The Wall Street Journal has called for Donald Trump to be sued to prevent tariffs being imposed on Canada and Mexico.

The newspaper’s editorial board wrote in very blunt terms that Trump did not have the power to order the tariffs without Congressional approval.

‘He’s treating the North American economy as a personal plaything, as markets gyrate with each presidential whim,’ the WSJ board wrote.

‘It’s doubtful Mr Trump even has the power to impose these tariffs, and we hope his afflatus gets a legal challenge.’

The WSJ, published by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox News, is usually sympathetic to Republicans but has staunchly opposed Trump’s tariffs.

The paper criticized the tariffs as the ‘dumbest tariff plunge’ and labeled Trump’s trade war plan as the ‘dumbest trade war in history’ as various editorials have spoken out against them recently.

This week’s attack warned consumer prices would rise as a result of imposing the 25 percent duties on the country’s two neighbors.

The Wall Street Journal has called for Donald Trump to be sued to prevent tariffs being imposed on Canada and Mexico 

WSJ argued Trump’s use of a 48-year-old law that includes an emergency provision was not justified and he should require approval from Congress.

‘The president invokes a law that doesn’t give him power to impose sweeping tariffs. Someone should sue,’ it wrote.

The editorial explained the history of the law, the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the way it was supposed to work.

Under the law, the executive branch was granted the authority to investigate, block, prohibit, or regulate imports and exports with foreign countries in the event of an ‘unusual or extraordinary threat’ by declaring a national emergency.

Trump justified using the IEEPA to impose tariffs by claiming fentanyl and other drugs crossing the border was a national emergency.

This is the reason why Trump consistently raised concerns about the issue, even though there was no evidence to support claims of increased drug trafficking compared to previous decades.

WSJ argued even under the intentionally vague language of the law, designed to give the president wide latitude, Trump’s tariffs went too far.

The WSJ, published by Rupert Murdoch (pictured) who also owns Fox News, is usually sympathetic to Republicans but has staunchly opposed Trump’s tariffs 

‘Mr Trump’s tariffs arguably constitute a “fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of… regulation” into an entirely different kind,’ it wrote, quote the relevant Supreme Court ruling.

‘Under that ruling, Congress must expressly authorize economically and politically significant executive actions, which Mr Trump’s tariffs undeniably are.’

But the paper argued that wasn’t even the biggest problem with Trump’s interpretation: The law doesn’t even clearly authorize tariffs.

Instead it only allows the president to ‘investigate, block, prohibit or regulate’ imports, exports or transactions that foreign countries or people have an interest in or ‘any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the US’.

‘Presidents have used the law to freeze assets of foreign governments and nationals, restrict US companies from doing business with them, limit export of technologies and ban imports from adversaries,’ the WSJ noted.

Biden used the law as part of sanctions against Russia when it invaded Ukraine in March 2022, banning imports of Russian energy, seafood and alcohol.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau threatened to tax $107 billion worth of US goods, including beer, wine and bourbon, in retaliation

The governments of Mexico and China, led by presidents Claudia Sheinbaum and Xi Jinping, have both suggested retaliatory action is coming

But he didn’t use it to impose tariffs – instead he asked Congress for the authority to do so the next month, and only followed through when it was approved.

‘This suggests that neither Congress nor Mr Biden believed IEEPA provided tariff authority. No President has used IEEPA to impose tariffs,’ the WSJ wrote.

‘The High Court has said that a “lack of historical precedent” is a “telling indication” that a broad exercise of power is illegal.’

The only president to successfully impose sweeping tariffs without Congress was Richard Nixon, who in 1971 brought in at 10 per cent duty across the board to counteract a growing trade deficit.

Nixon only got away with it after an appeals court found his tariffs ‘bore an eminently reasonable relationship to the emergency confronted’.

But, the WSJ argued, Trump’s tariffs appear to fail those tests.

Congress also disliked the ruling so much, it brought in the IEEPA to further limit the authority of future presidents to bypass them.

The bigger issue, and why Trump’s tariffs much be challenged, is that Trump and future presidents of either party will keep doing it if he gets away with it.

Biden already tried – using emergency powers to impose Covid vaccine mandates, eviction moratorium, and student loan forgiveness.

The Supreme Court blocked all three, finding them to be executive overreach.

‘Presidents of both parties are now declaring everything to be an emergency to achieve their policy goals without having to deal with a frustrating Congress,’ the WSJ editorial argued.

‘If Mr Trump succeeds in unilaterally imposing tariffs as he sees fit, a future Democratic president will use “emergency” power for climate change and much more.’