

[Juana Summers]

And as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday, the case goes beyond tariffs. Prominent lawyers and scholars, many of them conservative, argue this case is about presidential power.

[Michael McConnell]

This fits into a wider picture that over the last several decades, presidents of both political parties have been increasingly asserting unilateral power that had never been exercised by presidents in the past and that, under the Constitution, was belong to Congress.

[Juana Summers]

That's Michael McConnell. He represents one of the plaintiffs. He's also a constitutional law professor at Stanford University and a former federal judge nominated by President George W. Bush. He spoke to NPR about what's at stake if the court sides with President Trump.

[Michael McConnell]

Tariff policy on a dime. There can be no confidence by the international system that the United States is going to stick with a a policy or comply with trade negotiations the way we have in the past.

[Juana Summers]

Consider this. The Supreme Court will decide whether the president has the power to impose tariffs. Should the justices rule in Trump's favor, the effects will extend well beyond America's balance sheet. From npr, I'm Juana Summers. Foreign.

[Rachel Martin]

I'm Rachel Martin. If you're tired of small talk, check out the Wildcard podcast. I invite influential thinkers to open up about the big topics we all think about, but rarely talk about. Tune in this fall to hear Mel Robbins, Malala Yousafzai, and Brene Brown. Talk about everything from grief and God to ambition and forgiveness. Watch or listen on the NPR app, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Terry Gross]

Hi, it's Terry Gross, host of FRESH AIR. Hey, take a break from the 24 hour news cycle with us and listen to long form interviews with your favorite authors, actors, filmmakers, comedians and musicians, the people making the art that nourishes us and speaks to our times. So listen to the FRESH AIR podcast from NPR and WHYY.

[Michelle Martin]

On this week's books we've loved. We're headed to the Open range with Morning Edition's Michelle Martin to break down Charles Portis classic True Grit. Find books we've loved in NPR's Book of the Day podcast feed on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Juana Summers]

It's consider this from npr. California Attorney General Rob Bonta was at the Supreme Court Wednesday watching the arguments play out. Bonta filed a friend of the court brief in this case and it's one of dozens in which the state of California has opposed Trump administration policy. I spoke to General Banta shortly after the arguments wrapped. 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?

[Rob Bonta]

A couple one, that the status quo is not working for voters. It was very much a referendum on Trump. He wasn't on the ballot, but he was essentially on 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 people to be fed. They want Americans to have affordable health care. They don't want our cities to be militarized. And they don't want tariffs that raise costs. And they don't want ICE as masked agents all over our cities either. So that was, I think, declared loud and clear by the voters who came out.

[Juana Summers]

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 Newsom, is that the International Emergency Economic Powers act, or iepa, it does not cover the use of tariffs. Am I understanding that correctly?

[Rob Bonta]

100% correct. Tariffs are taxes. Congress has the Power to tax. It's in Article 1 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 mention the word tariffs once. And in other statutes where if the federal government wants to give authority to the President, they mention the word tariffs, they delegate that authority. Clearly. Also, IPA has never been used in nearly 50 years 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 U.S. supreme Court argument today, I think, surfaced those key issues very clearly.

[Juana Summers]

There have, though, been 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?

[Rob Bonta]

When a statute gives the power to impose tariffs by the President, they say it and they use the word tariff or other clear language. There's no such clear expression of delegation of tariff authority to the President in ipa. So IEEPA has never been used for tariff imposing tariffs by any President. And that's the.

[Juana Summers]

But I think though, about the precursor to ipa, which was the Trading with the Enemy act, which was enacted then during World War. And that has been brought up in this case.

[Rob Bonta]

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

[Juana Summers]

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?

[Rob Bonta]

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, 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 justify 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. I think the proof is in the pudding. 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 injunctions, and judgments. So that means he's breaking the law and that we're right, and we only, 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 the court's decisions have shown that we're right and that he's breaking the law.

[Juana Summers]

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.

[Rob Bonta]

This is part of the sort of fringe theory of a unitary executive, 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. The president 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 again, trying to seize authority that is not his, trying to take from Congress their authority, trying to trespass on Congress. Congress is constitutionally given authority, and so 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 authority that does not belong to you, belongs to Congress, and you cannot impose tariffs.

[Juana Summers]

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.

[Rob Bonta]

Based on what I heard in the courtroom today. There's definitely some on the court, not all, but some who believe in a more muscular executive branch, but they also read the Constitution, 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 unless clearly delegated to the President, the president cannot exercise that congressional authority. And they did a lot of had a lot of discussion today about the plain and unambiguous text, the legislative history, the historical precedent 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.

[Juana Summers]

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?

[Rob Bonta]

Devastating. And it's already been devastating to workers, to families, to small businesses, to moms and pops just trying to survive. Costs have gone up. California is projected to have an economic hit of $25 billion, lose 64,000 jobs. California is the biggest state in the nation, fourth largest economy in the world. We 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. This has been a war on Christma. The shelves will be empty and or the cost will be much higher. And Americans deserve better than a lawless president making their costs higher in a time when they need their costs and they deserve their costs to be lowered.

[Juana Summers]

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, thank you so much for being here.

[Rob Bonta]

Thanks for having me, Juana.

[Juana Summers]

This episode was produced by Brianna Scott and Erica Ryan with engineering by David Greenberg. It was edited by Courtney Dorning. Our executive producer is Sammy Yening. Again, it's consider this from npr. I'm Juana Summers.

[All Songs Considered Host]

Making time for the news is important, but when you need a break, we've got you covered on All Songs Considered. NPR's music podcast. Think of it like a music discovery show, A well deserved escape with friends and yeah, some serious music insight.

[Michael McConnell]

I'm gonna keep it real. I have no idea what this story is about.

[All Songs Considered Host]

Hear new episodes of All Songs Considered every Tuesday. Wherever you get podcasts you care about.

[State of the World Podcast Host]

What'S happening in the world, stay informed with NPR's State of the World podcast. In just a few minutes, we take you to stories around the globe. You might hear the latest developments in world conflicts or about what global events mean for the price of your coffee. Listen to the State of the World podcast from npr.

[Juana Summers]

Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks Amazon prime members can listen to Consider this sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get consider this [e-mail] that's plus.NPR.org.