President Trump has declared emergencies in two contexts: global trade, prompting his imposition of tariffs, and street crime in cities, prompting his deployment of National Guard. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 5 in the former matter and I will only address it but I suggest that the deployment issue could be similarly understood.

The opponents of the tariffs have stated in briefs that there is neither an emergency nor an “unusual or extraordinary threat” under the statute President Trump invoked, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., in his April 2 executive order, Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits – The White House  because an emergency must be short, sudden, and cannot be a longstanding or persistent occurrence.

In his brief, the Solicitor General disagreed: “Even longstanding and persistent threats can eventually reach “a ‘tipping point,’ ” as the President and his senior advisors have determined happened with the ballooning goods trade deficit.”

The Solicitor General quoted the Commerce Secretary [Howard Lutnick] who “explains that ‘enormous, persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits,’ which have reached $1.2 trillion per year, ‘have hollowed out our domestic manufacturing and defense industrial base and have resulted in a lack of advanced domestic manufacturing capacity, a defense-industrial base dependent on inputs from foreign adversaries, vulnerable domestic supply chains, and a sensitive geopolitical environment.’ …He confirms that the current accumulating goods trade deficits reflect ‘an ongoing economic emergency of historic proportions,’ …and the Treasury Secretary [Scott Bessent] adds that they have brought America to ‘the brink of a major economic and national-security catastrophe.’”

Of course, the use of the term “emergency” in the statute and in other statutes, and how a president has exercised his authority in such circumstances will be examined by the lawyers and justices. For example, dictionaries define “emergency” as “sudden, urgent, usually unexpected occurrence requiring immediate action.” And John Yoo, professor of law at UC Berkeley, in a letter to the Wall St. Journal of Sept. 2, argued that the usual characteristics of an emergency are: sudden surprise, short in duration, and great in harm. In a Sept. 9 reply to that letter, Stanley Langbein of the University of Miami School of Law stated, however, that a longstanding condition can indeed constitute an emergency.

Let me turn your attention from law to stories. Americans cannot get enough of stories: novels, movies, TV shows, plays, opera. Fiction can often tell us truths more powerfully than nonfiction. Here are six story lines that I think should assist the general population in appreciating the actions of the President.

First, the Solicitor General used the phrase “tipping point” in his brief to evaluate whether an emergency or “an unusual or extraordinary threat” exists. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book in 2000 entitled The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference which includes many, many stories. Some tipping points lead to good things; some to bad (such as teenage smoking, teenage suicide). The Solicitor General’s brief cites an example by the Treasury Secretary of a bad tipping point, namely, the real estate bubble of 2007.

Similarly, although an “aha moment” (or an “eureka moment”) typically signals a good thing to be celebrated, there is potential for it to refer to a realization of some bad thing. The term made it into the Merriam-Webster dictionary in 2012 as “A moment of sudden inspiration, insight, recognition or comprehension.” Aha Moment Meaning, According to Oprah. The term was popularized by Oprah Winfrey who tends to limit its use to an insight about oneself.

Next, do you know the story of the cooked frog? If a frog jumps into uncomfortably hot water, the frog will immediately jump out. If, however, the frog is in water that is slowly heated, it will eventually get cooked. No particular threshold of temperature will cause the frog to jump out of the water to save itself. There is no point at which the frog recognizes an emergency and jumps out.

Also, we speak of the “elephant in the room.” The origin of the phrase is a fable written in 1814 by Russian poet and fabulist Ivan Krylov in his The Inquisitive Man. He describes a man who goes to a museum and can describe all the minute details he sees, yet fails to notice an elephant standing there. At what point would it be appropriate for a bystander to help the man (and museum personnel) notice the elephant?

In Hans Christian Anderson’s 1837 story The Emperor’s New Clothes, con men posing as weavers convince a king that he is wearing clothes able to seen only by the elite. A child declares the truth that the king is naked. The king’s court, which went along with the con, is revealed to be full of pride and foolish.

Lastly, here is a story with which lawyers will be familiar since it is included in all first-year law school textbooks on the law of torts (personal injury). In 1921, Judge Benjamin Cardozo wrote an opinion in a case named Wagner v. International Railway Co. He held that a person whose negligence created a dangerous situation is liable for injuries suffered by a rescuer of the person in peril. “Danger invites rescue,” he wrote, “The cry of distress is the summons to relief.

The law does not ignore these reactions of the mind in tracing conduct to its consequences. It recognizes them as normal. It places their effects within the range of the natural and probable. The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to the imperiled victim; it is a wrong also to his rescuer. The state that leaves an opening in a bridge is liable to the child that falls into the stream, but liable also to the parent who plunges to its aid… The risk of rescue, if only it be not wanton, is born of the occasion. The emergency begets the man. The wrongdoer may not have foreseen the coming of a deliverer. He is accountable as if he had…”

Thus, I am inclined to argue that President Trump and his advisers have rightfully discovered a tipping point. They have experienced an “aha moment.” They have seen the American frog cooking. They have noticed the foreign elephant in the American room. They have seen the trade deficit for what it is, like a naked king, and have revealed the naysayers to be foolish beyond all telling. It no longer matters who created the danger or allowed the danger to fester, President Trump saw the danger and has come to our rescue. The emergency begot the man. America, be happy.