Podcast Summary: Ep 362 | Trump Should Rein In, Not Expand, Executive Power | Kibbe on Liberty with John Vecchione

Date: November 26, 2025
Host: Matt Kibbe
Guest: John Vecchione (Chief Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance)
Platform: Blaze Podcast Network

Overview

This episode of Kibbe on Liberty dives into the legal fight against executive power expansion—specifically, President Trump's efforts to broaden tariff authority via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Matt Kibbe and guest John Vecchione explore the Trump tariff case, ongoing litigation concerning censorship and the “censorship industrial complex,” recent regulatory reforms, and the perennial dangers of vesting too much power in the executive branch. Throughout, they emphasize the constitutional need for Congress to play an active lawmaking role rather than letting presidents rule unilaterally by executive order.

Table of Contents

1. John Vecchione’s Background & NCLA Mission
2. Censorship Litigation: Missouri v. Biden & Beyond
3. Chevron Deference & The Supreme Court's Shift on Agency Power
4. The Trump Tariff Case & Abuse of IEEPA
5. Corporate America’s "Cowardice" on Tariff Challenges
6. Economic & Constitutional Implications of the Tariffs
7. Why Reining in Executive Power Matters for Everyone
8. Broader NCLA Litigation & Other Administrative State Issues
9. Notable Quotes & Timestamps

<a name="background"></a>

1. John Vecchione’s Background & NCLA Mission

• Vecchione’s career: Started as a defense attorney in D.C., helped represent clients challenging government abuses, and now serves as chief counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). (01:29)
  • NCLA focuses exclusively on suing the administrative state over unconstitutional and unlawful actions.
• Quote:

  "All we do is sue the administrative state over unconstitutional and unlawful actions. And that's what I've been doing for basically almost 10 years now, if you count Cause of Action. And it's been fun and we've had some big wins." —John Vecchione (02:41)

<a name="censorship"></a>

2. Censorship Litigation: Missouri v. Biden & Beyond

• Changizi and Missouri v. Biden:
  • Early work challenged government-backed content suppression on social media, particularly around COVID-19 debates. (04:00)
  • Missouri v. Biden case: Alleged unconstitutional government interference with public discourse online. NCLA joined as plaintiffs, including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
  • District and appellate court victories labeled government action "the biggest free speech violation" the judge had seen. (05:54)
• Supreme Court setback:
  • The Supreme Court (6–3) found plaintiffs lacked standing for preliminary injunction, despite clear government coercion of social media. (06:30)
  • Agencies have since removed “portals” giving them direct control over social media moderation. (09:03)
• Whack-a-mole problems:
  • Kibbe and Vecchione worry about recurring tactics:

    "This whole process of the government censoring our speech has been a series of whack-a-mole games." —Matt Kibbe (09:14)

  • Foreign regulatory pressure: FTC collaborating with overseas agencies sometimes forces American companies to follow non-U.S. standards indirectly. (11:40)

<a name="chevron"></a>

3. Chevron Deference & The Supreme Court's Shift on Agency Power

• Background on Chevron deference: Explained as the 1980s doctrine where courts deferred to agencies’ interpretations of vague statutes, granting bureaucratic power to define legal boundaries. (12:46)
• Trump Administration’s regulatory reform:
  • Trump’s EOs required agencies to interpret rules rigorously, not expansively.
  • Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises decision (15:00):
    • Overturned Chevron deference, declaring it's the judiciary’s role, not agencies’, to interpret ambiguous laws.
    • Seen as a critical win for restraining executive power:

      "Judges are going to look at the law and say what the best interpretation is. We're not going to defer to the agency." —John Vecchione (14:40)

• But: Executive Orders (EOs) can be overturned by future Presidents, so permanent reform requires new laws passed by Congress. (16:23)

<a name="tariffs"></a>

4. The Trump Tariff Case & Abuse of IEEPA

• Traditional Tariff Authority: Normally, Congress gives the President limited trade war powers (e.g., Section 232 "national security" tariffs), but with time limits and reporting requirements. (20:35)
• Trump’s move: The Trump administration invoked IEEPA—originally meant for emergencies like war or international crises—to impose wide-ranging tariffs, including on non-threatening U.S. allies, claiming this as an "emergency." (21:53)
• Legal/constitutional issue:
  • No U.S. court has upheld such a broad use for tariffs under IEEPA (originally a 1970s law).
  • Statute never mentioned tariffs; regular customs duties are clearly separated in the legal code.
• Predicted Supreme Court outcome: Vecchione and allies expect the Court to strike down the Trump tariffs ("I can't see the government getting to five and I can see us getting to seven")—though some respected legal scholars are more cautious. (25:50)

<a name="corporate"></a>

5. Corporate America’s "Cowardice" on Tariff Challenges

• Small businesses leading legal fights:
  • Plaintiffs challenging the tariffs are mostly smaller businesses unable to manage unpredictable regulatory changes, whereas large corporations seem either too risk-averse or too entangled with regulatory authorities to challenge. (27:14)
• Quote:

  "The ability to plan is killing these small businesses... switching relationships is very difficult for a small firm because it doesn't have tons of managers..." —John Vecchione (28:05)

• Corporate conflicts: Large companies fear antagonizing the government given their reliance on favorable merger reviews and other regulatory approvals.

<a name="implications"></a>

6. Economic & Constitutional Implications of the Tariffs

• Costs borne by Americans:
  • Vecchione debunks the popular narrative that "other countries" pay the tariffs, giving personal examples and receipts. (33:18)
  • Processing fees and transaction costs for small imports have skyrocketed.
  • Kibbe: "My wife Terry bought a rug sample... it cost $50 and the tariff cost $23." (33:13)
• Deadweight loss: Tariffs undermine efficiency, create planning uncertainty, and can't force onshoring for many products (like coffee).
  • "Albania was well known as the most autarkic state... they did not make Albania great again. And I don't think we should really be following their lead." —John Vecchione (34:39)
• What if the tariffs go down?
  • Wrongfully collected tariffs can be returned via the Court of International Trade—but the process will be complicated by scale. (37:20)
  • Any proposal to "refund" tariffs to Americans (i.e., Trump’s $2,000 rebate) would require congressional action, as the President can't unilaterally spend that money.

<a name="reining"></a>

7. Why Reining in Executive Power Matters for Everyone

• Short-termism of executive actions: Next President can wipe out reforms with pen-stroke; only Congressional action is lasting. (16:23; 46:08)
• Danger for both parties:
  • Warning to MAGA Republicans: Any powers Trump claims now can be used by his political opponents later.
  • Executive power is a "one-way ratchet"—hard to claw back:

    "Look at these powers that Trump is claiming. Would you want AOC to have those powers?" —John Vecchione (44:25)

• Major Questions Doctrine: Supreme Court increasingly insistent that Congress, not Presidents, must legislate on important economic/policy issues.

<a name="ncla"></a>

8. Broader NCLA Litigation & Administrative State Issues

• Qualified immunity:
  • NCLA opposes legal doctrines that shield government officials from personal liability for rights violations. (48:09)
• Criminal penalties via regulation:
  • Agencies sometimes attach criminal penalties to agency-made rules, which NCLA views as unconstitutional unless authorized by Congress.
  • Example: BASE jumpers facing criminal penalties without law passed by Congress. (49:12)
• SEC and gag orders:
  • NCLA targets SEC settlement agreements that permanently silence individuals from discussing their case outcomes—a form of "prior restraint" on speech not seen elsewhere in federal regulation. (51:30)
• Surveillance issues:
  • NCLA challenges warrantless tracking (e.g., license plate readers, mandatory location tracking on fishermen), arguing Fourth Amendment violations. (53:00)
• Contact: New Civil Liberties Alliance website: newcivil.liberties.org (52:34)

<a name="quotes"></a>

9. Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• On government’s censorship efforts:

  "It's pretty clear that they were yelling and intimidating these social media companies. And social media companies also want mergers and other things they need from the government. Right. It's, you know, 'Nice social media company you have. It'd be terrible if anything happened to it.'" —John Vecchione (05:54)

• On the naivete of expanding executive power:

  "There's this naivete that if we just expand the power when the good guys are in office that somehow that won't be corrupted and abused when the next guy takes over... it's wildly naive." —Matt Kibbe (17:54)

• On judicial reluctance to second-guess 'emergencies':

  "The court's never going to say it's not an emergency. They're not going to be in the business of second guessing the President. But it annoys me." —John Vecchione (24:07)

• On the futility and cost of tariffs for ordinary Americans:

  "There's a dead weight loss of being unable to plan... The whole idea of this is that the greatest thing would be if no tariffs were paid because everything had been onshored. But there are some things that can't be grown or built here." —John Vecchione (34:12)

• Warning to both sides:

  "Would you want AOC to have those powers?" —John Vecchione (44:25)

• On Congress’s duty:

  "The Supreme Court has been saying for about a decade now, Congress, do your job... If you want $150 billion in tariffs, which are taxes, go to Congress." —John Vecchione (44:40)

• On government financial promises:

  "He doesn't have control over that, that all monies have to be dispersed by Congress. So he needs Congress to help him. You can't just be handing out $2,000 without some sort of congressional action." —John Vecchione (39:46)

Key Takeaways

• Expanding executive power via IEEPA or any statute is constitutional dynamite. Whether used for tariffs or regulation, it risks lasting abuse.
• Recent Supreme Court decisions (like Loper Bright) are starting to claw back agency discretion, but only Congress can make these reforms permanent.
• Tariffs are not paid by China or foreigners, but overwhelmingly by Americans—consumers and business owners alike.
• Big corporations shirk legal challenges largely out of regulatory self-interest and fear; small businesses bear the brunt and lead the legal fight.
• The only durable way to rein in executive overreach is through Congress—by passing clear, limited laws and refusing to delegate open-ended authority.

For legal updates and more information:

• New Civil Liberties Alliance Website: newcivilliberties.org
• For additional content and resources, see freethepeople.org