The Cato Institute is warning that the federal government is testing the outer limits of executive power with President Donald Trump’s use of emergency tariffs, and it wants the courts to put a stop to it.

In a new amicus brief filed in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Cato argues that the president overstepped his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing steep tariffs on imports from countries including China, Mexico and Canada.

The libertarian thinktank argues the move undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers and expands executive authority over trade in ways Congress never intended.

‘This is an important case about whether the president can impose tariffs essentially whenever he wants,’ Cato Institute legal fellow Brent Skorup said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital. ‘There has to be a limit — and this administration hasn’t offered one.’

‘Tariff rates went up to 145% on some products from China,’ he said. ‘And the president’s lawyers couldn’t offer a limiting principle. That tells you the administration believes there’s no real cap, and that’s a problem.’

Cato’s brief urges the appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling that found the tariffs exceeded the president’s statutory authority. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled earlier this year that the president’s use of IEEPA in this case was not legally authorized. The court said the law does not permit the use of tariffs as a general tool to fight drug trafficking or trade imbalances.

Skorup said in court the administration was unable to define a clear limit on its authority under IEEPA. 

‘They couldn’t articulate a cap,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing in the law that mentions duties or tariffs. That’s a job for Congress.’

The administration has defended its actions, arguing that IEEPA provides the necessary tools for the president to act swiftly in times of national emergency. Trump officials maintain that both the fentanyl crisis and America’s trade vulnerabilities qualify.

‘There are real emergencies, no one disputes that,’ Skorup said. ‘But declaring an emergency to justify global tariffs or solve domestic trade issues goes far beyond what most Americans would recognize as a legitimate use of emergency powers.’

Skorup acknowledged that the real issue may be how much discretion Congress gave the president in the first place. 

‘It’s a bipartisan problem. Presidents from both parties have taken vague laws and stretched them. Congress bears some of the blame for writing them that way,’ he said, adding that’s why courts should ‘step in and draw the line.’

For small businesses like V.O.S. Selections, the costs go beyond legal fees. Skorup said businesses who rely on imports, like V.O.S., have struggled to plan ahead as tariffs have been paused and reinstated repeatedly.

Skorup said there are several small businesses that rely on global imports and it becomes a ‘matter of survival’ when tariff rates change unexpectedly.

‘V.O.S. Selections imports wine and spirits and when the tariff rates go up unexpectedly, they can’t get products to their distributors as planned,’ he said. ‘And that’s true for others too, like pipe importers and specialized manufacturers. These companies don’t have the flexibility to absorb those costs or adjust overnight.’

If the appeals court sides with the administration, it could mark a major expansion of presidential power over trade policy. Skorup warned that such a ruling would allow future presidents to take similar actions with little oversight.

‘It would bless Congress’ ability to hand over immense economic power to the president,’ he said. ‘That would blur the separation of powers that the Constitution is supposed to protect.’

A decision from the appeals court is expected later this year.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Former President Joe Biden’s persistent use of a teleprompter during public events, including during a fundraiser with just a couple dozen supporters, left donors complaining for months and dashed their expectations of hearing from the 46th president, a new book claims. 

‘For most of the campaign, Biden only ever spoke with the assistance of a teleprompter, even for small private audiences,’ a new book, ‘2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America,’ reported. ‘The presence of the machine made for extremely awkward interactions in intimate settings, and irked donors who had paid thousands of dollars for a personal view of the president, not expecting a canned speech they could see on TV.’ 

‘He once read from a teleprompter in front of thirty people in the open kitchen of a Palo Alto mansion,’ the book continued. ‘Donors complained for months about the president’s reliance on the machine. Aides defended the teleprompter as a tool to keep the famously garrulous president on schedule.’ 

‘2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America’ was released Tuesday and authored by Josh Dawsey of the Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of the New York Times and Isaac Arnsdorf of the Washington Post. It details the 2024 presidential campaign cycle, including Biden’s cratering health issues. 

The book detailed that just days after Biden’s disastrous June 2024 debate against President Donald Trump that opened the floodgates to typical Democrat supporters turning their backs on Biden ahead of the election, the president attended a campaign event at Virginia Democrat Rep. Dan Beyers’ house without a teleprompter. The book claims Biden only spoke for about six minutes.

‘At Beyer’s house, the campaign was eager to prove Biden could speak off the cuff. There was no teleprompter to be found. The president blamed his poor debate performance on a heavy travel schedule and said he ‘almost fell asleep onstage.’ He spoke for about six minutes,’ the book detailed. 

The word ‘teleprompter’ appears in the new book a dozen times, mostly referencing the president’s reliance on the machine, as well as concern among some staffers that using a teleprompter was crucial to the president avoiding the unexpected as his health deteriorated. 

‘The officials who planned events at the White House tried to avoid any surprises or unpredictable situations. If the president was going to speak, he would go to the podium, deliver remarks from a teleprompter, and leave. There was no room for creativity or spontaneity,’ the book states in a section on how Biden had fallen during a commencement in 2023 and staff devised plans to prevent another public fall in the future. 

‘Everyone could see the president was aging. He sometimes failed to recognize former staff at functions. Still, current aides insisted his decline was strictly physical, and even then they acknowledged it only by trying to Bubble Wrap the president and avoid any more catastrophes. Staff limited direct access to the president, keeping meetings with him small,’ the book continued.

Biden entered his 2024 reelection cycle already racked by claims and concerns that his mental acuity had slipped and he was not mentally fit to continue serving as president, which was underscored by special counsel Robert Hur’s report in February 2024 that rejected criminal charges against Biden for possessing classified materials, citing he was ‘a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.’ Fox News has been reporting on Biden’s apparent health decline since at least 2020. 

Biden brushed off the claims throughout 2024, until his debate against Trump in June of that year, when he was seen tripping over his words, speaking in a far more subdued tenor than during his vice presidency, and losing his train of thought at times. The debate opened the floodgates to criticism among Democrats that Biden should step aside and pass the mantle to a younger generation of Democrats. 

After weeks of the White House and campaign staffers vowing Biden would stay in the race and to ‘keep the faith,’ Biden announced in a social media post on a Sunday afternoon in July 2024 that he dropped out of the race. He endorsed then-Vice President Kamala Harris to run for the Oval Office, giving her just over 100 days to launch her own campaign that failed to rally enough support when up against Trump. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s office regarding the claims in the new book, but did not immediately receive a reply.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to move forward, at least for now, with plans to implement large-scale cuts to the federal workforce, issuing a stay that lifts a lower court’s injunction against the administration’s executive order.

In a 6–3 decision, the justices granted the emergency request filed by the White House last week, clearing the way for Executive Order No. 14210 to take effect while legal challenges play out in the Ninth Circuit and potentially the high court.

The order directs federal agencies to carry out sweeping reductions in force (RIFs) and agency reorganizations. 

It has been described by administration officials as a lawful effort to ‘streamline government and eliminate waste.’ Critics, including labor unions, local governments and nonprofit organizations, argue the president is unlawfully bypassing Congress to dismantle major parts of the federal government.

A majority on the Court stressed that it was not ruling on the legality of specific agency cuts, only the executive order itself.

‘Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application,’ the Court wrote. ‘We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court.’

The district court in California had blocked the order in May, calling it an overreach. But the Supreme Court’s unsigned decision on Tuesday set aside that injunction, pending appeal. The majority said the government is ‘likely to succeed’ in defending the legality of the order.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented forcefully, writing that ‘this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.’ She warned that the executive action represents a ‘structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives’ and accused the majority of acting prematurely in an emergency posture without fully understanding the facts.

‘This unilateral decision to ‘transform’ the Federal Government was quickly challenged in federal court,’ she wrote. ‘The District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered applicable law, and made a reasoned determination that Executive Branch officials should be enjoined from implementing the mandated restructuring… But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.’

The executive order, issued in February, instructed agencies to prepare immediate plans for reorganizations and workforce reductions, including eliminating roles deemed ‘non-critical’ or ‘not statutorily mandated.’ The administration says it is a necessary response to bloated government and outdated structures, claiming the injunction was forcing agencies to retain ‘thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service… is not in the government and public interest.’

Labor unions and state officials opposing the plan say it goes beyond normal workforce management and could gut services across multiple agencies. They point to proposed cuts of over 50% at the Department of Energy, and nearly 90% at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

The case is Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees.

‘Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration,’ wrote White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields in an email to Fox News Digital. ‘It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government.’