Emergency Powers: When Urgency Becomes Overreach

Emergency powers allow our leaders to act swiftly in a crisis. A sudden pandemic, natural disaster, or security threat might require immediate action that normal government processes can’t provide. These special powers are supposed to be temporary – a short-term boost until the usual lawmaking process catches up. In practice, however, “temporary” emergencies in the United States often stretch on for years or even decades. This post explores how unchecked emergency powers can outlast their urgency, why other democracies put stricter limits on such powers, and how the Checks & Rights Party’s reforms would preserve both swift crisis response and democratic accountability.

The Need for Fast Action – and the Risk of Overreach

When genuine emergencies strike, nobody doubts that the government must respond without delay. That’s why U.S. law gives the President broad leeway after declaring a national emergency. Declaring an emergency instantly unlocks over 100 special powers for the executive branch – authorities that would normally be illegal or require Congress’s approval. For example, under current law an emergency declaration could allow a president to shut down communication networks or freeze Americans’ assets in the name of crisis response. These tools can be vital to mobilize resources and protect the public. But if such powers remain in effect long after the crisis, they risk sliding from urgency to overreach.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of letting emergency measures linger. Technically, the United States has been in a constant state of emergency since 1979. In November of that year, President Jimmy Carter declared a national emergency during the Iran hostage crisis. Even after the hostages were freed in early 1981, the emergency didn’t fully end – President Reagan kept renewing it annually, and every president since has continued to renew Carter’s 1979 emergency declaration. This means a “temporary” crisis power from over forty years ago is still on the books today. And that is not an isolated case. As of mid-2025, nearly five dozen national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergencies Act of 1976, and 48 of them remain active under periodic renewals. Once emergency powers are invoked, they tend to stick around.

When Emergencies Never End: Real Examples

What kinds of emergencies last so long? Many are foreign-related crises or security threats that multiple administrations (both Democratic and Republican) have allowed to continue. For instance, the state of emergency declared after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks is still in effect today. President George W. Bush first invoked extraordinary powers to respond to 9/11, and those powers have been renewed for over two decades through the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. On the other side of the aisle, President Carter’s Iran emergency (from the Democratic administration) was maintained by Republican presidents and beyond. These examples show that once granted, emergency powers can become a bipartisan habit, lingering long after the original urgency has faded.

Even domestic emergencies can take on a life of their own. In 2019, a national emergency was declared to shift funds toward building a border wall, marking the 32nd ongoing emergency at that time. And in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to federal and state emergency declarations that lasted years. While the public health emergency was justified at first, it raised concerns about how long extraordinary measures (like broad lockdown authorities or spending powers) should last without new approval. The pattern is clear: under our current system, presidents of both parties have extended “emergencies” well beyond their urgent phase. Congress, meanwhile, has never successfully voted to end a national emergency, in part because current law makes it difficult to do so without a veto-proof majority. This means emergency powers, once turned on, tend to stay on unless a president chooses to relinquish them.

How Other Democracies Limit Emergency Powers

The United States is not alone in facing crises, but many other democracies put stricter time limits and oversight on emergency powers. These countries have found ways to balance agility with accountability:

United Kingdom: In the UK, emergency regulations made by the government expire after 30 days automatically, and Parliament must approve any emergency actions within 7 days or they lapse. This ensures that swift action is possible, but quickly brings elected lawmakers into the loop. If Parliament doesn’t affirm an emergency measure, it simply ends. The British approach prevents indefinite emergencies – leaders must convince representatives regularly if extraordinary powers need to continue.

Canada: Canada’s Emergencies Act is designed with democratic safeguards. Any national emergency declaration in Canada lasts a maximum of 30 days unless the Parliament (both the House of Commons and Senate) explicitly approves an extension. In fact, the law required that when a public order emergency was invoked in 2022, Parliament was recalled within a week to debate it, and the emergency was subject to continuous review by a multi-party committee. This means Canada can respond fast, but public representatives soon decide whether to keep or cancel those powers. If they do nothing, the emergency automatically sunsets after one month.

Germany: Germany’s history has made it very cautious about emergency authorities. The German constitution (Basic Law) does not provide broad suspension of rights even in an emergency, nor does it allow unchecked executive powers in peacetime. There is no general power for the chancellor to declare a nationwide state of emergency at will. In fact, German law explicitly prevents shifting extra powers to the executive or curtailing fundamental rights except under extreme conditions like an armed attack. Any emergency measures must pass through the legislature and are tightly constrained. This framework reflects a commitment to never let “emergency” become a pretext for eroding democracy.

Other democracies like the UK, Canada, and Germany show that it is possible to handle crises decisively without giving leaders a blank check indefinitely. Time limits, legislative approval, and transparency are common themes abroad. These principles protect freedom by ensuring that we don’t stay in crisis mode forever.

Accountability: Why Limits and Transparency Matter

Prolonged emergency powers pose a challenge to our constitutional balance. America’s founders set up checks and balances so that no single branch of government can hold too much power for too long. Emergency declarations, by their nature, concentrate a lot of authority in the executive branch – often sidestepping ordinary checks. That’s tolerable for a short period during an acute crisis, but over time it can undermine democratic governance. Regular limits and renewals put the “checks” back into emergency powers. If a situation truly remains dire, a President should be able to make the case to Congress and the American people to extend special powers. If not, those powers should return to normal levels. This process ensures accountability: the public can hear why an ongoing emergency is needed and can trust that their representatives have a say.

Transparency is another key principle. Today, it’s surprisingly hard for the average citizen to even know how many national emergencies are active and what powers they involve. Emergencies can fly under the radar, renewed quietly with little public discussion. By shining light on these extraordinary measures, we empower voters, journalists, and lawmakers to ask: “Is this still necessary?” Public awareness creates pressure to end powers that are no longer justified. In short, limits, renewals, and transparency keep our democracy healthy – they prevent power from creeping too far for too long, and they reaffirm that the government ultimately answers to the people, even in a crisis.

Common-Sense Reforms to Prevent Overreach

The Checks & Rights Party is advancing two straightforward reforms to ensure emergency powers serve their true purpose without undermining our rights:

30-Day Sunset on Emergencies: Any emergency power invoked by the President would automatically expire after 30 days unless Congress votes to extend it. In other words, the President can act immediately for one month, but after that, our elected legislators must agree to continue the emergency measures. This deadline ensures short-term crises don’t turn into permanent power grabs. It forces a debate: if the emergency is still serious, Congress can renew it; if not, the special powers turn off. Notably, a bipartisan group in Congress has proposed similar 30-day limits to reclaim their constitutional role. This idea preserves the President’s ability to respond quickly – 30 days is plenty of time for initial action – while guaranteeing that longer-term use of emergency authority has democratic consent.

Public Emergency Powers Dashboard: We propose creating a publicly accessible “disclosure dashboard” that lists all active national emergency declarations, when they were declared, what powers they activate, and when they are up for renewal. This would be an online hub where any citizen can see, at a glance, the extraordinary powers currently in effect. Such transparency might sound simple, but it’s transformative. A dashboard makes it impossible for an emergency to hide in bureaucratic shadows. If an administration continues an emergency year after year, everyone will know. This openness will encourage officials to justify ongoing emergencies in the sunlight of public scrutiny. It also helps Congress in its oversight role by centralizing information about emergency actions. In short, a transparency dashboard would build public trust that emergency powers aren’t being misused or forgotten.

Together, these reforms keep the balance of power in check. They prevent emergency measures from becoming a backdoor to unlimited executive authority, regardless of which party is in power. And importantly, they do this without hampering true emergency responses. A real crisis can still be met with urgent action – but only for as long as necessary, and only with the knowledge and approval of the people’s representatives if it must continue beyond 30 days.

Balancing Urgency and Accountability

In a democracy, safety and freedom must walk hand in hand. The lesson from history and other nations is that we can have both: we can react swiftly to disasters or threats and protect our republican system from abuse. Emergency powers should be like a fire alarm – used when needed, turned off when the fire is out. By instituting reasonable limits and shining a light on every emergency declaration, America can avoid the trap of permanent “urgent” situations.

The Checks & Rights Party believes these changes will strengthen our republic. They ensure that urgency never becomes an excuse for overreach. With automatic sunsets and transparency, we the people – through Congress and public oversight – regain control over extraordinary powers. This keeps our leaders focused on true emergencies, not open-ended ones. It preserves the core American principle that no crisis justifies suspending accountability. In the end, requiring justification and renewal of emergency authority makes our government more responsive and effective. We can respond fast in real crises while safeguarding the checks, balances, and rights that define our democracy. That’s an outcome in which everyone wins: a government capable of bold action when needed, and a nation that never loses sight of the liberties and limits that make it free.

By adopting these commonsense reforms, we can keep power in check even in times of crisis – proving that America can be both secure and free.