Greenland Tariffs and the Dangerous Precedent

President Trump’s proposal to impose tariffs on Greenland rests on a deeply flawed premise. The idea that “national security” can be used to justify almost any trade restriction is outrageous. The authority that the president is claiming comes from the Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act which authorizes him to impose tariffs if imports are determined to threaten national security. For example, Trump used national security concerns to put a tariff on Canada, the most incredibly stupid idea imaginable. Arguing the same for Greenland as defined in that Act is a stretch. Such far-fetched reasoning as a means to bypass Congress undermines the law as well as our credibility when it comes to legitimate national security claims.

But the real danger goes beyond this particular action. If Republicans in Congress allow or ignore Trump’s executive overreach, they should be absolutely clear-eyed about what will certainly happen later on. Once the precedent is set, Democrats will happily use it for their own advantages and probably expand on it. Future administrations will be able to apply the same logic to impose tariffs or other regulatory or economic controls in the name of “national security,” most likely focusing on energy, climate, or technology issues with little regard for the actual constitutional limits or economic impact. And they’d be able to do so with a straight face.

This is how bad governing metastasizes: through terrible precedents that outlive their moment and subsequently empower the other side. Conservatives who care about limited government, free markets, and constitutional restraint should oppose Trump’s idea -- not only because it is constitutionally suspect now, but even more so because it will be weaponized later. And when that happens, it will be far more destructive to our country.