The Trump administration is using Humpty Dumpty rules to justify its new tariffs.

The anthropomorphic egg famously said in the Lewis Carroll novel “Through the Looking-Glass,” “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

For the Trump team, that word is “emergency.”

President Trump has imposed sweeping global tariffs based on his purported authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). The president has declared the trade deficit an emergency, which supposedly unlocks his power to impose tariffs that would otherwise have to pass Congress.

“Pernicious economic policies and practices of our trading partners,” says a White House fact sheet, “undermine our ability to produce essential goods for the public and the military, threatening national security.”

This an abuse of language and logic in the service of bad policy that hardly interacts with the alleged threat to national security.

In a typical congressional botch-job, the IEEPA was meant to be a limitation on presidential emergency powers after the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act led to ceaseless states of emergency. But according to the Congressional Research Service, as of January 2024, presidents had declared 69 national emergencies under IEEPA, with 39 of them ongoing.

As a House committee noted around the time of the IEEPA’s passage, “emergencies are by their nature rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal ongoing problems.”

Prior declarations of emergency have tended to involve specific countries, events or groups — the Iran hostage crisis, the civil war in Yugoslavia — that have resulted in very specific sanctions.

As the IEEPA itself says, the law should be used “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat.” The U.S. trade deficit is neither. We’ve been running a deficit since the 1970s. This is the very definition of a chronic issue, the causes of are not amenable to a bumper-sticker solution.

Trump’s tariffs are obviously a product of his utterly sincere belief that tariffs are beneficial. This is a long-term priority for the president, not the result of his hand getting forced by exigent circumstances.

The policy doesn’t even match up with the legal pretext. If national security were really the justification, we wouldn’t be tariffing allies who will — if we don’t fundamentally alienate them — provide supplies and manufacturing capacity to us in a true crisis. All sorts of foodstuffs, from fruits and vegetables to chocolate and coffee, are getting tariffed, and they have nothing to do with national security.

Rich Lowry is editor-in-chief of conservative magazine National Review.