As "The Constitutional Critic," I approach Proclamation 10947 of June 3, 2025, issued by President Donald J. Trump, with a skeptical eye, rooted in the original principles of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the vision of the Founding Fathers. My duty is to dissect this document, expose any hidden implications, and evaluate its impact on individual liberties, state sovereignty, and the constitutional balance of power. Let’s dive into this proclamation with a clear focus on uncovering what the government might not want you to see.
Summary of Proclamation 10947
Proclamation 10947, titled "Adjusting Imports of Aluminum and Steel Into the United States," significantly increases tariffs on imported steel and aluminum articles and their derivatives from 25% to 50% ad valorem, effective June 4, 2025. This action builds on prior proclamations (e.g., 9704, 9705, 9980, 10895, and 10896) and is justified under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the President to adjust imports that threaten national security. The proclamation cites reports from the Secretary of Commerce indicating that current import levels of steel and aluminum continue to impair national security by undercutting U.S. industries’ competitiveness and capacity to meet defense needs. Exceptions are made for the United Kingdom under the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD), maintaining a 25% tariff rate with potential adjustments or increases to 50% if compliance falters. Additional measures include strict enforcement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on declaration requirements and penalties for noncompliance, as well as amendments to related executive orders to align tariff policies.
Government’s Stated Rationale vs. Potential Underlying Motives
Stated Rationale: The government claims this tariff hike is necessary to protect national security. According to the proclamation, imported steel and aluminum, often sold at low prices by foreign countries, threaten the health of U.S. industries critical for defense production. The increase from 25% to 50% is presented as a means to provide greater price support, bolster domestic production capacity, and reduce reliance on foreign materials that could compromise security in times of crisis.
Underlying Motives and Contradictions: While national security is a compelling justification, I’m not convinced this is the full story. Let’s peel back the layers. First, the broad application of a 50% tariff across all countries (except the UK for now) suggests a protectionist agenda that goes beyond mere security concerns. This could be a politically motivated move to appeal to domestic industries and workers in key voting states, particularly in manufacturing-heavy regions like the Rust Belt, which have been a core base for President Trump. The timing—early in a second term—smacks of political posturing to deliver on campaign promises of economic nationalism, rather than a purely security-driven decision.
Moreover, the selective leniency toward the UK under the EPD raises eyebrows. Why carve out this exception if the threat to national security is as urgent and universal as claimed? This smells like a geopolitical favor or a trade negotiation tactic, potentially prioritizing diplomatic relations or economic concessions over a consistent security policy. If steel and aluminum imports genuinely threaten national defense, why allow any country a lower tariff without ironclad proof of non-threat? This inconsistency undermines the stated rationale and suggests hidden priorities—perhaps securing favorable trade terms or political alliances—that aren’t being disclosed to the American public.
Constitutional and Liberty Concerns: Investigating Rights Erosion
At first glance, this proclamation operates within the President’s delegated authority under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and other trade laws, as well as constitutional powers over commerce with foreign nations (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). However, as a constitutional critic, I must question whether this action oversteps the spirit of limited government and free market principles the Founders championed, even if it falls within legal bounds.
Impact on Individual Liberties and Economic Freedom: While not a direct assault on personal rights like free speech or due process, this tariff increase indirectly burdens Americans’ economic freedom. Higher tariffs on steel and aluminum will inevitably raise costs for downstream industries—think construction, automotive manufacturing, and consumer goods. These costs will be passed on to everyday Americans in the form of higher prices for cars, appliances, and infrastructure projects. The Founding Fathers, particularly figures like Thomas Jefferson, were wary of government interventions that distorted markets and burdened citizens with hidden taxes. Tariffs, though not explicitly unconstitutional, function as a tax on consumers, reducing their purchasing power without direct legislative debate or consent beyond the initial delegation of authority. This raises a question of whether such sweeping executive action aligns with the principle of representative government.
Balance of Power and Executive Overreach: The reliance on Section 232 and broad executive authority to impose tariffs without fresh congressional input is concerning. The Constitution vests Congress with the power to regulate commerce and lay duties (Article I, Section 8), yet modern trade laws have delegated significant discretion to the President. This proclamation, by doubling tariffs based on a vague “national security” justification, exemplifies how such delegation can erode legislative checks and balances. The Founders intended for major economic policies to be debated in Congress, not dictated by executive fiat. While not a clear-cut violation, the expansive use of “national security” as a catch-all justification risks setting a precedent for unchecked executive power, potentially applicable to other areas of policy beyond trade.
State Sovereignty and Federal Overreach: States with significant manufacturing or import-dependent industries may bear disproportionate economic burdens from these tariffs. While the Constitution grants the federal government authority over international commerce, the ripple effects on state economies—higher costs, potential job losses in non-steel/aluminum sectors—could strain federal-state relations. The Founders emphasized federalism as a safeguard against centralized overreach; this proclamation, by imposing a one-size-fits-all policy without state input, may undermine that balance.
Unveiling Political Manipulation
Who stands to gain from this proclamation? On the surface, domestic steel and aluminum producers benefit from reduced foreign competition and higher prices. Politically, this aligns with President Trump’s long-standing narrative of protecting American jobs and industries—a message that resonates with his base. However, let’s not ignore the potential for cronyism. Large domestic corporations in these sectors, likely with significant lobbying power, may have influenced this decision to secure windfall profits at the expense of smaller businesses and consumers who rely on affordable materials. The lack of transparency about specific industry consultations or data justifying the 50% rate (beyond vague references to the Secretary’s reports) leaves room for suspicion that special interests are driving policy behind closed doors.
Additionally, the punitive enforcement measures—severe penalties, loss of import privileges, and even criminal liability for underreported declarations—signal an aggressive federal stance that could disproportionately harm small importers or businesses lacking the resources to navigate complex CBP regulations. This reeks of a power grab by federal agencies, expanding their control over private commerce under the guise of compliance.
The UK exception under the EPD also warrants scrutiny. Is this a genuine diplomatic strategy, or a political favor to a key ally? If the latter, it suggests that national security can be negotiated away for political expediency—a dangerous precedent that could embolden other nations to seek similar exemptions, diluting the policy’s stated purpose.
Educating and Informing: What the Government Might Not Want You to Know
Here’s what I believe the government is downplaying or obscuring in this proclamation:
Economic Fallout for Consumers: The administration emphasizes benefits to steel and aluminum producers but glosses over the downstream costs to Americans. Higher tariffs mean higher prices for goods—potentially fueling inflation—yet there’s no mention of mitigation strategies or impact assessments for ordinary citizens.
Lack of Specific Evidence: The proclamation repeatedly cites the Secretary of Commerce’s findings but provides no concrete data on how current import levels specifically threaten national security or why a 50% tariff (as opposed to, say, 35% or 40%) is the magic number. This opacity prevents public scrutiny and accountability.
Long-Term Dependency Risk: While the goal is to bolster domestic industries, excessive protectionism can make U.S. companies less competitive globally by shielding them from market pressures. If these industries fail to innovate or become reliant on government support, the “national security” argument could backfire, leaving the U.S. vulnerable in the long run.
Potential for Retaliation: Foreign nations hit by these tariffs may retaliate with their own trade barriers, harming U.S. exporters and escalating trade wars. The proclamation is silent on this risk, ignoring how such policies could destabilize international relations and, ironically, national security.
Conclusion: A Call to Vigilance
Proclamation 10947 does not present an overt constitutional violation, as it operates within delegated trade authorities and the President’s foreign commerce powers. However, it raises serious concerns about executive overreach, the erosion of economic freedoms, and the potential for political manipulation. The Founders envisioned a government restrained by checks and balances, with economic burdens like tariffs subject to robust debate in Congress, not unilateral executive action justified by broad, unscrutinized claims of “national security.”
As Americans, we must demand transparency on the data driving these tariffs, accountability for their economic fallout, and a return to constitutional principles that prioritize individual liberty over unchecked federal power. I urge you to question the real motives behind this proclamation—beyond the noble banner of national security—and to hold policymakers accountable for the hidden costs they’d rather you ignore. The Constitution is our shield; let’s not allow it to be sidelined by policies that burden the many for the benefit of the few.