Members of the California National Guard (top) being deployed at the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles. — Mark Abramson/The New York Times
TO hear Donald Trump tell it – America is under siege – from within, from without and from all directions in between.
According to the president, the country is gripped by rebellion, facing invasion from a Venezuelan gang and under economic assault from foreign actors.
Armed with this self-declared crisis narrative, Trump has invoked sweeping emergency powers embedded in US law, dating back centuries.
He deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the objections of California’s governor, deported migrants to El Salvador with little to no due process and triggered trade wars through tariffs he justified as national security measures.
Legal scholars argue these moves aren’t grounded in the statutes Trump cites, but are instead part of a broader effort to expand his power – and erode constitutional limits.
“He is declaring utterly bogus emergencies for the sake of trying to expand his power, undermine the Constitution and destroy civil liberties,” said Ilya Somin, a libertarian law professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School.
Somin represents several businesses, including a wine importer, challenging Trump’s tariffs in court.
Crisis has always been Trump’s calling card. His first inauguration speech painted a bleak picture of “American carnage”, while his latest presidential campaign promised to reverse “staggering American decline”.
The message is consistent: America is broken, and only he can fix it.
Now back in office, Trump appears determined to codify that rhetoric into governance – transforming everyday political challenges into full-blown emergencies that grant him exceptional authority.
Rewriting the rulebook
Trump’s justification often rests on laws created long ago to give presidents flexibility during genuine emergencies – such as wars or natural disasters – when Congress might be too slow to act.
“These statutes were passed with the expectation that future presidents would act in good faith,” said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri.
“Genuine emergencies do occur and Congress knows it’s slow. It wants presidents acting in good faith to move with rapidity.”
But Trump, Bowman warned, is testing that assumption to its breaking point.
“Declaring everything an emergency begins to move us in the direction of allowing the use of government force and violence against people you don’t like.”
The White House, for its part, blames Democrats for failing to protect Americans from national and economic threats.
“President Trump is rightfully using his executive authority – as evidenced by many victories in court – to deliver resolve and relief for the American people,” said spokesperson Taylor Rogers.
In truth, the victories have been limited.
Lower courts have mostly rejected Trump’s emergency-based legal arguments – most notably, his recent attempt to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deporting migrants linked to a violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua (TdA).
The Act, which grants the president the power to deport citizens of nations engaged in war, invasion or “predatory incursion”, has been used only three times before – during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.
In March, Trump argued that the gang’s presence on American soil constituted such an incursion.
But judges weren’t convinced.
“There is nothing in the 1798 law that justifies a finding that refugees migrating from Venezuela, or TdA gangsters who infiltrate the migrants, are engaged in an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion,’” ruled Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the US District Court in New York City.
Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, dismissed Trump’s framing of a criminal gang as a national invasion.
“TdA may well be engaged in narcotics trafficking, but that is a criminal matter, not an invasion,” he wrote.
At least one judge – Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee in Pennsylvania – agreed with the president, calling the gang’s presence a “predatory incursion”. But she’s so far in the minority.
Emergency, everywhere
Beyond immigration, Trump has applied the language of crisis to a range of issues.
In April, he imposed tariffs on several countries, claiming that “foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency”.
The move drew legal challenges and two courts have since ruled against him – although a federal appeals court has paused one of the rulings.
Trump departing Morristown Municipal Airport in New Jersey.— Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times
California, in particular, has resisted Trump’s moves.
Officials there sued after he federalised a state militia unit without meeting the criteria – which, under law, include an invasion by a foreign power, a domestic rebellion or an inability to enforce federal law.
“The situation in Los Angeles didn’t meet the criteria for federalisation,” state officials said at the time.
Meanwhile, Trump has amplified fears of a “migrant invasion”, citing it as the basis for stepped-up Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and as justification for bypassing local authorities to exert federal control over state matters.
The supreme test
So far, the US Supreme Court has not weighed in on Trump’s recent emergency declarations.
But the justices have shown a willingness to challenge presidents’ use of extraordinary powers – including President Joe Biden’s Covid-19-era efforts to cancel student debt and extend eviction moratoriums.
Historically, the Constitution contains only two major references to “invasion”: one limiting states from declaring war unless “actually invaded”, and another allowing suspension of habeas corpus in the event of “rebellion or invasion”.
The court’s most definitive ruling on presidential emergency powers came in 1952, when it rejected President Harry Truman’s attempt to nationalise the steel industry during the Korean War.
It’s a warning that legal scholars say rings louder today, as Trump reframes a wide array of political and legal challenges as existential threats – and reshapes the presidency in the process.
“In Trump’s world,” said Bowman, “everything is an emergency. And that’s the real danger.” — ©2025 The New York Times Company
This article originally appeared in The New York Times
