This is no way to run a trade war

Subscribe to enjoy similar stories. Thousands of U.S. companies opened for business on Friday with no idea whether they had to pay tariffs.

This was due to President Trump’s chaotic North American trade war, which he kicked off Tuesday by imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico, only to announce two days later that he would exempt for one month products that complied with the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. But it wasn’t clear which products qualified for exemptions, and American, Mexican and Canadian officials gave conflicting guidance. Markets hated the trade war, dropping to levels not seen since before Mr.

Trump’s election in November. Mr. Trump is right about the need to overhaul the global trading order.

The U.S. must account for China’s position as a strategic competitor hostile to American interests. He is also right that a more balanced international trading system would foster a stronger American economy.

But last week’s trade war was neither lawful nor designed to serve America’s strategic interests. In imposing the tariffs, Mr. Trump misused the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Congress passed IEEPA to give presidents tools to respond quickly to emergencies like wars or terrorist attacks, with actions such as freezing the assets of enemies or preventing foreign militaries from buying critical inputs. IEEPA has never been used for tariffs, and courts should rule that it can’t be. Last week’s chaos illustrates why.

Presidents shouldn’t be able to upend the economy at the stroke of a pen. Trade statutes, on the other hand, require detailed studies into why a country or product should be subject to tariffs, and the proposed tariffs must be subject to public comment. Using lawful trade