Policy Memorandum 1
Policy Memorandum Assignment
Royal P McHenry
Helm School of Law/Government-Liberty University
Due March 2nd
To: The 119 Congressional Congress
The House and Senate
From Dr. Royal McHenry
Date: January 3, 2027
Time 12:00
Policy Memorandum 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
POLICY MEMO:
Does the executive have too much unchecked authority ?
The issue before America is Tariff and debt resolution based on the Chevron
acclamation. One of the clauses of President Donald J Trump’s 2025 Tariff Act relieves other
countries from paying taxes, “if the build their companies in America” with the intent to operate
on international commerce and trade of sales of goods and product raised eyebrows as he seek
resolution to The U. S. of America’s 36 trillion dollar debt.. This ideology was reasoned by the
Trump administration on behalf of the debt of America. “It is imperative that policymakers,
social media platforms, and civil society organizations work together to create a more informed
and resilient information environment” (Clemmitt 2024 p2). The U.S. has carried debt since its
inception. We know Congress have the power to enjoin some of the decision the President
make. We also understand we must support the President in foreign affairs that reflect the
strength of our democracy. We know that other countries observe our government only to
assist one or the other in times of our dispute only to ensure as long as we are not in one accord
it’s as invitation for them to perpetrate or render assistance in areas we disagree and therefore
must either support our President decision or bring those issues to Congress for an internal
solution. There was $75 million dollar incurred debt during the American Revolution War. The
Bureau of Fiscal Service were oversights for the Department of Treasury since 2012 for war
materials, collections, and federal payments which provides governmental reports and
accounting services (Zarate, 2013).
A primary function of the Fiscal Service is to account for and report the national debt, as
dictated by the United States Constitution pursuant to Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, states:
Policy Memorandum 3
“regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be
published from time to time.” For the above mention reason we submit this executive summary
to Congress. In light of these reports and recommendation tariff acts are viewed with scrutiny. A
tariff can apply to one country or to all nations. When the US levies a tariff, the company importing the
tariff-eligible good must pay a tax as a share of good’s cost or as a fixed amount per item imported
(Fajgelbaum 2020)
The ideology of Tariff has become a significant focus point and procedure for leveling the
playing field. If this economical approach are taken by the executive officer of the USA, then
squash our balance first then apply a regulatory for taxes operating out of America.
Background
All countries maintain some form of Tariff for the common purposes of survival. When
the US levies a tariff, the company importer of good must pay a tax as a share of good’s cost or
as a fixed amount per item imported. The quantitative study chart for 2018 demonstrates how
“a tariff shifts down the demand curve for any given price received by the exporter, tracing the
supply curve. Similarly, a tariff shifts up the supply curve for any given price paid by the
consumer, tracing the demand curve” (Fajgelbaum 2020 p 3).
Let us review several precedence of Tariff that would explain the probability of our
present day act of Trump’s administration, “Trump Tariff Act 2025.” A tax levied on goods and
services has historically been the major source of the Federal Reserve financial growth and
stabilization. This process has always been the unique relation with countries abroad to content
in economic relationship. Many of these deals are made in the best interest of unions,
corporations, military and economic interest through the late nineteenth century. Today, the
same process of tariff are accompanied with newly developed technology and agriculture
Policy Memorandum 4
sources wherein foreign policies are created in a more definite terms and condition. “Tariffs are
now typically used selectively to protect certain domestic industries, advance foreign policy
goals, or as negotiating leverage in trade negotiations” (Fajgelbaum 2020 p 3).
“The U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to set import tariffs, a power that Congress
has partially delegated to the President. The United States is also a member of the
World Trade Organization (WTO) and a party to a number of trade agreements, which
include specific tariff-related commitments. Congress and the President thus create U.S.
tariff policy within the context of a rules-based global trading system” (Casey 2025 p 1).
According to the 1913 Underwood Tariff Act, “re-imposed federal income tax and
lowered tariff rates from roughly 40% to 25% Federal revenue now comes primarily from
income taxes” (Pollock v. Farmer's 1895 3). From the moment the United States broke away
from Great Britain, taxation was something the federal government did as little as possible.
Because taxation was one of the primary issues for the colonists during the American
Revolution, the federal government instead looked to tariffs to make money. During this era of
growth and development for America, the United States was brand-new entity to marketing
goods and services of people to European countries and France. Placing a tariff on these
international goods, made the import for European companies pay a large amount of money.
“This method of taxation directly taxes other countries and indirectly makes products more
expensive for consumers was determined unconstitutional” (Lincoln & Andrew, 2021 p 2). It was
unconstitutional then as well as it is today.
Policy Memorandum 5
Balancing the Budget
Alternatively, a federal government can tax the individual income of the citizens while
lowering tariffs. This lowers the prices of goods, but the government takes money directly from
citizens' paychecks. While these two methods are different, it is not always the case that one is
more expensive for citizens than the other. “Regardless, because of this fear of taxation, the
founding father made sure they did not give the federal government the power to institute an
income tax” (Lincoln & Andrew, 2021 p3). The Underwood Act was changing as early as the
beginning of the 1900”s. However, the country’s wealthiest businessmen had built massive
monopolies that was later determine illegal and thereafter broke up business with likeminded
entities. Most Americans began to buy into the 1913 Underwood Act after the brake up of many
monopolies and others of interest begun to rise in the accumulation of wealth, trade and
economic power. The revenue act became a big topic of discussion during this transition.
Another change in the country in this year was that for the first time since 1861 (over 50 years),
a Democrat was elected president. After the Civil War, it became very difficult for Democrats to
win high public opinion, meaning that Republican values of the time began to shape the
country. Republicans wanted to encourage the growth of business and lower government
regulation (Lincoln & Andrew, 2021)
“However, by the early 1900s, politicians on both sides saw government intervention as
the only way to reestablish order in the American economic system” (Bensel, 2000 p1). William
Howard Taft wanted the government to manually break up these companies, while Woodrow
Wilson, preferred to pass laws that solve the problems all on their own. The most important law
was to return economic order to the United States of America.
Policy Memorandum 6
Tariff Act of 1930, known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, raised U.S. This act raised import
duties to protect American businesses and farmers, adding considerable strain to the
international economic climate of the Great Depression. The act takes its name from its
chief sponsors, Senator Reed Smoot of Utah, chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, and Representative Willis Hawley of Oregon, chairman of the House Ways
and Means Committee. It was the last legislation under which the U.S. Congress set
actual tariff rates (Bensel, 2000).
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raised high tariff rates. “In 1922 Congress had enacted the
Fordney-McCumber Act, which was among the most punitive protectionist tariffs passed in the
country’s history, raising the average import tax to some 40 percent” (Hayford & Pasurka 1992
p2). The Fordney-McCumber tariff prompted retaliation from European governments but did
little to dampen U.S. prosperity.
Throughout the 1920s, however, as European farmers recovered from World War I and
their American counterparts faced intense competition and declining prices because of
overproduction, U.S. agricultural interests lobbied the federal government for protection
against agricultural imports. In his 1928 campaign for the presidency, Republican
candidate Herbert Hoover promised to increase tariffs on agricultural goods, but after
he took office lobbyists from other economic sectors encouraged him to support a
broader increase. Although an increase in tariffs was supported by most Republicans, an
effort to raise import duties failed in 1929, largely because of opposition from centrist
Republicans in the U.S. Senate. In response to the stock market crash of 1929, however,
protectionism gained strength, and, though the tariff legislation subsequently passed
only by a narrow margin (44–42) in the Senate, it passed easily in the House of
Policy Memorandum 7
Representatives. Despite a petition from more than 1,000 economists urging him to veto
the legislation, Hoover signed the bill into law on June 17, 1930 (Tariff Act of 1922)
Smoot-Hawley contributed to the early loss of confidence on Wall Street and signaled
U.S. isolationism. By raising the average tariff by some 20 percent, it also prompted retaliation
from foreign governments, and many overseas banks began to fail. Within two years some two
dozen countries adopted similar “beggar-thy-neighbor” duties, making worse an already
beleaguered world economy and reducing global trade. U.S. imports from and exports to
Europe fell by some two-thirds between 1929 and 1932, while overall global trade declined by
similar levels in the four years that the legislation was in effect.
According to the complete and informed data of the USA tariff was best documented by
Taussig, F. W. (1914) as follows:
1934: Reciprocal Tariff Act delegated to the President the power to negotiate bilateral,
reciprocal trade agreements. It was renewed periodically until the.
In 1934 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act,
reducing tariff levels and promoting trade liberalization and cooperation with foreign
governments. Some observers have argued that the tariff, by deepening the Great
Depression, may have contributed to the rise of political extremism, enabling leaders
such as Adolf Hitler to increase their political strength and gain power.
1947: The United States and 23 other countries entered the GATT to lower tariffs and
other trade barriers.The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade came into force on 1
January 1948. This booklet contains the complete text of the General Agreement
together with all amendments which have become effective since its entry into force.
Policy Memorandum 8
The text is identical to that published, since 1969, as Volume IV in the series Basic
Instruments and Selected Documents. A guide to the legal sources of the provisions of
the Agreement is provided in an appendix. An Analytical Index, containing notes on the
drafting, interpretation and application of the articles of the Agreement has been
prepared and published by the secretariat. A second publication, complementary to this
one, contains the text of the agreements reached as a result of the Tokyo Round of
Multilateral Trade
Negotiations (1973-1979)
1976: The United States instituted its Generalized System of
Preferences (GSP), establishing preferential tariff rates for developing countries.
1984 The Trade and Tariff Act of 1984
1995: The United States entered the WTO. This is the last time GATT/WTO members
multilaterally agreed to major reductions in tariff rates (Taussig, 1914)
ISSUE: Executive discretionary authority on Tariff
The US imported goods from every country in 2022. The total value of imported goods
by country, 2022s was the shift for worse tax crisis every before. However to minimize some of
the outrageous tax disposition on imported goods demand and review in order to balance the
USA budget and cure the deficits. The legislature has established statutes to satisfy some
trading principles but lacks the analogy of curing the debts abroad. It is a constitutional decree,
Congress has authorized the President in any area as needed to adjust tariff rates. For example,
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 empowers the President to adjust
tariffs on imports that threaten to impair U.S. National Security. Section 5(b) Trading
with the Enemy Act and Section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers
Policy Memorandum 9
Act empower the President in a time of war or national emergency to regulate imports
(Trade Expansion Act of 1962).
The President to raise tariff rates temporarily when the U.S. International Trade
Commission (ITC) determines that a sudden import surge has caused or threatened
serious injury to a U.S. industry. Congress has also empowered U.S. agencies to impose
duties to offset certain injurious trade practices. Currently, the US levies tariffs on
products such as aluminum, batteries, electric vehicles, medical products,
semiconductors, solar cells, and steel (Hammond and Williams 2020; White House
2024).
Tariffs, especially on goods imported from China, were increased during Donald
Trump’s administration and sustained during Joe Biden’s administration (York 2024). “In May
2024, President Biden announced additional tariffs on specific Chinese goods, including steel,
aluminum, semiconductors, and electric vehicles. The Tax Policy Center estimated that Biden’s
tariffs, if continued, would raise about $11 billion in revenue over the next decade” (Gleckman
2024).
Analysis
“Economists from across the political spectrum have long agreed on the removal of
barriers to international trade. This consensus has guided the global trade liberalization
between World War II and the present, coinciding with historically unprecedented levels of
economic growth” (Magness, 2024 p3). In recent years, free trade has gained numerous
detractors who denounce the post war period as an aberration from an alternative in ‐
American’s economic history (p4).
Policy Memorandum 10
Pat Buchanan in the early 1990s to former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer
today, the United States became an economic powerhouse by strategically cultivating an
industrial base through a system of protectionist tariffs, infrastructure improvements,
and subsidies—the American System of the 19th century developed by politician Henry
Clay. Proponents of this view often depict free trade as a foreign doctrine originating in
Britain and present themselves as revivalists of a lost historical record in which the
United States industrialized under the active encouragement of government policies
(Magness, 2023).
“After decades of supporting free trade, in 2018 the United States raised import tariffs
and major trade partners retaliated” (Fajgelbaum 2020 p2).
We analyze the short-run impact of this return to protectionism on the U.S. economy.
Import and retaliatory tariffs caused large declines in imports and exports. Prices of
imports targeted by tariffs did not fall, implying complete pass-through of tariffs to
dutyinclusive prices. The resulting losses to U.S. consumers and firms that buy imports
was $51 billion, or 0.27% of GDP. We embed the estimated trade elasticities in a
generalequilibrium model of the U.S. economy. After accounting for tariff revenue and
gains to domestic producers, the aggregate real income loss was $7.2 billion, or 0.04% of
GDP. Import tariffs favored sectors concentrated in politically competitive counties, and
the model implies that tradeable-sector workers in heavily Republican counties were the
most negatively affected due to the retaliatory tariffs (Fajgelbaum 2020).
Pursuant to the Classical Trade Theory declared the effect of the incidence of tariffs.
“Consumers who buy foreign products lose higher tariffs. Domestic products induced by the
Policy Memorandum 11
United States and retaliatory tariffs may lead to changes in prices. The trade war have
distributional consequences across sectors and across regions with different patterns of
specialization” (Fajgelbaum, 2020 p5)
Recommendations
Occasionally, the United States is confronted with the dilemma that, in emergencies,
presidents may find it necessary to take actions that ignore constitutional restraints and break
the law.
In such cases, a strict adherence to the law might prevent the president from acting
quickly to protect national security. Some have argued that the president has the
constitutional authority to take whatever actions are deemed necessary, regardless of
the law, and that this authority is available indefinitely as long as it is exercised within
the president’s authority as Commander in Chief (Article II Section 2).
Congress passed the temporary Emergency Tariff Act in 1921, followed a year later by the
Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922. “The FordneyMcCumber Tariff Act raised tariffs above the
level set in 1913; it also authorized the president to raise or lower a given tariff rate by 50% in order
to even out foreign and domestic production costs” (Irwin, 1998 p 2). “A letter to King
Artaxerxes states that if a city is rebuilt, its citizens will not pay tariffs, which would reduce royal
revenues” (Ezra 4:13). “Jesus asks his disciples who kings collect tariffs from, their sons or
strangers Christian perspectives on tariffs’ (Matthew 17:25). Tariffs can be helpful in some
cases, but they are a temporary measure until people return to virtue. Rulers have the right to
tax people for the common good. Rulers can levy tariffs to protect the local economy from
unfair trade practices. The Bible supports free markets and fair and honest trade. encourages
Policy Memorandum 12
investing in foreign trade and putting investments in multiple places. The Lord detests dishonest
scales, while accurate weights find favor with him. (Ecclesiastes 11)
II
The Founders Construction of the Separation of Power
Accordingly, Brittany Hunter (2023 August 09) The executive branch is out of control
Pacific Legal Foundation https://pacificlegal.org/the-executive-branch-is-out-of-control/
The Chevron doctrine relates to the ambiguity of the law made by congress give rights to other
administrators to provide clear meaningful definition, because the Separation of Powers is the
foundation of American Liberty.
“To safeguard the American people against tyranny, the Framers of our Constitution
created a political system with three distinct branches of government executive, legislative, and
judicial each tasked with its own unique and specific powers” (Hunter 2023 p 1). As Thomas
Jefferson pursued for a governmental order to ensure neither branch of government could
usurp the duty of the other. The intent was to limit jurisdiction and bypass all mischief of
another branch by check and balancing the power inherited in the system. “In many cases the
separation of Power was attacked by the Senate and/or the House of Representor who wanted
a say in the administration of the President of which he has responsibility as much and a formed
committed of Congress” (Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 1984 p2), wherein
Chevron has enabled Congress’s abandonment of its core responsibility to make the law.
Meanwhile, executive agencies have stepped into the void, but without the direct accountability
to voters that Congress has under the Constitution. This doctrine, established in a 1984
decision, compels courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws.
Policy Memorandum 13
A threat: Chevron Deference
Chevron Deference has been the principle platform for the administrative state,
empowering executive agencies to actual assist the role of Congress. “Chevron has enabled
Congress’s abandonment of its core responsibility: to make the law. Meanwhile, executive
agencies have stepped into the void, but without the direct accountability to voters that
Congress has under the Constitution” (Somin, 2023 p1). The Chevron doctrine was a principle of
administrative law that guided courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous laws.
The Supreme Court established the doctrine in 1984 (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. 1984).
Justice Neil Gorsuch has lamented that Chevron has led judges to abdicate their judicial
duties. ‘Rather than provide individuals with the best understanding of their rights and
duties under law a neutral magistrate can muster, we outsource our interpretive
responsibilities,’ he wrote. rather than say what the law is, we tell those who come
before us to go ask a bureaucrat.
“We’ve seen unelected bureaucrats make decisions and implement policies that undermine the
choices of elected representatives, and the problem has gotten worse with time” (Poon 2023
p1)
A constitutional weapon we can use to fight back.
“The Appointments Clause generally requires unelected federal officials with significant
power to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and the president must
be able to fire these officials at will. Only these ‘Officers of the United States,’ not just any
government employee, can make important decisions that affect the public. And because
Policy Memorandum 14
officers are both hired and fired by elected representatives, the people can hold officers
accountable by holding their elected representatives accountable for officers’ actions.”
A threat: In-House Tribunals
A major threat to the separation of powers comes in the form of in-house tribunals.
Inhouse tribunals use a process called agency adjudication, wherein agencies punish individuals
who break their laws which were made without Congress and try them in their own courts that
operate outside of the judicial branch.
“…unlike real courts, these in-house tribunals don’t have to follow any set rules of procedure or
evidence. The agency establishes its own rules, which generally favor the agency over the
accused” (Adi Dynar 2023). The rules of our justice system aren’t just procedural niceties;
they’re essential protections for the rights of the accused that have been built up over
centuries.
What’s more, in-house tribunals are missing one of the most important parts of our
judicial process: the jury. For centuries, juries have kept judges and prosecutors
accountable to the people. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) provides extensive support
for the unremarkable proposition that the civil jury serves as a check exercised by the
people over the judicial branch (Rubin, 2018).
This doctrine is simply the commonsense proposition that Congress does not intend to
authorize regulation of a question of economic or political significance if it has not done so in
clear terms. And it is a critical tool in the ongoing dispute over the scope of agency rule-making
power, which has reached a fever pitch in recent years.
Policy Memorandum 15
“Separating these powers is essential for keeping the government in check and
preventing the concentration of too much power in any one branch. As James Madison
famously said, The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the
same hand may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny Fortunately, it is not
too late to reinvigorate the separation of powers and stem the growth of the
administrative state” (Thompson and Simpson, 2023 p1).
How did Chevron work?
The doctrine required courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of a statute, even
if the court would interpret it differently. The doctrine was intended to respect the expertise of
agencies and the separation of powers between the branches of government.
Why was Chevron overruled?
The Supreme Court ruled that Chevron conflicted with the Administrative Procedure Act.
The overruling means that courts must now exercise independent judgment in determining
whether an agency's actions align with its statutory authority.
Conclusion
If the executive officer appears to be unchecked within his official capacity of
government to resolve issue(s) of national dispute wherein Congress, like the judicial officers
who are usually overloaded with issues occurring within our country, would leave important
issues unresolved is consistent with the inherit powers that comes with the executive obligation
to promote the general welfare of this country. It is convincing proof, congress may engage in
the executive officers ideology in establishing a level playing field. It’s not any one’s fault we are
Policy Memorandum 16
where we are in economics. We strive to prove every day we are human and we are grateful for
another day to correct the error(s) of yesterday for a better future.
Reference
Adi Dynar (2023 August) The executive branch is out of control: Pacific Legal Foundation
https://pacificlegal.org/the-executive-branch-is-out-of-control
Bensel, R. F. (2000). The political economy of American industrialization, 1877–1900.
Cambridge University Press.
Casey C. (2025, January 31) Congressional Research U.S. Tariff Policy: Overview
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11030
Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Supreme Court 1984
467 US 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694
Choi, J., & Pearson, A. (2024). The Economic Consequences of Trade Protection: Evidence from
the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Clemmitt, M. (2024). Presidential power. In CQ Researcher. CQ Press
https://doi.org/10.4135/cqresrre20241025
Fajgelbaum, Pablo D, Pinelopi K Goldberg, Patrick J Kennedy, Amit K Khandelwal. (2020). The
Return of Protectionism.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135 (1): 155.https://
academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/1/1/5626442.
Hayford, M., & Pasurka Jr, C. A. (1992). The political economy of the Fordney-McCumber and
Smoot-Hawley tariff acts. Explorations in Economic History, 29(1), 30-50.
Hunter, B (2023 August 09) The executive branch is out of control Pacific Legal Foundation
https://pacificlegal.org/the-executive-branch-is-out-of-control/
Irwin, D. A. (1998). From Smoot-Hawley to reciprocal trade agreements: changing the course of
US trade policy in the 1930s. In The defining moment: The Great Depression and the
American economy in the twentieth century (pp. 325-352). University of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, I. V., & Andrew, C. E. (2021). Was Polllock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co (1895)
Policy Memorandum 17
Decided consistently with existing tax principles? Forthcoming, American Bar
Association Tax Times-Summer.
Magness, P., 2023. The Problem of the Tariff in American Economic History, 1787–1934, Cato
Institute. United States of America. Retrieved from
https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/593vp0 on 16 Feb 2025. COI: 20.500.12592/593vp0.
McClelland, R., Auxier, R. C., Hunter, L., Jha, M., & Rodriguez, G. (2024). TARIFFS, TRADE,
CHINA, AND THE STATES. https://taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/2024-
Pfiffner, J. P. (2011). Federalist No. 70: Is the President Too Powerful?. Public Administration
Review, 71, s112-s117.
Poon, M. (2023 August 09) The executive branch is out of control Pacific Legal Foundation
https://pacificlegal.org/the executive-branch-is-out-of-control Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and
Trust Co. (158 U.S. 601 (1895).
Price, J. H. (1985). The Trade and Tariff Act of 1984: An Analytical Overview. In Int'l L. (Vol.
19, p. 321).
Rubin, J. (2018). The Senate must prevent Kavanaugh's nomination from corrupting the
Supreme Court. Washingtonpost. com.
Somin, A (2023 August) The executive branch is out of control Pacific Legal Foundation
https://pacificlegal.org/the-executive-branch-is-out-of-control
Tariff Act of 1922." Title of Act. Approved, Sept. 21, 1922, 11.10 a. m. September 21,1922 H. R.
70 [ubli, No. 319.] CHAP. 357.
Taussig, F. W. (1914). Tariff History of the US. https://archive.org/details/tariffhistory
ofu00tausrich
Trump D (2025 February) Tariff Reciprocal Tariff https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=
948010360802087
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7
Zarate, J. (2013). Treasury's war: The unleashing of a new era of financial warfare.
PublicAffairs.
Policy Memorandum 18
Bible Verses
King James version/2017/Ecclesiastes 11
King James version/2017/Ezra 4:13
King James version/2017/Matthew 17:25
King James version/2017/Proverbs 11:1
