Congress needs to step up on this, honestly. The entire idea that the President can unilaterally implement trade policy is as plain a violation of separation of powers I can think of, and SCOTUS is a fan of non-delegation doctrine.
Which means those who care about this are back to not only contacting legislators but also persuading a lot fellow voters that separation of powers is crucial and worth prioritizing over familiar well-handled and loved heuristics.
Congress has become increasingly unproductive and unresponsive. There are many popular policies that Congress essentially ignores, and many problems that go unsolved. So trust in government dwindles and people crave strongman solutions.
I’m not sure there is a solution. There are so many interlocking problems gumming up the process that any “we just need to fix X” solutions (where X is gerrymandering, money in elections, lobbying, the two party system, first past the post, corruption, income inequality, the electoral college, the slow death of journalism, consolidation of industries, etc) are nearly impossible and also probably insufficient because they all feed back into one another: they are both causes and effects.
So when people are mad about a downstream effect like the price of eggs and digging any deeper touches one of the topics above (“to fix egg price gouging you need to reinvent the political system” sounds a lot like “to make an omelette first you need to create the universe”), it’s really easy to throw your hands up.
1. The agents of political change are themselves subject to politics. (Unlike maintainers of a codebase, who are able to make top-down decisions about the code.) If you make a bad decision, it may be the last one you’re allowed to make.
2. There are no unit tests for politics. There is only history, which is an imperfect predictor.
3. Code is deterministic. Policy is not.
1. Politics does enter into programming teams. There's several articles of this genre. Where the most highly regarded programmer made bad decisions over a long period of time & exhibited hubris in doing so. This programmer was fired, but if he was a founder otherwise held some leverage, then he may not be fire-able. However, other staff can leave. It's more difficult to leave the impact of politics.
https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/we-fired-our-top-talent-be...
Entire industries can make bad decisions due to incentives. Such as I must learn technology X because companies hire for technology X. Companies choose technology X because developers know technology X. Technology X could have fundamentally flaws. Compounding complexity in the ecosystem as additional tech is made to fix the flaws...which will also have flaws.
These cycles of compounding bad strategic decisions yet good tactical decisions can last decades.
2. In some ways there are unit tests for politics. Geopolitical signals can be sent. So if X happens, there's a tacit agreement that Y will be the response. Unit tests are great for small units. However, complex systems can be difficult to comprehensively test. This is why there is fuzzing...which is effectively a monte carlo simulation. Monte Carlo simulations are widely used in political analysis.
3. There's non-deterministic inputs. And the system can be more complex than what's possible to model. Leading effectively to non-determinism in making decisions about how to modify the system.
https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-all-republicans-vote-against...
Congress seems pretty unwilling to do much of anything right now.
The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act by Congress gave FDR sweeping authority over tariffs without direct congressional approval.
Then later the Trade Expansion Act under Kennedy.
Historically, these have served to decrease tarrifs.
Trump is using extremely misguided legislation from the 1960s/70s where Congress allowed the President to enact tariffs for national security and emergencies. There is a very strong argument (in the sense it resonates with the conservative SCOTUS majority) that Congress cannot delegate its fundamental powers to the executive by legislation alone.
I think people are just too cowardly to bring a case in front of the courts to challenge the constitutionality of it all. Non-delegation doctrine is what the Federal Society want to use to kneecap all federal regulation. Trump operates on a spoils system so it's not in the interest of conservatives or businesses to challenge him, for fear of retribution.
Previously they were outsourcing and offshoring as much as they could get away with it. Which led to transfer of advanced technologies outside USA and America losing its manufacturing and technology edge
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/20/commerce-secretary-lutnick-...
I haven't seen a citation from either side. Can you substantiate your position?
TL;DR read Article I section 8, read up about the Trade Expansion act of 1962 and Trade act of 1974, and "non-delegation doctrine", and you can trivially find legal debate about the constitutionality of IEEPA. Rather than listen to random nerds on HN you should seek out this information yourself.