Like other commentaries and letters to the editor, opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of WHQR. We reserve the right to decline to publish opinions, or publish them with contrasting views or additional context. If you have questions, comments, or want to suggest or submit your own opinion piece, you can reach News Director Ben Schachtman at BSchachtman@whqr.org
Trade Deficits Aren’t a National Emergency – Government Overreach Is
-Donald Bryson, CEO of the John Locke Foundation, a free-market public policy think tank based in Raleigh, N.C.
When President Donald Trump issued an executive order on April 2 invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose a new global tariff regime, he didn’t just upend trade norms—he crossed a constitutional line. By declaring persistent trade deficits a “national emergency,” the President expanded emergency powers beyond their intended scope. That should concern anyone who values limited government.
IEEPA, passed in 1977, allows presidents to respond quickly to extraordinary foreign threats—espionage, terrorism, rogue regimes. Trade deficits are not that. They are not acts of war or sabotage. They’re not even inherently bad. They’re accounting measures reflecting global capital flows, not signs of crisis.
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate foreign commerce because trade policy affects every household and business in America. It’s too important to be dictated by one person under the guise of an emergency.
This sets a dangerous precedent. If a president can call a trade imbalance a national emergency, what stops the next administration from labeling carbon emissions or corporate profits as extraordinary threats? Imagine a future Democratic president capping earnings or freezing assets to "protect the climate" or "stabilize inequality." The same Republican cheerleaders of President Trump's tariffs will howl in protest, forgetting that they helped normalize this abuse of power. When emergency powers are stretched this far, the only limit left is self-restraint, a resource in short supply in Washington.
North Carolina stands to lose more than most. The Port of Wilmington - ranked first in North America for container port performance for productivity - exports 52% of its cargo, far more than the U.S. port average of 41%. It specializes in high-value goods like furniture, pork, poultry, and forest products. A 2023 report from the John Locke Foundation found that North Carolina’s ports generate $16.1 billion in economic output, support over 88,000 jobs, and contribute $660 million in state and local tax revenue.
These gains depend on international access. Retaliatory tariffs could devastate export-reliant sectors across our state. Farmers and manufacturers don’t need trade fights wrapped in patriotic language; they need stable, rules-based commerce.
Wilmington is poised for enormous growth. By 2026, the port’s container traffic is expected to rise by 47% from 2022 levels. It’s adding new rail and intermodal capacity. However, rising vessel dwell times could threaten that status if global shippers redirect elsewhere due to instability or inefficiency, which are made worse by sudden trade restrictions.
The April 2 executive order cites several legal authorities, but its core enforcement mechanism relies on IEEPA—an emergency statute meant for urgent foreign threats, not longstanding trade imbalances. Lawmakers must reassert their constitutional role and prevent future abuse.
Let’s not turn “emergency” into a euphemism for executive overreach. North Carolina has had enough of that in the past few years.
Editor's notes
Earlier this week, China and the United States reached a trade deal, marking at least a temporary détente in the trade war. The agreement still leaves some significant tariffs in place and, as NPR noted this week, "the tariff drops are temporary and could be pulled if talks between the two countries sour."
While Trump's tariff rollout was chaotic, causing uncertainty in countless business sectors and on the stock market, the ripple effects did not hit Wilmington's port as hard as West-coast shipping facilities. Last month, cargo at the Port of Los Angeles was down by at least 35%, according to NPR, but the Port of Wilmington told WHQR that shipping levels remained stable. As WHQR reported last week, many of the key players in the port's 'cold-storage supply chain' of refrigerated shipping companies remained confident they could adapt to potential shifts caused by Trump's tariffs.
It's also worth noting that Trump's shoot-from-the-hip approach did provoke a modest rebuke from at least two House Republicans, including Colorado Congressman Jeff Hurd, who cosponsored a bipartisan bill to reassert Congression authority of tariffs. Hurd told NPR he supported the use of tariffs, and demured when pushed for criticism on Trump himself, but said it was "very clear that the tariff responsibility lies with Congress." (Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley pushed a similar bill in the Senate, although he said he had been working on the legislation prior to Trump's spree of tariffs.)
That's part of a broader pattern that's separated much criticism of Trump into roughly two camps: one protesting the substance of Trump's policies — for example, attacks on the federal government, migrants, and DEI initiatives — and another objecting to the potentially unconstitutional means by which Trump has pursued those goals — for example, his embrace of the unitary executive theory, his evasion and even flaunting of federal court orders, and, in the case of tariffs, end-run-arounds of Congressional approval.