February 3, 2026 — Morning Report (Non-Delegation Doctrine + Tariffs Teaching)

Bryan answered a viewer question about why tariffs don't implicate the 10th Amendment, then pivoted to the non-delegation doctrine. The 10th Amendment concerns the "federalism wall" — whether the federal government is invading state territory. Tariff authority disputes are within the federal government (Congress vs. President), the same side of that wall, so the 10th Amendment is simply not in play. The relevant question for tariffs is whether the President has exceeded his authority relative to Congress — a separation-of-powers question, not a federalism one. On non-delegation: the doctrine holds that Congress cannot delegate its lawmaking power to the other branches. Its historical arc: - Original strict rule: Congress cannot give legislative power away; only it may write law. - Erosion over time: first, executive branch was allowed to recalculate numbers (like tariff rates tied to fluctuating currency values) — mathematical recalculation, not policy changes. - Modern APA framework: agencies may write regulations only if Congress explicitly granted them authority in a statute; they must stay within that grant. - Distinction Bryan drew: historically, presidents could adjust tariffs based on mathematical fluctuations (exchange rate changes), but not for policy reasons (e.g., "we don't like these people"). That distinction matters to whether current tariff-setting executive action stays within traditional delegated authority. Bryan disclosed he spent approximately a month researching the history of executive rule-writing for a legal memo earlier in his career.