William A. Lee III is the former chair of the Maine Ethics Commission and a former adjunct professor in government and administrative science at Colby College.

Various statutes grant the president the authority to declare an emergency, or invoke national security, and then to act without the approval of Congress that would otherwise be required. Increasingly, President Trump is declaring an emergency where there isn’t one or invoking national security where there is no threat, as he continues his narcissistic quest to accumulate ever more power and control. A few of these declarations are discussed below.

President Trump recently declared a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C., and took
over the metropolitan police department and called in the National Guard, claiming there
were “roving mobs of wild youth, drugged out youth and homeless people.”

The reality is that crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low. The most lawless day in D.C. memory was on
Jan. 6, 2021, when a Donald Trump-inspired mob stormed the Capitol in an attempt
to prevent the certification of Joe Biden as president.

More than 600 people were charged with crimes, many of them crimes of violence against police officers. On that day, while Trump watched the violence on television, the National Guard did not arrive until more than three hours after the violence began. The purpose of President Trump’s declaration of a “crime emergency” was just to acquire more power and control.

The validity of the declaration of a “crime emergency” is currently being litigated in court. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 was passed by Congress to place limits on the president’s economic emergency powers.

Several months ago, President Trump declared an emergency, based on our trade deficits with other countries. Since these trade deficits have existed for decades, they do not constitute an emergency. He has used this declaration of an emergency to impose tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world with which we have a trading relationship.

In addition, President Trump imposed a 50% tariff on goods from Brazil because Brazil refused his demand to drop criminal charges against his ally, Jair Bolsonaro, the former president of Brazil. More recently, President Trump imposed a 50% tariff on goods from India because India refused his demand that it stop buying oil from Russia.

The tariffs against Brazil and India hardly qualify as emergencies. Instead, they were acts of retribution against those who defied him. The Federal District Court of Appeal recently ruled that President Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs under IEPPA. This case is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

Since the power to impose tariffs rests with Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress could easily remedy the tariff chaos we have. President Trump has issued multiple executive orders prohibiting collective bargaining by various federal unions, declaring that it is a threat to national security. Negotiating over wages and working conditions hardly qualifies as a threat to national security.

With these executive orders, Trump has terminated the collective bargaining rights of over
1 million federal employees to increase his power and control over them. The validity of these executive orders is currently being litigated in court.

Will the Supreme Court curb President Trump’ s incessant quest to accumulate more power and control? Unfortunately, it appears unlikely. Six of the nine justices on the Supreme Court ascribe to a unitary executive theory of executive power. This theory holds that the “executive power” is held by the president alone and cannot be limited by Congress.

In the 2024 Supreme Court case of Trump v. United States, these six members held that the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution in performing his core functions and presumptive immunity in performing all other official acts. The result is that this president has been given a “Get out of jail free card” for virtually anything he does.

In dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said: “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.” This Supreme Court decision certainly emboldens our current president.

With the Supreme Court appearing unlikely to significantly curb President Trump’s quest
for more power and control over the American people, this leaves Congress to place some limits on the president. Thus far this impotent Congress has done nothing to curb the president’s power.

In the closely divided Senate, all it would take is four Republican senators to band together and say “No” to some of President Trump’s demands. Sen. Susan Collins is chair of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. With her power and influence she should be able to convince several other Republican senators, who dislike much of what Trump is demanding, to collectively say “No” to some of his demands.

In November 2026, we will decide who is going to represent us in Congress. Make sure you vote to preserve what is left of our democracy.