I was on @NPR Morning Edition with @steveinskeep this morning, talking about the US government's apparent acquisition of a so-called "golden share" in the merged US Steel / Nippon company. Thread on why this matters, and what to look for going forward.🧵.

Side note: The kinds of thorny policy calls that US courts are being called upon to resolve today bear a resemblance to cases before international arbitrations the US/EU imposed on other countries during the neoliberal period, as I explored in my book👇.

You can like or hate the tariffs or the deals: the question here is whether courts should stand in the way of them, or whether the political branches and voters should sort it out.

Some of this also looks different in August than it did in May, since the tariff frenzy did create the conditions for trade deals.

Scrutinizing the more outlandish tariffs for whether they effectively deal with the emergency in question is a more modest but appropriate direction. But it's not without its own risks.

It's also unconvincing that Trump's tariffs are narrowly about a temporary balance of payments problem that should be addressed under the Trade Act of 1974, as opposed to a critique of broader structural inequities that they have articulated.

Short of reversing Chadha (which neither side is asking for) to allow Congress to do its job, keeping the understanding that presidents have discretion to declare emergencies &- if IEEPA allows full-on trade embargoes, it allows the lesser tool of tariffs- is a good start.

There wasn't enough space - or reader interest - to go deep into what the courts should do instead. As I said, there's not a great option.

There's plenty we need the courts to be doing in this time of presidential lawlessness. Rolling back a campaign promise of a duly elected official to impose plausibly legal tariffs, & taking unprecedented steps into 2nd-guessing foreign policy, isn't it.

There is no judicial shortcut for the deep shortcomings of our democracy. Indeed, ceding more power to courts to determine what elected officials can and can't do compounds the crisis of democracy. See @ositanwanevu for more on what needs to happen.

Ironically, courts put themselves in their no-win situation. From 1977 to 1983, the House or Senate could have more effectively checked specific IEEPA overreach. But in 1983's INS v. Chadha, SCOTUS ruled against those tools, as @joshchafetz writes.

New strictures on executive authorities would disproportionately burden progressive administrations that want to take bold action to stabilize prices, address climate change, and build new industries. See @ArnabDatta321 et al here.

Regardless of how one feels about Trump's trade war, this direction should give pause. At work are alliances (with libertarian groups) & legal doctrines (non-delegation, major questions) that will impair future administrations. See 👇.

Until Trump, that is. Since April, we've seen eight cases brought against Trump's tariffs - and courts seem inclined to deem Trump's actions under IEEPA unlawful, or potentially rule the statute unconstitutional.

These IEEPA powers (and their predecessor authority) have been used repeatedly over the years by FDR, Nixon, and other presidents. They've been blessed by Congress and the courts - providing the US president ability to act when Congress couldn't or wouldn't.

Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Congress allows presidents to restrict trade "to deal with any unusual & extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States," to the national security, foreign policy, or economy.

More recently, these actions have expanded to take on a more political valence, including punishing Brazil for its judiciary prosecuting Jair Bolsonaro, a former president and coup-plotter.

You may have noticed we have a bit of a trade war going on. On "Liberation Day," Trump announced a baseline 10% tariff on all imports, along with higher rates on select countries - aimed at redressing foreign wage suppression and other ills.

NEW from me @FinancialTimes:. Opponents of Trump’s tariffs should be wary of relying on the courts. Judicial limits on the executive today will bind the hands of future presidents tomorrow. Thread 🧵 on the coming VOS Selections Inc. v. Trump decision.

RT @DavidHenigUK: Don't actually know what the US policy is towards China. Perhaps it is just tariffs on everything. Certainly there are pl….

@JamesPoliti @rwmcmorrow It's even longer if one goes back to the original Trump II tariffs on China - announced 193 days ago.