A Novel Legal Approach for Justifying Economic Sanctions and Tariffs: A Semiotic Analysis of the Second Trump Administration Position

Abstract

The Trump administration has rapidly and exponentially deployed economic sanctions and tariffs at unprecedented rates. The administration proposed new legal justifications such as the executive authorities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 declaring national emergency prompting such imminent large-scale actions. The present analysis utilized a linguistic semiotics qualitative design to examine the characteristics of the Trump administration’s novel legal reasoning for the use of economic sanctions and tariffs. The analysis particularly assessed the ethos, logos, and pathos of 14 documents discussing the administration’s legal justifications. The Trump administration’s new legal approach to sanctions begins with the removal of all administrative protection measures against capricious executive powers use. Then, the administration finds unheralded powers in legislative acts extending its authority such as the use of the IEEPA, the Expanded Trade Act of 1962, and the Trade Act of 1974. Subsequently, the administration sheds its decisions under longstanding Supreme Courts’ doctrines like the intelligible principle, as well as the delegated Congressional authority to the executive. The new legal arguments of the Trump administration threaten the legitimacy and authority of international law. The administration has sanctioned the International Criminal Court based on the national emergency argument signaling to other actors around the globe the opportunity to utilize a similar logic, which by definition weakens international institutions. Likewise, the new arguments provide seemingly legitimate avenues for authoritarian governments to take unilateral actions affecting commerce and peace around the world claiming national emergency provision.