SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
stand up america
Trump Critics Fear 'Presidency Without Limits' as Supreme Court Hears Tariffs Case
One critic warned a Trump win “will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way.”
Nov 05, 2025
As the US Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing arguments on the sweeping powers claimed by President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on foreign goods, many critics warned that the court would create a "presidency without limits" if it ruled in his favor.
In April, Trump unveiled unprecedented tariffs on nearly every nation in the world using powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law passed in 1977 that allows the president to regulate international commerce during major emergencies such as wars.
Many Trump critics believe that using this law as the legal foundation of a global tariff regime is a gross abuse of the law's original intent, and are urging the Supreme Court to shut it down.
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, warned that granting the president this level of authority over the taxation of imported goods would "open the door to broader abuses of power" by emboldening Trump to usurp even more authority from the US Congress.
“We’re already dangerously close to a presidency without limits," he said. "It’s time for the right-wing majority on the court to stand up for our Constitution and serve as a check on Trump’s power, starting with this case."
Josh Orton, president of progressive legal advocacy organization Demand Justice, also said that the tariff case before the Supreme Court "is about far more than an economic debate or a trade-law dispute," given its implications for the separation of powers laid out in the US Constitution.
"Trump is demanding that the court hand him raw power over the economy," said Orton. "If Trump wins here, he won’t just raise costs on American families. He will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way—letting any president unilaterally rewrite trade law, punish certain industries, harm consumers, or leverage international allies for personal gain."
Leor Tal, campaign director at the progressive advocacy coalition Unrig Our Economy, argued that the Supreme Court wouldn't even need to hear the case on the Trump tariffs if Congress reasserted its authority given under the US Constitution to levy taxes.
“As the Supreme Court hears a case with implications for whether Americans can afford groceries, school supplies, and more, people will remember that Republicans in Congress could end these disastrous tariffs today and should have done so a long time ago," she said. “These tariffs are nothing more than a tax on working Americans, and Republicans in Congress have voted time and again to keep them in place... Republicans in Congress must act immediately to repeal Trump’s tariffs and finally put working people first."
During Wednesday's hearing on the tariffs case, conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about allowing the president to usurp congressional powers in perpetuity by issuing emergency declarations that Congress must then vote to revoke before it can resume its duties outlined in Article I of the US Constitution.
"So Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president," Gorsuch remarked. "It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives."
Sauer tried to counter this by pointing to former President Joe Biden agreeing in 2023 to sign bipartisan legislation ending the national health emergency caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Gorsuch, however, countered that this only occurred with the president's consent, and that it would otherwise take a supermajority to end a declared emergency if the president elected to veto the congressional resolution.
Gorsuch: So congress as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.. one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives. pic.twitter.com/secLyWMX7H
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 5, 2025
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also grilled Sauer on concerns about separation of powers, and she noted that the Constitution explicitly delegates taxation powers to Congress.
"It's a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax," she said. "You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are. They're generating money from American citizens, revenue."
Justice Sotomayor asks about tariffs being a kind of tax on Americans and compares President Trump's emergency tariff Executive Orders to President Biden's student loan forgiveness policy and a hypothetical climate emergency. pic.twitter.com/nD0MYgVjv3
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 5, 2025
Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing this week, Trump posted a frantic message on his Truth Social platform warning justices that his power to unilaterally impose tariffs was a matter of "life or death" for the United States.
""With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, financial and national security," he claimed. "Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us."
Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on social media Wednesday that "Trump’s tariffs are sending small businesses to an early grave."
"Trade authority begins and ends with Congress," the senator added. "I’ll keep battling to rein in Trump’s tariff madness and protect small businesses, farmers, and families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Partisan Power Grab': Alarm Bells Ring After Missouri GOP Advances Extreme Redistricting Plan
One state Democratic leader accused the GOP of "aiding and abetting the systematic destruction of our democracy by an authoritarian regime."
Sep 10, 2025
The Republican-led Missouri House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill that would redraw their state's congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and potentially garner an extra seat for the GOP.
As reported by The Missouri Independent, the redrawn map carves up the district currently being represented by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) by placing regions that have traditionally voted for Democrats into districts held by Republicans.
If all goes according to plan, the new map would give Republicans seven seats in the US House of Representatives, up from their current total of six.
Although the map passed with Republican support, not every member of the party was on board. GOP state Rep. Bryant Wolfin, who voted against the measure, told the Independent that his GOP colleagues were showing that they only care about raw political power above all considerations.
"There's certainly nothing conservative about ignoring the moral implications of our actions," he said. "Morality is not defined by what is legal. Morality is not defined by what you can get away with."
Democratic House Minority Leader Ashley Aune was even more scathing in her denunciation of the GOP's power grab, and she accused the party of "aiding and abetting the systematic destruction of our democracy by an authoritarian regime led by geriatric conman who knows the only way he can win is to cheat," referring to President Donald Trump.
Although congressional maps are traditionally redrawn once per decade, Trump has been pressuring Republicans across the country to do a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at helping Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives next year.
Sarah Harris, a Missouri native and managing director of media engagement at Stand Up America, accused Missouri Republicans of doing Trump's bidding while ignoring the pressing needs of their own constituents.
"After pushing through a disgraceful mid-decade redistricting scheme in Texas, Donald Trump has now bullied Missouri Governor [Mike] Kehoe and Republican legislators in Missouri to do his dirty work," she said. "Instead of focusing on rising prices, rural hospital closures, and disaster relief, Missouri politicians are wasting time on a partisan power grab designed to protect corrupt DC politicians."
Even if the redrawn map passes the Missouri State Senate and gets signed into law, however, Missouri residents have a potential tool to block it.
St. Louis Public Radio reports that opponents of the new map can give voters the final say on it by organizing a statewide referendum.
"Any bill that passes out of the legislature can be put up for a statewide vote if opponents gather a certain number of signatures in six out of eight congressional districts," St. Louis Public Radio explains. "According to Secretary of State Denny Hoskins' website, that's a little more than 106,000 signatures."
Getting this many signatures from across the state will be challenging, however, as opponents of the new map will have just 90 days to complete a referendum drive after the end of the current special congressional session.
All the same, a new poll commissioned by Common Cause shows that the mid-decade redistricting push is broadly unpopular among voters, including those who voted for Trump in last year's election.
In all, the poll found that 70% of Democrats, 60% of independents, and 51% of Republicans opposed redrawing congressional maps in the middle of the decade, and that "large majorities" support the US Congress banning mid-decade redistricting.
"This data makes it clear: Republicans and Independents are just as tired of partisan gerrymandering as Democrats," said Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause. "Donald Trump's ask to find five seats with this mid-decade redistricting effort and his ask in 2020 to find him more votes in Georgia are both attempts to take away power from the people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdogs Welcome House Introduction of Congressional Stock Trading Ban
"As long as sitting lawmakers are allowed to trade stocks connected to the industries they oversee, the public will question whether they are prioritizing their own personal profits," said one campaigner.
Sep 03, 2025
Government watchdog groups on Wednesday cheered the bipartisan introduction of the Restore Trust in Congress Act, which would ban federal lawmakers, along with their spouses and children, from trading individual stocks.
"The legislation would require lawmakers to sell all individual stocks within 180 days," according to NPR. "Newly elected members of Congress would also have to divest of individual stock holdings before being sworn in. Members who fail to divest would face a fine equivalent to 10% of the value of the stock."
The bill's lead supporters in the House of Representatives span the full ideological spectrum: Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), Seth Magaziner (D-Pa.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and Chip Roy (R-Texas).
"In a strong display of bipartisanship, leaders from both sides of the aisle in the House have worked together to produce a comprehensive and commonsense legislative measure to ban congressional stock trading," said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist with the group Public Citizen, which is endorsing the bill.
"These members worked for months in drafting a strong consensus bill that addresses all the key elements of an effective ban on congressional stock trading," he continued, welcoming that the prohibition applies to immediate family members and "covers a wide range of investments, including cryptocurrency, and is fortified with strong enforcement measures."
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, also applauded the bill, highlighting that "our representatives in Washington have access to an enormous amount of information about our economy that isn't available to the public."
"They should not be allowed to use what they learn in the course of their legislative duties to gain an unfair advantage and enrich themselves," he said. "It's time to ban sitting members of Congress from buying and selling stocks. Members of Congress cannot be trusted to police themselves, and existing ethics laws do not go far enough to prevent members from using their insider knowledge for personal gain."
Lawmakers behind this new proposal have long advocated for a full ban, arguing that existing protections—including those in the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012—are inadequate.
Advocacy groups, including the Campaign Legal Center, have also "been fighting for years to improve laws regulating the way members of Congress trade stocks," noted Kedric Payne, CLC's vice president, general counsel, and senior director for ethics.
"As long as sitting lawmakers are allowed to trade stocks connected to the industries they oversee, the public will question whether they are prioritizing their own personal profits over the public interest," Payne said. "We applaud this bipartisan legislation that incorporates the key provisions of stock act reform CLC has fought to advance—a ban on stock ownership that is enforceable and holds lawmakers accountable."
Jamie Neikrie, legislative director at the political reform group Issue One, pointed out Wednesday that "three years have passed since House leadership made a commitment to bring a congressional stock trading ban bill to the floor for a vote."
"It's time to get this much-needed reform across the finish line—no more excuses," Neikrie declared. "Members of Congress have a responsibility to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, and passing the Restore Trust in Congress Act is how Congress shows it's serious about restoring trust and integrity in government."
"Today is a critical step for a more transparent and stronger institution," he added, urging "leadership in both chambers to seize this moment" and send the bill to President Donald Trump's desk.
Earlier this summer, Trump lashed out at Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who worked with Democrats to advance out of committee a stock trading ban, claiming that "he is playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats."
Hawley initially called his proposal the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act—a nod to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whose husband's stock trading has drawn scrutiny. After Hawley worked with Democrats on the bill, it was renamed the Halting Ownership and Non-Ethical Stock Transactions (HONEST) Act.
After the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's July vote, Pelosi said that "while I appreciate the creativity of my Republican colleagues in drafting legislative acronyms, I welcome any serious effort to raise ethical standards in public service. The HONEST Act, as amended, rightly applies its stock trading ban not only to Members of Congress, but now to the president and vice president as well. I strongly support this legislation and look forward to voting for it on the floor of the House."
Meanwhile, Fox News' Jesse Watters at the time asked Hawley about Trump lashing out at him. The Senate Republican responded, "I had a good chat with the president earlier this evening, and he reiterated to me he wants to see a ban on stock trading by people like Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress, which is what we passed today."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular