I have been trying to make sense of the recent use of tariffs by the Trump administration. The stated objectives shift from day to day—protecting American industry, punishing adversaries, raising revenue, or forcing concessions from allies. Sometimes the tariffs are imposed. Sometimes they are threatened and withdrawn. Sometimes they are increased, and then partially reversed.
At some point, it becomes difficult to argue that this is strategy rather than improvisation.
The details change, but the underlying issue does not. We have handed a great deal of authority over trade policy to the President of the United States. That authority was granted with an implicit assumption: that it would be exercised in good faith, with discipline, and with some degree of consistency.
That assumption now appears to be breaking down.
The Original Logic Behind Delegating Tariff Authority
The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate trade. Over time, Congress delegated a significant portion of that authority to the President. There were good reasons for doing so.
Trade negotiations require:
- speed
- flexibility
- and a degree of confidentiality
It is difficult to negotiate complex agreements through a 535-member legislature. So Congress created mechanisms that allowed the President to negotiate and, in some cases, impose tariffs under specific statutory authorities.
The expectation was not that the President would act unilaterally without constraint. It was that he would act:
- within a defined framework
- with a clear objective
- and in a manner broadly consistent with U.S. economic and strategic interests
In other words, the system assumed competence and good faith.
This Is Not Entirely New
It would be a mistake to pretend that this problem began in 2025.
Presidents of both parties have stretched the statutory authorities governing tariffs. Democratic administrations have also used trade tools—antidumping rules, targeted tariffs, and “national security” justifications—in ways that expanded executive discretion.
But there is a difference between:
- stretching a tool
and - using it as a general-purpose instrument of economic policy
What we are seeing now is not simply an extension of past practice. It is a step change in both scope and unpredictability.
Tariffs as a Tool vs. Tariffs as a Weapon
There is a legitimate role for tariffs.
They can be used:
- to respond to unfair trade practices
- to enforce agreements
- or to address genuine national security concerns
But there is a difference between using tariffs as a tool and using them as a weapon of general economic policy.
When tariffs are applied broadly, unpredictably, and without a clear framework, they create uncertainty. Businesses do not know:
- what their input costs will be
- where to invest
- or how long current conditions will persist
This is not a subtle effect. It is the primary effect.
Incentives Matter
If firms believe that tariffs will:
- appear suddenly
- change frequently
- and be driven by short-term political considerations
then they will respond accordingly.
They will:
- delay investment
- shift production in ways that are not economically rational
- or demand higher returns to compensate for policy risk
This is not a failure of the private sector. It is a predictable response to unstable policy.
Erratic tariff policy is, in effect, a self-imposed tax on investment—and one that falls most heavily on long-term planning.
The Problem of Using Tariffs for Everything
Tariffs are now being used—or threatened—to achieve a wide range of objectives:
- reducing trade deficits
- pressuring allies on unrelated issues
- influencing domestic political outcomes
- and reshaping entire supply chains
No single policy tool works well when applied to every problem.
Using tariffs this way blurs the line between:
- economic policy
- foreign policy
- and domestic politics
It also makes it difficult for other countries to interpret U.S. actions. Are tariffs a negotiating tactic? A permanent shift? A political signal? Increasingly, the answer appears to depend on the news cycle.
The Erosion of Predictability
Markets can adapt to almost any policy, good or bad, as long as it is stable.
What they cannot adapt to easily is unpredictability.
When tariff policy becomes:
- highly discretionary
- personalized
- and subject to rapid change
the result is not simply higher prices. It is a reduction in the willingness to commit capital.
Over time, that matters more than any individual tariff decision.
Congress and the Problem of Delegated Power
Congress delegated tariff authority to the executive branch for practical reasons. But delegation always carries risk.
It works when:
- the executive branch operates within understood norms
- and when Congress is willing to reassert its authority if those norms are abused
If neither condition holds, the delegation becomes something closer to an abdication.
We are now in a situation where:
- the scope of presidential authority is broad
- the use of that authority is increasingly aggressive
- and congressional oversight is, at best, inconsistent
That combination should concern people across the political spectrum.
A System Built on Assumptions
The American constitutional system relies heavily on informal constraints:
- norms
- expectations
- and assumptions about behavior
When those constraints weaken, the formal powers written into law become far more consequential.
Tariff authority is a clear example.
What was intended as a flexible tool for advancing U.S. interests can, under different assumptions, become a mechanism for imposing broad and unpredictable economic costs—both at home and abroad.
Conclusion
The debate over tariffs is often framed in terms of whether they are “good” or “bad.” That is not the most important question.
The more important question is how much discretionary economic power we are comfortable placing in the hands of any President—and what happens when that power is exercised without discipline or consistency.
If the assumptions that justified delegating that power no longer hold, then the structure of the system—not just the current policy—deserves a second look.
Click on the link to see CIVPAC’s position on the boarder issue of Trade Policy.