Yellen and Nearly 50 Economists File Court Brief Arguing Trump Tariffs Exceed Presidential Authority
nashnova research
Former Fed Chair Janet Yellen and nearly 50 economists filed a brief with an appeals court arguing that Trump's use of a balance-of-payments clause to justify sweeping global tariffs exceeds presidential authority — and, if upheld, would hand any future president virtually unchecked power to impose tariffs unilaterally.
What are these economists actually challenging?
Yellen and nearly 50 economists filed an amicus brief — a formal statement to the appeals court from outside experts.
Their core argument: the balance-of-payments clause Trump invoked does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs on global goods unilaterally.
This means → the economics profession is collectively intervening in a legal case, trying to set a professional boundary on presidential tariff power.
Why is the "balance-of-payments" clause the flashpoint?
The clause was originally designed for a balance-of-payments crisis — a situation where a country's foreign reserves are draining fast and it cannot pay for imports.
The Trump administration reinterpreted it broadly: any trade deficit is enough to trigger presidential tariff authority.
In plain terms = a law written for "emergency firefighting" is being used as an everyday "faucet adjustment" — the economists argue this is a fundamental misreading of legislative intent.
What happens if the court accepts the government's reading?
The economists warn it would open a nearly unlimited door to unilateral presidential tariffs.
This means → any future president could bypass Congress and impose tariffs on any country, at any time, simply by citing a trade deficit.
This reflects a dispute that goes beyond tariff rates — it is about the boundary between executive and legislative power, and who ultimately decides U.S. trade policy.
市场有风险，内容仅供研究参考，不构成投资建议。