national security

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices like to talk about the Constitution’s separation of powers and how it limits the exercise of official authority.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his conservative colleagues have given no sign so far they will check President Trump’s one-man governance by executive order.

To the contrary, the conservative justices have repeatedly ruled for Trump on fast-track appeals and overturned federal judges who said the president had exceeded his authority.

The court’s new term opens on Monday, and the justices will begin hearing arguments.

But those regularly scheduled cases have been overshadowed by Trump’s relentless drive to remake the government, to punish his political enemies, including universities, law firms, TV networks and prominent Democrats, and to send troops to patrol U.S. cities.

The overriding question has become: Are there any legal limits on the president’s power? The Supreme Court itself has raised the doubts.

A year ago, as Trump ran to reclaim the White House, the justices blocked a felony criminal indictment against him related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, mob attack on the Capitol as Congress met to certify Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election, for which Trump was impeached.

Led by Roberts, the court ruled for Trump and declared for the first time that presidents were immune from being prosecuted for their official actions in the White House.

Not surprisingly, Trump saw this as a “BIG WIN” and proof there is no legal check on his power.

This year, Trump’s lawyers have confidently gone to Supreme Court with emergency appeals when lower-court judges have stood in their way. With few exceptions, they have won, often over dissents from the court’s three liberal Democrats.

Many court scholars say they are disappointed but not surprised by the court’s response so far to Trump’s aggressive use of executive power.

The Supreme Court “has been a rubber stamp approving Trump’s actions,” said UC Berkeley law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “I hope very much that the court will be a check on Trump. There isn’t any other. But so far, it has not played that role.”

Roberts “had been seen as a Republican but not a Trump Republican. But he doesn’t seem interested or willing to put any limits on him,” said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “Maybe they think they’re saving their credibility for when it really counts.”

Acting on his own, Trump moved quickly to reshape the federal government. He ordered cuts in spending and staffing at federal agencies and fired inspectors general and officials of independent agencies who had fixed terms set by Congress. He stepped up arrests and deportations of immigrants who are here illegally.

But the court’s decisions on those fronts are in keeping with the long-standing views of the conservatives on the bench.

Long before Trump ran for office, Roberts had argued that the Constitution gives the president broad executive authority to control federal agencies, including the power to fire officials who disagree with him.

The court’s conservatives also think the president has the authority to enforce — or not enforce — immigration laws.

That’s also why many legal experts think the year ahead will provide a better test of the Supreme Court and Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order.

“Overall, my reaction is that it’s too soon to tell,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk for Roberts. “In the next year, we will likely see decisions about tariffs, birthright citizenship, alien enemies and perhaps more, and we’ll know a lot more.”

In early September, Trump administration lawyers rushed the tariffs case to the Supreme Court because they believed it was better to lose sooner rather than later.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government could face up to a $1-trillion problem if the court delayed a decision until next summer and then ruled the tariffs were illegal.

“Unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he told the court.

The Constitution says tariffs, taxes and raising revenue are matters for Congress to decide. Through most of American history, tariffs funded much of the federal government. That began to change after 1913 when the 16th Amendment was adopted to authorize “taxes on incomes.”

Trump has said he would like to return to an earlier era when import taxes funded the government.

“I always say ‘tariffs’ is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” he said at a rally after his inauguration in January. “Because tariffs are going to make us rich as hell. It’s going to bring our country’s businesses back that left us.”

While he could have gone to the Republican-controlled Congress to get approval, he imposed several rounds of large and worldwide tariffs acting on his own.

Several small businesses sued and described the tariffs as “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

As for legal justification, the president’s lawyers pointed to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. It authorizes the president to “deal with any unusual or extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

The law did not mention tariffs, taxes or duties but said the president could “regulate” the “importation” of products.

Trump administration lawyers argue that the “power to ‘regulate importation’ plainly encompasses the power to impose tariffs.” They also say the court should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security.

They said the president invoked the tariffs not to raise revenue but to “rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl and other lethal drugs across our borders.”

In response to lawsuits from small businesses and several states, judges who handle international trade cases ruled the tariffs were illegal. However, they agreed to keep them in place to allow for appeals.

Their opinion relied in part on recent Supreme Court’s decisions which struck down potentially far-reaching regulations from Democratic presidents on climate change, student loan debt and COVID-19 vaccine requirements. In each of the decisions, Roberts said Congress had not clearly authorized the disputed regulations.

Citing that principle, the federal circuit court said it “seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

Trump said that decision, if allowed to stand, “could literally destroy the United States of America.” The court agreed to hear arguments in the tariffs case on Nov. 5.

A victory for Trump would be “viewed as a dramatic expansion of presidential power,” said Washington attorney Stephanie Connor, who works on tariff cases. Trump and future presidents could sidestep Congress to impose tariffs simply by citing an emergency, she said.

But the decision itself may have a limited impact because the administration has announced new tariffs last week that were based on other national security laws.

Last month, Trump administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to rule during the upcoming term on the birthright citizenship promised by the 14th Amendment of 1868.

They did not seek a fast-track ruling, however. Instead, they said the court should grant review and hear arguments on the regular schedule early next year. If so, a decision would be handed down by late June.

The amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

And in the past, both Congress and the Supreme Court have agreed that rule applies broadly to all children who are born here, except if their parents are foreign ambassadors or diplomats who are not subject to U.S. laws.

But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said that interpretation is mistaken. He said the post-Civil War amendment was “adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists and temporary visitors.”

Judges in three regions of the country have rejected Trump’s limits on the citizenship rule and blocked it from taking effect nationwide while the litigation continues.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a fast-tracking ruling that he has broad power acting on his own to impose tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

Despite losing in the lower courts, Trump and his lawyers have reason to believe they can win in the Supreme Court. The six conservative justices believe in strong presidential power, particularly in the area of foreign policy and national security.

In a three-page appeal filed Wednesday evening, they proposed the court decide by Wednesday to grant review and to hear arguments in early November.

They said the lower court setbacks, unless quickly reversed, “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”

They cited Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning about the potential for economic disruption if the court does not act soon.

“Delaying a ruling until June 26 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion have already been collected and unwinding them could cause significant disruption.” he wrote.

Trump and his tariffs ran into three strong arguments in the lower courts.

First, the Constitution says Congress, not the president, has the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and a tariff is an import tax.

Second, the 1977 emergency powers law that Trump relies on does not mention tariffs, taxes or duties, and no previous president has used it to impose tariffs.

And third, the Supreme Court has frowned on recent presidents who relied on old laws to justify bold new costly regulations.

So far, however, the so-called “major questions” doctrine has been used to restrict Democratic presidents, not Republicans.

Three years ago, the court’s conservative majority struck down a major climate change regulation proposed by Presidents Obama and Biden that could have transformed the electric power industry on the grounds it was not clearly based on the Clean Air Acts of the 1970s.

Two years ago, the court by the same 6-3 vote struck down Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans. Congress had said the Education Department may “waive or modify” monthly loan payments during a national emergency like the Covid 19 pandemic, but it did not say the loans may be forgiven, the court said. Its opinion noted the “staggering” cost could be more than $500 billion.

The impact of Trump’s tariffs figure to be at least five times greater, a federal appeals court said last week in ruling them illegal.

By a 7-4 vote, the federal circuit court cited all three arguments in ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority.

“We conclude Congress, in enacting the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs,” they said.

But the outcome was not a total loss for Trump. The appellate judges put their decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That means Trump’s tariffs are likely to remain in effect for many months.

Trump’s lawyers were heartened by the dissent written by Judge Richard Taranto and joined by other others.

He argued that presidents are understood to have extra power when confronted with foreign threats to the nation’s security.

He called the 1977 law “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm” that said the president may “regulate” the “importation” of dangerous products including drugs coming into this country.

Citing other laws from that era, he said Congress understood that tariffs and duties are a “common tool of import regulation.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Asia’s dependence on Middle East oil and gas — and its relatively slow shift to clean energy — make it vulnerable to disruptions in shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic weakness highlighted by the war between Israel and Iran.

Iran sits on the strait, which handles about 20% of shipments of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas, or LNG. Four countries — China, India, Japan and South Korea — account for 75% of those imports.

Japan and South Korea face the highest risk, according to analysis by the research group Zero Carbon Analytics, followed by India and China. All have been slow to scale up use of renewable energy.

In 2023, renewables made up just 9% of South Korea’s power mix, well below the 33% average among other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD. In the same year, Japan relied more heavily on fossil fuels than any other country in the Group of Seven, or G7.

A truce in the 12-day Israel-Iran war appears to be holding at the time of writing, reducing the potential for trouble for now. But experts say the only way to counter lingering uncertainty is to scale back reliance on imported fossil fuels and accelerate Asia’s shift to clean, domestic energy sources.

“These are very real risks that countries should be alive to — and should be thinking about in terms of their energy and economic security,” said Murray Worthy, a research analyst at Zero Carbon Analytics.

Japan and South Korea are vulnerable

China and India are the biggest buyers of oil and LNG passing through the potential chokepoint at the Strait of Hormuz, but Japan and South Korea are more vulnerable.

Japan depends on imported fossil fuels for 87% of its total energy use and South Korea imports 81%. China relies on only 20% and India 35%, according to Ember, an independent global energy think tank that promotes clean energy.

“When you bring that together — the share of energy coming through the strait and how much oil and gas they rely on — that’s where you see Japan really rise to the top in terms of vulnerability,” said Worthy.

Three-quarters of Japan’s oil imports and more than 70% of South Korea’s oil imports — along with a fifth of its LNG — pass through the strait, said Sam Reynolds of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Both countries have focused more on diversifying fossil fuel sources than on shifting to clean energy.

Japan still plans to get 30-40% of its energy from fossil fuels by 2040. It’s building new LNG plants and replacing old ones. South Korea plans to get 25.1% of its electricity from LNG by 2030, down from 28% today, and reduce it further to 10.6% by 2038.

To meet their 2050 targets for net-zero carbon emissions, both countries must dramatically ramp up use of solar and wind power. That means adding about 9 gigawatts of solar power each year through 2030, according to the thinktank Agora Energiewende. Japan also needs an extra 5 gigawatts of wind annually, and South Korea about 6 gigawatts.

Japan’s energy policies are inconsistent. It still subsidises gasoline and diesel, aims to increase its LNG imports and supports oil and gas projects overseas. Offshore wind is hampered by regulatory barriers. Japan has climate goals, but hasn’t set firm deadlines for cutting power industry emissions.

“Has Japan done enough? No, they haven’t. And what they do is not really the best,” said Tim Daiss, at the APAC Energy Consultancy, citing Japan’s program to increase use of hydrogen fuel made from natural gas.

South Korea’s low electricity rates hinder the profitability of solar and wind projects, discouraging investment, a “key factor” limiting renewables, said Kwanghee Yeom of Agora Energiewende. He said fair pricing, stronger policy support and other reforms would help speed up adoption of clean energy.

China and India have done more — but gaps remain

China and India have moved to shield themselves from shocks linked to changing global energy prices or trade disruptions.

China led global growth in wind and solar in 2024 and generating capacity rose 45% and 18%, respectively. It has also boosted domestic gas output even as its reserves have dwindled.

By making more electricity at home from clean sources and producing more gas domestically, China has managed to reduce imports of LNG, though it still is the world’s largest oil importer, with about half of the more than 11 million barrels per day that it brings in coming from the Middle East. Russia and Malaysia are other major suppliers.

India relies heavily on coal and aims to boost coal production by around 42% from now to 2030. But its use of renewables is growing faster, with 30 additional gigawatts of clean power coming online last year, enough to power nearly 18 million Indian homes.

By diversifying its suppliers with more imports from the US, Russia and other countries in the Middle East, it has somewhat reduced its risk, said Vibhuti Garg of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

“But India still needs a huge push on renewables if it wants to be truly energy secure,” she said.

Risks for the rest of Asia

A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could affect other Asian countries and building up their renewable power generating capacity will be a “crucial hedge” against the volatility intrinsic to importing oil and gas, said Reynolds of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Southeast Asia has become a net oil importer as demand in Malaysia and Indonesia has outstripped supplies, according to the ASEAN Centre for Energy in Jakarta, Indonesia. The 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations still exports more LNG than it imports due to production by Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Myanmar. But rising demand means the region will become a net LNG importer by 2032, according to consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.

Use of renewable energy is not keeping up with rising demand and production of oil and gas is faltering as older fields run dry.

The International Energy Agency has warned that ASEAN’s oil import costs could rise from $130 billion in 2024 to over $200bn by 2050 if stronger clean energy policies are not enacted.

“Clean energy is not just an imperative for the climate — it’s an imperative for national energy security,” said Reynolds.

On Friday, the price of Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, was up 0.55% on the day at $68.10 a barrel. Over the month, the fuel has risen by 6.26% in value, although prices have pulled back from last week’s peak.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is resurrecting the travel ban policy from his first term, signing a proclamation Wednesday night preventing people from a dozen countries from entering the United States.

The countries include Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

In addition to the ban, which takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Monday Eastern time, there will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

“I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people,” Trump said in his proclamation.

The list results from a Jan. 20 executive order Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to compile a report on “hostile attitudes” toward the U.S. and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk.

During his first term, Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travelers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after they landed. They included students and faculty as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family.

The order, often referred to as the “Muslim ban” or the “travel ban,” was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.

The ban affected various categories of travelers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.

Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.

Megerian and Amiri write for the Associated Press.