[boroboro4]

The policies you mention don’t target particular countries, and this is where the difference lies in my opinion. The part of the policies which is countries specific is in fact foreign policy.

[saghm]

By that logic, a president wanting to tariff the whole world could just specify some small country as not included, and then it be foreign policy.

[boroboro4]

I don’t think tariffs being foreign policy gives the president full control over them because foreign policy is presidents responsibility. Tariffs have this duality between being foreign policy and budget. So I don’t have issue with Congress delegating some of the tariffs power to the executive in some circumstances.

[sorcerer-mar]

You have this backwards. IEEPA gives the president the authority to use tariffs as a way to achieve a foreign policy goal.

What's the foreign policy goal of the blanket tariffs across every country? Hint: There isn't one.

Its stated goals are revenue generation (Congress's job) and domestic economic development (not foreign policy)

[boroboro4]

I’m not arguing Trumps use of tariffs was legal (in fact I’m of an opinion it’s obviously not). Just arguing there are cases where executive have rights to set tariffs and it does fall under foreign policy in those cases.

As of blanket tariffs across all countries not being foreign policy I tend to disagree, it’s a policy of protectionism. I just don’t think this particular foreign policy falls under executive oversight, and should originate in Congress.

[sorcerer-mar]

> Just arguing there are cases where executive have rights to set tariffs and it does fall under foreign policy in those cases.

The case when tariffs fall under foreign policy is only when used to achieve a foreign policy objective only in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat".