The Trade Deal Coup
from the constitutional-corruption dept
As the Jeffrey Epstein scandal continues apace, and MAGA grapples with the gaslit reality they live in, the Trump Administration continues to negotiate so-called trade deals, which are negotiated and implemented using pure executive fiat, under emergency powers, under an emergency declaration which has no rational basis, while everyone pretends this isn’t an example of a constitutional coup. It’s actually an exercise in sedition, if one were to avoid putting a finer point on it.
The mechanism is breathtakingly brazen: declare a fake national emergency, invoke emergency trade powers designed for genuine crises, bypass Congress entirely, and conduct billions of dollars in international agreements through personal presidential decree. When Japan agrees to invest $550 billion based on Trump’s “Strategic Trade Agreement,” they’re being asked to legitimize constitutional fraud that exists only through Trump’s personal authority rather than constitutional process.
Our allies aren’t stupid. They understand perfectly that what Trump is doing is illegal. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”—not the president. Foreign governments have constitutional lawyers who can read Article I, Section 8 as clearly as anyone. They know there is no emergency, no “unusual and extraordinary threat” that justifies bypassing Congress to negotiate trade policy through executive decree. They must be horrified by how few Americans seem to care that their government operates through systematic constitutional violation.
They’re also not holding out hope that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, with its expansive view of executive authority, will do much to stop this constitutional arson. Foreign leaders understand that when courts create doctrines of presidential immunity and presumptive constitutionality, they’re watching American institutions actively eliminate their own constraints rather than enforce them.
Congress could terminate these fraudulent emergencies at any time under the National Emergencies Act. Instead, Republican leaders have chosen to become active accomplices in constitutional destruction. They literally suspended the flow of time itself—declaring that calendar days would not constitute calendar days—to avoid voting on Trump’s fake emergency tariffs. When that proved insufficient, Speaker Mike Johnson simply shut down the People’s House entirely to prevent oversight votes. Senator Markwayne Mullin confessed the conspiracy on the House floor: “What we’re simply trying to do here is give President Trump cover.”
This demonstrates what a fundamentally unserious country we’ve become, with a political economy increasingly designed toward the maintenance of Trump’s personal power rather than constitutional governance. These vulgar arsonists in Congress have voluntarily transformed from co-equal branch into presidential protection service, abandoning their constitutional duties to serve one man’s authority. Every avoided vote, every suspended timeline, every shutdown of democratic process serves the same seditious purpose: eliminating constitutional constraints on executive power.
Foreign governments make contingency plans that don’t depend on American institutional reliability because American institutions have demonstrated they are no longer reliable. When your legislature suspends time to avoid constitutional duties, when your president conducts policy through fake emergencies, when your courts create immunity doctrines that make accountability impossible—you signal to the world that constitutional government has ceased to function.
Every trade deal negotiated through fake emergency powers establishes irreversible precedent that the presidency can operate beyond constitutional constraint by simply declaring emergencies. Trump has converted emergency powers designed to protect the republic into tools for dismantling republican government itself, while Congress provides the accelerant and courts provide the legal cover.
This is sedition: the systematic subversion of constitutional government by those sworn to preserve it. The American republic is being destroyed by constitutional arsonists who have discovered that the most effective way to eliminate democratic constraints is to declare them emergencies that require bypassing democracy itself. Our allies watch in horror as we demonstrate the complete transformation of American governance from constitutional republic to personal rule.
The United States is today one of the most corrupt countries in the world, as a result of the results of our election last November.
The center cannot hold when those charged with holding it have chosen to burn it down instead.
“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” — Abraham Lincoln
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.
Filed Under: congress, constitution, corruption, coup, donald trump, fascism, trade deals


Comments on “The Trade Deal Coup”
Trump has orgasms (not that you would notice because his micropenis can only squeeze a single drop of joy juice) whenever he can talk about millions and billions and trillions of dollars, everything else about “trade deals” is inconsequential.
Well, there wasn’t an emergency or unusual and extraordinary threat BEFORE it was declared. There is now.
Well, this is alarmist
It is also accurate. Meaning that there is good reason to be alarmed. One just has to remember what that means. When you raise a fire alarm, you kind of expect the fire brigade to do more than raise their eyebrows.
America certainly has gone down more than a couple pegs but I’m not willing to take a bet that it’s “one of the most corrupt countries in the world”. That has less to do with Trump’s constitutional arson than it does with how awful the rest of the world is on a day-to-day basis. Americans easily forget just how good they have it (or had it anyway). America really was something special. Now it’s slowly becoming just like everywhere else.
Re: American exceptionism
Not the flex you think it is.
Re:
Now it’s slowly becoming just like everywhere else
That is what happens when you import everywhere else
Except we can’t really “know” that, because “emergency” can be used in various subjective ways. Arguably, something that can be solved with tariffs can’t be an “emergency” at all, in that tariffs tend not to solve life-threatening situations. But that’s only one definition. Merriam-Webster defines it as “an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action”; even something as simple as bad press matches that definition.
The delegation of authority is a normal part of government, all across the world. In the USA, it’s the basis for most regulatory agencies. So I think it’s a big jump in logic to say “what Trump is doing is illegal” just because the Constitution says Congress has that power. That’s exactly how the Federal Aviation Administration works, for example. Are their regulations legal? If so, what’s the relevant difference from the current tariff situation?
Congress chose to delegate their power. It seems they did a poor job, in that they left terms undefined and just assumed a reasonable executive branch. That’s on them, and it’s on them to fix it. The writers of the Constitution evidently didn’t consider the situation where members of congress couldn’t even agree to correct “obvious” errors, because they’d side with their parties (or whomever can give them deals) instead of reality. Literally all they have to do is pass a law saying that Trump’s declaration of emergency was in error, and is canceled along with all tariff-adjustments made by Trump. (I mean, Trump would probably try again, but it’d give Congress some time to debate proper permanent changes to the law.)
Re:
Yes, congress is in dereliction of their duties. We have seen enough town hall events that show constituents hate what the current legislature is doing.
The legislature is captured by corporations and doesn’t care about voters.
Re:
They did no actual delegation, and any unconstitutional delegation (by act, or by inaction) is, by definition, illegal.
No, you can’t play word games with “emergency”.
Re: Re:
Here’s the law: International Emergency Economic Powers
Section 1702 starts with “At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise”. So Congress clearly intended to delegate their power via the above text.
Okay. If the attempted delegation above were found to be illegal, then you’d be right: they wouldn’t have actually delegated it. But what reason do we have to expect that outcome? Are you suggesting all delegations, thus all regulatory agenies (basically), are illegal? Or that’s there’s something relevantly different about this one?
Good news, though! It turns out we don’t even have to play word games with “emergency”, because “emergency” is the President’s declaration rather than a pre-requisite; the pre-requisite allowing such declaration is “any unusual and extraordinary threat […] outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States”. I assume we can agree on what “and” means; too bad neither “unusual”, “extraordinary”, nor “threat” are defined. (But it does explicitly say, in 1706b, that Congress can “terminate the national emergency”.)
If that were true, people would sue (many have high financial stakes), successfully. But they mostly haven’t, and certainly not successfully.
The thing is, Congress delegated that power away. You certainly can argue that Congress did not have the power to that – conservatives have been arguing that for nearly a century. But congress DID delegate that authority away, and courts have pretended that was fine. (and anything you grant an executive power to do in an “emergency” you grant them the power whenever they want, as many blue state governors declared recently)
Now I would like to see it ruled that Congress does not have the power to delegate those powers away, but that would apply to all sorts of spending and rulemaking authority, as well, and that would effectively make the entire administrative state go away. Do you want that? (I do!)
SCOTUS may actually be willing to do away with that delegation, I think all your assumptions are wrong there, thing is you do not want that.
Re:
Lawsuits have no bearing on whether or not what the government is doing is legal/appropriate.
Re: Re:
They absolutely do. What is legal is obviously the biggest predictor of what wins in court, and if you think a particular judge is biased (I do) that’s why we have an appeals court.
If someone thinks they are likely to prevail in court and it would be financially advantageous (it absolutely will be for someone, many someone’s) they will sue. I’m sure someone did sue but I never heard of any that were viable (cuz duh, this is legal).
What is “appropriate” can only be adjudicated through the political process, i.e. voting.
Re: Re: Re:
While I’d hope it to be the biggest predictor, it’s not “obvious” at all that it actually is.
That’s an oversimplification. The likelihood of loss, and the amount of effort, also need to be considered. A 90% chance of success (“likely”) might be no good if defeat would leave the plaintiff on the hook for millions of dollars in legal fees.
Re:
You seem to have missed a number of lawsuits challenging the tarrifs. Some of them are lead by conservative groups.
Re: Re:
I “missed” them because none of them went anywhere. I already said “there must have been some”. Please pay attention and read. Oh, there’s DEFINITELY a conservative argument against tariffs, not the point.
And why did they lose? Cuz the law clearly gives the president the power to do this. (I think Congress shouldn’t have the ability to give him that power, but that would require SCOTUS overturning about 100 years of precedent and would basically undo the whole administrative state)
Yes.
Because lik,e you should be saying.
The republican members of congress and the supreme court are TRAITORS who have broken their oaths, lied to the american people, and are actively working to sell the american people out for wealth and power.
Gislane is compromised
Let’s see if Q allows the tariffs to remain. Maybe if Droopy Don keep the names of the deep state actors out of any released Epstein files. 😉
'Trust me' said the known liar
No remotely sane country would sign any sort of deal with the current regime, never mind one involving tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars, when the head of the regime has shown time and time again that he has the mental and emotional maturity of a toddler and considers no deal binding if he doesn’t like it on a given day.
Any ‘trade’ deals with the US at this point are likely to fall under one of two categories: Either figments of Trump’s deranged imagination again or ‘deals’ in which the other country expects to get far more from the US than the US will be getting from them, in true ‘The ship is on fire and sinking, might as well loot it before it slips beneath the waves’ fashion.
The Donald is all about being able to get overly excited to use the following words:
Dollars.
Millions.
Billions.
Trillions.
The complexities behind getting the fantasy money are just farts in a cyclone.
These trade deals written out via social media or scribbled on napkins and slid under the door of embassies must surely be riddled with flaws.
For example, I heard something about “Japan will start buying our big beautiful trucks” so I assume the cover is that a Ford, a Chevy and a Ram will all be delivered to a warehouse somewhere on a waterfront, to avoid wedging them in a narrow Japanese streetcorner, and left there. Trucks? Purchased. Check.
Re:
I don’t know about “big beautiful trucks”, but here you can buy a big ugly fuck.