Dozens of U.S. 'National Emergencies' Remain Active, Highlighting Concerns Over Executive Power

Former U.S. Representative Justin Amash recently voiced strong concerns regarding the enduring nature and potential misuse of presidential emergency powers, asserting that such authorities are "the lifeblood of authoritarians." In a social media post, Amash highlighted that the United States consistently operates under "dozens of active 'national emergencies'," many of which, he contends, do not represent genuine crises. His statement underscores a long-standing debate about the scope and duration of executive authority.Once declared, these emergencies often persist indefinitely, with some dating back decades, such as one initiated during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. A key challenge in curtailing these powers lies in the process of revocation. While Congress can pass a joint resolution to terminate an emergency, a president can veto such a bill. Overriding this presidential veto requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House and Senate, a legislative hurdle that is frequently difficult to achieve, effectively cementing the emergency declaration in law. Justin Amash, known for his libertarian stance and advocacy for constitutional checks and balances, has consistently criticized what he views as executive overreach. He previously introduced the National Emergencies Reform Act, which sought to impose automatic sunset clauses on emergency declarations, requiring congressional reauthorization to continue them beyond a set period. His legislative efforts aimed to restore the constitutional balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. The persistence of numerous active emergency declarations raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers and Congress's role in oversight. Amash's recent comments reiterate the argument that unchecked emergency powers can erode democratic principles, transforming temporary measures into permanent fixtures of governance, irrespective of the initial exigency. This ongoing discussion emphasizes the need for clarity and accountability in the exercise of presidential authority.