A Very Timely Question for Us to Ponder

Consider these quotes and reflect on this question: In thinking about his place in our world, does this man (Donald Trump) have a reassuring grip on reality?

“And I don’t mind making the speech without a teleprompter because the teleprompter is not working.  I feel very happy to be up here with you nevertheless and that way you speak more from the heart.  I can only say that whoever’s operating this teleprompter is in big trouble.”

“All I got from the United Nations was an escalator that on the way up, stopped right in the middle.  If the first lady wasn’t in great shape, she would’ve fallen.  But she’s in great shape.  We’re both in good shape.  We both stood.  And then a teleprompter that didn’t work.  These are the two things I got from the United Nations, a bad escalator and a bad teleprompter.”

“… the guns of war have shattered the peace I forged on two continents.”

“One year ago, our country was in deep trouble, but today, just eight months into my administration, we are the hottest country anywhere in the world and there is no other country even close.”

“Under my leadership, energy costs are down, gasoline prices are down, grocery prices are down, mortgage rates are down and inflation has been defeated.”

“In my first term, I built the greatest economy in the history of the world.  We had the best economy ever, history of the world and I’m doing the same thing again, but this time, it’s actually much bigger and even better.  The numbers far surpass my record-setting first term.”

“My administration has negotiated one historic trade deal after another, including with the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and many, many others.”

“… in a period of just seven months, I have ended seven unendable wars.  They said they were unendable. … No president or prime minister.  And for that matter, no other country has ever done anything close to that and I did it in just seven months.  It’s never happened before.  There’s never been anything like that.  Very honored to have done it.  It’s too bad that I had to do these things instead of the United Nations doing them.  And sadly, in all cases, the United Nations did not even try to help in any of them.”

“I’ve also been working relentlessly stopping the killing in Ukraine.  I thought that would be, of the seven wars that I stopped, I thought that would be the easiest because of my relationship with President Putin, which had always been a good one.”

“I’m really good at this stuff.  Your countries are going to hell.  In America, we’ve taken bold action to swiftly shut down uncontrolled migration.”

“And I’m really good at predicting things.  They actually said during the campaign, they had a hat, the best-selling hat.  Trump was right about everything.  And I don’t say that in a braggadocious way, but it’s true.  I’ve been right about everything.”

“He liked me.  I liked him and I only do business with people I like.”

In reflecting on his words, consider this summary from Google AI:

“Grandiose overt narcissism is a subtype of narcissistic personality disorder characterized by an exaggerated sense of self-importance, a need for constant admiration and a lack of empathy, all of which are displayed outwardly.  Unlike more hidden “vulnerable” narcissism, grandiose narcissists are often charming, outgoing and appear highly confident, using this persona to achieve their desires for power, prestige and control.  While they may seem successful, this facade masks a fragile ego that relies on external validation and their behavior often involves arrogance, entitlement and a tendency to manipulate others.”

Key characteristics:

-Inflated self-importance: A grandiose sense of self-importance, believing they are superior to others and destined for great things.

-Need for admiration: A deep need for excessive admiration and praise from others to validate their perceived superiority.

-Lack of empathy: A profound inability to recognize or care about the feelings and needs of others.

-Charismatic and outgoing: Often possess superficial charm and charisma, drawing people into their orbit, especially when they want something.

-Sense of entitlement: A firm belief that they deserve special treatment and automatic compliance with their expectations.

-Arrogance and haughtiness: Exhibit an arrogant or haughty demeanor and behavior.

-Manipulation and exploitation: Willingness to lie, cheat or manipulate others to achieve their goals.

-Fragile ego: Beneath the outward confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that requires constant external validation to maintain.

More Short Videos on Relevant and Timely Topics

We recently posted several short videos on relevant and timely topics.  They include:

Immigration as Hosts and Guests

Pope Leo and the Caux Round Table Principles

On Words and Violence

The Reality of Supply and Demand

Caux Round Table Principles as a Blueprint for the UN

All our videos can be found on our YouTube page here.  We recently put them into 9 playlists, which you can find here.

If you aren’t following us on Twitter or haven’t liked us on Facebook, please do so.  We update both platforms frequently.

Wither St. Paul? Please Join Us and Mike Burbach, Editor of Pioneer Press, for Lunch

If you were the mayor of St. Paul, what would you do?  Raise taxes?  Revitalize downtown?

If you were a member of the city council, what would your “to do” be?

As a resident or bystander watching St. Paul seemingly give up on hope and ambition, overcome by inertia, rudderless, defining its expectations downward, resigned and fatalistic, giving into decline, what would you expect of its leaders – public and private?

Please join us and Mike Burbach, editor of the Pioneer Press, for an in-person round table over lunch at noon on Thursday, October 16, at Landmark Center.

Please bring your recommendations, insights, tactics and strategies.

Registration will begin at 11:30 am.

Cost to attend is $20, which you can pay at the door.

To register, please email jed@cauxroundtable.net.

Space is limited.

Event will last about an hour.

Jimmy Kimmel and the Conundrum of Free Speech

Here is a short essay of mine on the American meltdown in self-confidence after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

I have lived through the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.

Given a new mass culture of nihilism and narcissism and the divisiveness attendant on loss of common ideals, the impact of this assassination – expressed by one commentator after another – seems more invidious.

Standing on the Rubicon’s Bank Looking Across

The beginning of the end for the Roman Republic, in common memory, occurred when Julius Caesar led his legions from their colonization of Gaul back to Rome and on January 10, 49 BCE, crossed the small Rubicon River, a legal boundary beyond which a general could not lead his military followers.

Legend has it that as Caesar urged his horse into the river he said alea iacta est! – “The Die is Cast!”  The result of his crossing the river was civil war, then his assassination, then another civil war and then the replacement of the Republic with an empire.

So, the phrase “to cross the Rubicon” has come to mean to trigger a tipping point of lawlessness from which the society cannot recover.

Yesterday, another American thought leader, a young Charlie Kirk, was assassinated for speaking his beliefs, for his politics, for acting on his rights.  He was censored – silenced – for saying the wrong things in the mind of his assassin.

In my state of Minnesota, the other month, a civic minded politician elected to our state House of Representatives, a Democrat and her husband, were assassinated in their home by a man, whom we can only consider deranged.  His beliefs and motivations, the nature of his psychosis most likely, we don’t know and may never know, as he has a right under our constitution not to speak at his forthcoming trial.

We also more recently here in Minnesota were existentially victimized by what should be considered an assassination – in this case, the intentional murder of children during a worship service as an expression of self-serving rage and hatred by their dysphoric murderer.

Donald Trump was shot by one would-be assassin and was targeted by another.

Luigi Mangione assassinated the CEO of United Healthcare, most likely out of political opposition to the company’s practices, lawful practices, generating a hatred and a self-righteousness that murder is justified when the life taken is evil incarnate.

Has the U.S. crossed a Rubicon protecting its republican virtue from violence? A crossing that has opened for us an historic new era of factional fratricide, where citizenship is replaced by a vindictive tribalism?

Is American civilization at risk?

Where there is no social contract or accepted constitution, providing for a social capital of peace, mutual assistance, goodwill, preservation and comity, then there is no common standard of right and justice, no common rule of what must not be attempted.  Then, too, there is no authority to judge among people who is right and who is wrong and have that judgment accepted by the community as lawful.  Then, rule by personal diktat – “my” truth – enforced by repression replaces social justice with the law of the jungle – eat or be eaten; kill or be killed.  Or as Thomas Hobbes wisely predicted: “The life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

Is that what Americans subconsciously want for their grandchildren?  Taking revenge on those who offend us with their thoughts and words?

As John Locke wrote, when there is a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction and when there is the design or use of force upon the person of another, there is no common judge to adjudicate between aggressor and victim.  There is only “an appeal to the God of Heaven” and war.

Locke affirmed: “Where there is no judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in Heaven.”  And we   might add, an appeal to force and violence – to war – here on earth.

May the Lord – and all his saints – deliver America from such evil.

Why Assassinations of Public Servants and Murder of Children?

Something has gone very wrong.  The assassination of Melissa Hortman and her husband and the murder of children in a church during worship are “signs of the times” – bad signs.

We have brought ourselves as Americans to a degrading and disgraceful existential cul-de-sac as we approach the 250th anniversary of our country – the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Several of my colleagues have joined with me to draft this statement.

We hope it will encourage you to join hands and save our republic from decadence or worse.

From Ba Đình 1945 to Ba Đình 2025: The Promise and the Gap

Stephen B. Young,

Former Dean and Professor of Law, Hamline University School of Law

Executive Summary

Eighty years after the 1945 Declaration of Independence, the ideals of freedom and democracy remain unfulfilled. In his September 2, 2025 speech at Ba Đình Square, General Secretary Tô Lâm projected both nationalist rhetoric and ideological loyalty. This duality underscores the enduring disconnect between promises and realities in Vietnam’s governance. The address reflected Vietnam’s structural crises: political mistrust, social disintegration, and geopolitical dependence. Absent genuine reform, Vietnam risks further entrenchment within authoritarian blocs and the erosion of its long-claimed independence.

1. A Tô Lâm “Walking Two Roads” or “standing at a crossroads”?

At the outset, Tô Lâm surprised observers by employing language rarely used by senior Communist leaders: “the sacred spirit of the nation,” “the nation’s eternity,” “my people,” “my fatherland.” His repeated use of the pronoun “I” rather than “we” or “our Party” lent his speech a veneer of intimacy. It created the impression of a leader speaking as part of the national community rather than as the faceless embodiment of Party machinery. 

Later in his National Day speech, To Lam also spoke of “Vietnameseness” – “dân tộc ta trường tồn”; “Đất nước Việt Nam trường tồn”

This intentional use of “Vietnameseness” established a moral foundation for elevating the Vietnamese people as the heart and soul of Vietnam.  Most auspiciously, To Lam spoke of “đặt lợi ích … của Nhân dân lên trên hết, trước hết” (put benefiting the people first and above all else); “sức mạnh lòng dân” strength from the hearts of the people; and “Vinh quang mãi mãi thuộc về Nhân dân.” (forever and ever honor belongs to the people).

By elevating the importance of the Vietnamese people, General Secretary To Lam implies that the duty of the Party and the Government is to serve the people by delivering prosperity, peace, democracy, and equality.

For many listeners, this rhetorical shift offers a meaningful signal of potential change—a glimmer of hope that leadership thinking might evolve.

Yet the more significant feature was his indecision – which road should he take – the old, familiar one, or the new progressive one. The General Secretary recognized public exhaustion with lifeless slogans, and thus may have turned to populist phrasing to capture goodwill. But populism at the top, absent concrete policy, is hollow. If limited to pronouns and decorative words, it is merely a fresh coat of paint on a wall already crumbling from within.

2. Repeating the Old Formulas

After this novel opening, the address quickly defaulted to familiar ideological templates: “National independence must be tied to socialism” and “steadfast adherence to Marxism–Leninism and Hồ Chí Minh Thought.” The backbone of the speech was therefore the same outdated ideology—despite eight decades of evidence that such a model has not delivered liberty, democracy, or prosperity for the Vietnamese nation as revered Ho Chi Minh had promised 80 years ago.

Here the contradiction is most evident: invoking “my fatherland” and “my people” while simultaneously clinging to the mantra “the Party above all, ideology above all.”

This invites an unavoidable question: which socialism is still being defended? Beijing’s authoritarian centralism, Pyongyang’s stagnation, or the democratic socialism of Scandinavia? Vietnam’s reality—one-party dominance, a pervasive security apparatus, an economy dependent on external powers, and systemic corruption—suggests an uncomfortable hybrid: the ambition to govern in Beijing’s mold, mixed with cheap populist appeals.  Or is this socialism – even in China – not much more than a crony capitalism?

3. Why This Dual Messaging?

The answer lies in Vietnam’s present crises. In an open letter to Tô Lâm, a civil society representative identified three interconnected breakdowns :

  • Political trust crisis: Public confidence in leadership has eroded. Corruption trials, factional struggles, and opaque personnel decisions have alienated citizens.
  • Moral and social crisis: The wealth gap continues to widen. Officials live in extravagance while workers endure hardship. Moral values erode, faith falters, and social cohesion weakens.
  • Foreign policy crisis: Vietnam is squeezed between the U.S. and its Western allies on one side, and China and Russia on the other. It lacks both the independence to stand alone and the clarity to select a reliable strategic partner.

In such circumstances, Tô Lâm must “walk two roads”: appealing to domestic audiences with nationalist terms like “Vietnameseness” and “people,” while reassuring Party cadres with slogans of Marxism–Leninism. 

But such dual messaging will not end the crises of political trust or moral and social discontent.

Yet a strategy of dual messaging, if prolonged, risks self-deception and inaction, leaving the country more vulnerable to missteps and deeper crises.

4. Diplomatic Personnel as a Strategic Signal  Unresolved: the Diplomatic Crisis

On the eve of National Day, Vietnam quietly changed its foreign minister. At first glance, this appeared a technical adjustment. In reality, it was a decision with potentially far-reaching implications for Tô Lâm’s tenure. Diplomacy has become Vietnam’s principal tool for survival in an increasingly polarized international environment, and the individual at its helm often shapes life-saving foreign policy trajectories.

Both outgoing minister Bùi Thanh Sơn and his successor Lê Hoài Trung were educated in the United States. But their political orientations differ. Trung, a more enigmatic figure, has long been rumored to enjoy favor from Beijing. If such assessments are correct, this personnel shift was not merely an exchange of officials but a signpost of Vietnam’s potential drift toward the China–Russia orbit—despite rhetorical commitments to “diversification and multilateralism.”

Placed alongside the tepid welcome Tô Lâm has received from Washington, and Beijing’s open embrace—underscored by the nearly simultaneous appearances of President Lương Cường and Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính in China—this adjustment reads as sends a warning signal. Vietnam’s balancing act increasingly tilts toward one pole, one not  very eager to promote Vietnameseness.

5. Pressure from China–Russia and the BRICS Dilemma

One day before National Day, Beijing accorded Prime Minister Chính an elaborate reception, sending an unmistakable message: China seeks Vietnam’s alignment within its anti-Western bloc. Russia, increasingly isolated after the Ukraine war, is likewise pressing Vietnam toward BRICS.

The central question follows: if Vietnam were to join BRICS, what would remain of “multilateralism”? Such a step would close off paths of integration with the U.S., Japan, and Europe. Economic dependence on China and Russia would soon translate into diminished political independence.

This is the “headband of control” Beijing seeks to tighten around Vietnam’s leadership. Even if Tô Lâm wishes to innovate, the pressure from abroad is immense and the room for maneuver extremely limited.

6. An Imaginary Dialogue: Party Rhetoric and Civil Society

Viewed together, Tô Lâm’s speech and the civil society open letter put two sides of an historic national dialogue before the Vietnamese people:

  • The official speech offered phrases such as “I—my people—my fatherland—the eternal nation,” but which, despite their novel tone, were coupled with familiar ideological formulae.
  • The open letter reminded us all: “Power endures only when it builds trust. Legitimacy cannot be imposed; it must be conferred by the people.”
  • While Tô Lâm struggles to balance Party factions and foreign pressures, civil society underscores a different measure: legitimacy derives solely from the citizenry. That truth has yet to be realized—whether in 1945 or in 2025.

7. Conclusion: The Persistent Gap

The 80th anniversary of National Day should have been a moment to celebrate national achievements and, more importantly, to realize the unfinished promise of the 1945 Declaration: “Vietnam has the right to be free and independent, and in fact has become a free and independent country.”

Instead of freedom and democracy, citizens witnessed a tightening power structure. Instead of independence, the country faces mounting dependence on Beijing. Instead of reconciliation, society is increasingly divided.

Tô Lâm’s September 2, 2025, speech simultaneously revealed a desire for renewal and the inability to escape the constraints of ideology and foreign pressure. He sought to “say something different,” but remained too tethered to tired and ineffective old formulas.

From Ba Đình 1945 to Ba Đình 2025, the gap between ideal and reality has remained unchanged: promises on one side, hard facts on the other. Unless Vietnam breaks free from authoritarian alliances and undertakes democratic reform, history will not remember Tô Lâm as the leader who opened a new era, but rather as one who squandered a unique opportunity to lead the nation out of darkness.

Non Sub Homine Sed Sub Deo et Lege (“Not under human authority but under God and the Law,” Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England, 1235)

What is law and what is lawlessness?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. has just ruled that Donald Trump’s tariffs are illegal, that he had no authority under the U.S. Constitution to impose those taxes on the American people.

Let’s start thinking about his lawlessness with a famous narrative of injustice from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland:

A large rose‑tree stood near the entrance of the garden: the roses growing on it were white, but there were three gardeners at it, busily painting them red.  Alice thought this a very curious thing, and she went nearer to watch them…

Five and Seven said nothing, but looked at Two.  Two began, in a low voice, “Why, the fact is, you see, Miss, this here ought to have been a red rose tree, and we put a white one by mistake; and, if the Queen was to find it out, we should all have our heads cut off, you know.  So, you see, Miss, we’re doing our best, afore she comes, to — ” At this moment, Five, who had been anxiously looking across the garden, called out, “The Queen!  The Queen!, and the three gardeners instantly threw themselves flat upon their faces. …

“And who are these?” said the Queen, pointing to the three gardeners who were lying round the rose-tree; for, you see, as they were lying on their faces, and the pattern on their backs was the same as the rest of the pack, she could not tell whether they were gardeners, or soldiers, or courtiers, or three of her own children.

“How should I know?” said Alice, surprised at her own courage. “It’s no business of mine.”

The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment like a wild beast, screamed “Off with her head! Off—”

“Nonsense!” said Alice, very loudly and decidedly, and the Queen was silent.

The King laid his hand upon her arm, and timidly said, “Consider, my dear: she is only a child!”

The Queen turned angrily away from him, and said to the Knave, “Turn them over!”

The Knave did so, very carefully, with one foot.

“Get up!” said the Queen, in a shrill, loud voice, and the three gardeners instantly jumped up, and began bowing to the King, the Queen, the royal children, and everybody else.

“Leave off that!” screamed the Queen. “You make me giddy.” And then, turning to the rose-tree, she went on, “What have you been doing here?”

“May it please your Majesty,” said Two, in a very humble tone, going down on one knee as he spoke, “we were trying—”

“I see!” said the Queen, who had meanwhile been examining the roses. “Off with their heads!” and the procession moved on, three of the soldiers remaining behind to execute the unfortunate gardeners, who ran to Alice for protection.

“You shan’t be beheaded!” said Alice, and she put them into a large flower-pot that stood near. The three soldiers wandered about for a minute or two, looking for them, and then quietly marched off after the others.

“Are their heads off?” shouted the Queen.

“Their heads are gone, if it please your Majesty!” the soldiers shouted in reply.

But in the question of Tariffs, unlike the Queen of Hearts, what Donald Trump says in not law.

The opinion of the court on whether or not President Trump had authority to impose tariffs turned on the definition of words.  Laws consist of words, nearly always written words.  To know the law, we must know the meaning of words.

A very early example of written law is the Code of King Hammurabi, 1750 BCE, with words carved in stone and placed in public so that his subjects would know what laws they had to obey.  You can see one surviving example of such public law in the Louvre Museum:

In ancient China, the Zuo Zhuan history records a telling incident about the introduction of written law.  The prime minister of Zheng, Zichan, had criminal punishments written on the surface of cast bronze tripods placed in public for the people to read.  A moralistic scholar chastised him, saying: “When people know what the exact laws are, they do not stand in awe of their superiors.  They will come to have a contentious spirit and make their appeal to the express words.  They can no longer be managed. … When once the people know the grounds for contention, they will cast propriety away and make their appeal to your descriptions.  They will all be contending about a matter as small as the point of an awl or a knife.  Disorderly litigations will multiply and bribes will walk abroad.”

Zichan replied: “As to what you say, I have not the talents nor the ability to act for posterity.  My object is to save the present age.”

But how can any court know what the words of the law mean?

Again, we can turn to Lewis Carroll to illuminate the question more pointedly, this time from his fable, Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

So, the question of whether or not Donald Trump has personal power – arbitrary discretion – to impose taxes on the American people when they buy goods from foreign countries depends on whether he is or is not master of defining the word “regulate,” as used in a statute adopted by the Congress.

If he is master, he is lawless, for one – like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland or Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass – who can define, at whim, the laws which he or she will obey is “out-side” the law, an “out-law.”

But statutes are interpreted by courts, not by presidents who, under the Constitution, have no judicial authority.

So, if the federal courts are master in defining the word regulate, then Trump is not a master, but must follow the law, as others define it to be.  As such a follower, he would then be lawful in his decision-making.

In defining the meaning of “regulate,” as included in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit wrote: “This case involves the extent of the President’s authority under IEEPA to “regulate” importation in response to a national emergency declared by the President.”

The court built a rational argument on how to understand the meaning of the word “regulate” as follows:

Since taking office, President Donald J. Trump has declared several national emergencies.  In response to these declared emergencies, the President has departed from the established tariff schedules and imposed varying tariffs of unlimited duration on imports of nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the United States conducts trade.  This appeal concerns Five Executive Orders imposing duties on foreign trading partners to address these emergencies: Executive Orders Nos. 14193, 14194, 14195, 14257 and 14266 … In imposing the … Tariffs, the President again invoked his claimed authority under IEEPA;

Before we reach the merits of this case, we briefly discuss the history and legal authority concerning the imposition of tariffs as relevant to this appeal.  The Constitution grants Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.”  U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, 3. Tariffs are a tax and the Framers of the Constitution expressly contemplated the exclusive grant of taxing power to the legislative branch; …

For much of this early history, Congress set tariffs without authorizing the President to adjust tariff rates by entering into international agreements.  In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Congress began to delegate to the Executive limited authority to “activate or suspend” tariff rates through international agreements. …

In 1976, Congress … enacted the National Emergencies Act (NEA).  The NEA limited presidential power … and placed new restrictions on the declaration and termination of future national emergencies.  [the] IEEPA is the result of this legislative effort and is consistent with Congress’s stated goal “to revise and delimit the President’s authority to regulate international economic transactions during wars or national emergencies.” …

IEEPA provides that, after declaring a national emergency pursuant to the NEA, the President may “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any . . . importation or exportation of . . . any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.”  … Notably, IEEPA does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” nor any similar terms like “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.”  IEEPA also does not have a residual clause granting the President powers beyond those which are explicitly listed. …

Notably, every Congressional delegation to the President of the core legislative power to impose tariffs includes well-defined procedural and substantive limitations. …

We are not addressing whether the President’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy.  Nor are we deciding whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all.  Rather, the only issue we resolve on appeal is whether the … Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders are authorized by IEEPA.  We conclude they are not. …

Upon the declaration of such an emergency, IEEPA authorizes the President to: investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. …

The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, … The [Trump Administration] locates that authority within the term “regulate . . . importation,” but it is far from plain that “regulate . . . importation,” in this context, includes the power to impose the tariffs at issue in this case.…

Notably, when drafting IEEPA, Congress did not use the term “tariff” or any of its synonyms, like “duty” or “tax.”  There are numerous statutes that do delegate to the President the power to impose tariffs; in each of these statutes that we have identified, Congress has used clear and precise terms to delegate tariff power, reciting the term “duties” or one of its synonyms.  In contrast, none of these statutes uses the broad term “regulate” without also separately and explicitly granting the President the authority to impose tariffs.  The absence of any such tariff language in IEEPA contrasts with statutes where Congress has affirmatively granted such power and included clear limits on that power. …

It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.  The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs. …

Taken together, these other statutes indicate that whenever Congress intends to delegate to the President the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly, either by using unequivocal terms like tariff and duty, or via an overall structure which makes clear that Congress is referring to tariffs.  This is no surprise, as the core Congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution; when Congress delegates this power in the first instance, it does so clearly and unambiguously. …

Contrary to the [Trump Administration]’s assertion, the mere authorization to “regulate” does not in and of itself imply the authority to impose tariffs. The power to “regulate” has long been understood to be distinct from the power to “tax.” …

the Government has not pointed to any statute or judicial decision that has construed the power to regulate as including the authority to impose tariffs without the statute also including a specific provision in the statute authorizing tariffs. …

Since IEEPA was promulgated almost fifty years ago, past presidents have invoked IEEPA frequently.  But not once before has a President asserted his authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs on imports or adjust the rates thereof.  Rather, presidents have typically invoked IEEPA to restrict financial transactions with specific countries or entities that the President has determined pose an acute threat to the country’s interests. …where IEEPA has been invoked, presidents did so to freeze assets, block financial transfers, place embargoes or impose targeted sanctions on hostile regimes and individuals. …

The Executive’s use of tariffs qualifies as a decision of vast economic and political significance, so the Government must “point to clear congressional authorization” for its interpretation of IEEPA. …

For the reasons discussed above, we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the … Tariffs.  Reading the phrase “regulate . . . importation” to include imposing these tariffs is “a wafer-thin reed on which to rest such sweeping power.” …

We are unpersuaded by the Government’s argument that it is “particularly inappropriate to construe narrowly a delegation of power in the arena of foreign affairs and national security.”  While the President of course has independent constitutional authority in these spheres, the power of the purse (including the power to tax) belongs to Congress.  It is essential the congressional role in foreign affairs be understood and respected. . . . The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.” …

Given these considerations, we conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term “regulate . . . importation.”

With no cogency did President Trump reply to this reasoned decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:

As to who has authority to interpret the Constitution, the impressive jurist, John Marshall, wrote in 1803 in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison:

“It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground.  The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the

people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

An Open Letter to General Secretary Tô Lâm, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam

On the 80th Anniversary of Vietnam’s Independence, September 2, 2025

 Introduction

Stephen B. Young,

Global Executive Director

In a most unusual open letter, Mr. Lê Thân – once an activist who was tried and imprisoned by the former Republic of Vietnam government in Saigon – has, on this National Day, set forth new standards for the leadership role of today’s head of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

These standards reflect the moral foundations of the Caux Round Table’s Principles for Responsible Governance. Mr. Lê Thân also points to the essential foundations for living a life of integrity and decency:

“The strength of a nation does not lie only in weapons or wealth, but in honor. And honor is not won through violence, but through fairness; not through power, but through justice; not through command, but through respect for one’s own people…”

“Seize this moment! Seize this opportunity! Let power be transformed into service, and let service become greatness.”

The Caux Round Table Principles for Responsible Governance hold that state power is a trust granted by the people. It is not meant to satisfy personal ambition, accumulate wealth, or secure privileges, but to act on behalf of the community in serving the public good.

Public power always comes with responsibility; to hold power is to bind one’s actions to the welfare of others. Public office is not private property, but a temporary trust to serve the common good.

Those who hold public office must be accountable to the people for their actions. If they act wrongly, neglect responsibility, or abuse their power, they may be removed. And it is upon them to prove their own integrity.

The state exists only as a servant and instrument for higher purposes of society, not as its master. Public power must be exercised within the bounds of moral responsibility, for the well-being of the people. Any government that betrays this trust will lose legitimacy and can be replaced.

I am reminded of the words of Nguyễn Trãi – the great thinker and statesman of the 15th century – who helped establish the Lê dynasty after defeating Chinese invaders. Nguyễn Trãi wrote of nhân nghĩa – humane righteousness – as the foundation of politics. Only on such a basis can a government deserve the people’s support.

You can check out the Vietnamese version here, on one of the most popular social media sites in Vietnam: https://boxitvn.blogspot.com/2025/09/thu-ngo-goi-ong-to-lam-tong-bi-thu-csvn.html

________________________

Dear General Secretary,

On September 2, 1945, at Ba Đình Square, President Hồ Chí Minh declared the birth of a free Vietnam. From that square rose not only a republic, but a promise—a promise of independence, of freedom, of a people governing themselves.

Eighty years have passed. We have endured trial and triumph. We have suffered wounds and built anew. We have achieved much. Yet the Revolution remains unfinished. For as Karl Marx reminded us, no revolution is truly won until the people enjoy abundance, a sound culture, and democratic rule. By this measure, our task is still before us.

The duty of leadership today is not merely to guard the past. It is to raise it higher. To advance does not mean to betray; it means to carry forward, to complete what history began but could not finish. We have progress, yes. But we also have decline in morals, division of wealth, and doubt in the hearts of the people. These are not small matters. They cut to the core. They demand renewal—deep, honest, and whole.

You hold great power. But power endures only when it wins trust. The strong leader is not the one who speaks last, but the one who listens first. Not the one who commands alone, but the one who unites. Not the one who rules over, but the one who awakens the conscience of a nation. Legitimacy cannot be forced. It is given—freely, proudly—by the people when they believe.

This year marks eighty years of independence. But it may also mark your place in history. The August Revolution gave us sovereignty. Your leadership can give us liberty, democracy, and prosperity. Rarely does history open such a door: a chance to bind past to future, to meet the present with courage, and to shape the destiny of generations.

In the world beyond, Vietnam must be steadfast yet supple—holding fast to principle, yet never trapped by rigidity. The strength of a nation is not only in arms or wealth, but in its honor. And honor is won not by force, but by fairness; not by power, but by justice; not by command, but by respect for its own people.

Seize this hour. Take this chance. Let power become service, and service become greatness. Do this, and history will not remember you as one who merely preserved order, but as one who carried Vietnam into a new age—an age of freedom, of democracy, of prosperity.

With solemn respect, I place these words before you, dear General Secretary. May the spirit proclaimed on September 2, 1945—independence, freedom, sovereignty of the people—live not only in memory, but in the daily life of our nation, here and now.

Ho Chi Minh City, August 25, 2025


Lê Thân

Former Political Prisoner, Côn Đảo
Chairman, Lê Hiếu Đằng Club