White House: Not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency

White House: Not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency

The White House has taken a firm stance on its authority to address national emergencies, sparking legal battles over federal funding and tariffs. The administration's actions have been met with challenges from public broadcasters and environmental groups, who argue that the President's moves infringe on their constitutional rights and legal authority.

Federal Funding Restrictions on NPR and PBS

On Tuesday, the White House accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) of using federal funds to support a particular political party, leading to a lawsuit filed by National Public Radio (NPR) and several local stations. The lawsuit alleges that the President's executive order ending federal funding for NPR and PBS violates the First Amendment by targeting the content of their programming [1].

The White House spokesperson, Harrison Fields, stated that the President is using his lawful authority to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars. The executive order, issued on May 1, aims to redirect federal funding away from NPR and PBS, which distribute over $500 million annually to public broadcasters [1].

Tariffs: A Legal Challenge

In a separate legal battle, a federal court has struck down President Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs on various countries, ruling that his justification for the tariffs exceeded his legal authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The U.S. Court of International Trade unanimously found that the tariffs were not authorized by the IEEPA, and ordered the collected tariffs to be vacated [2, 3].

The ruling comes as the President seeks to use tariffs as leverage in trade negotiations. However, the court's decision underscores the limits of presidential authority in imposing tariffs without congressional approval, particularly in the absence of a genuine emergency [2, 3].

Environmental Groups Challenge Pipeline Permitting Reforms

House Republicans have passed a tax bill that seeks to expedite pipeline permits by narrowing judicial review. The bill, approved on May 22, restricts lawsuits under the Natural Gas Act to claims of economic harm and assigns exclusive jurisdiction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit [4].

Environmental groups argue that the bill undermines the scope of available environmental challenges to pipeline projects, potentially closing the courthouse doors to their legal actions. The bill's proponents, however, maintain that it will make the permitting process more certain and less subject to frivolous lawsuits [4].

Conclusion

The White House's stance on national emergencies has sparked legal battles over federal funding and tariffs, highlighting the complex interplay between executive authority, congressional oversight, and judicial review. As these cases progress, they will continue to shape the boundaries of presidential power and the role of the courts in protecting constitutional rights and legal authorities.

References

[1] https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/white-house-cpb-npr/2025/05/27/id/1212526/
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/28/federal-court-strikes-down-trumps-april-2-tariffs-00373843
[3] https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-court-0392dbd59f548e49ad4f64254ae3f94a
[4] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/house-gop-tax-bill-narrows-window-to-challenge-pipeline-projects