It is useful for the president to have emergency powers. However he should have been impeached for abusing emergency powers in a non-emergency. Same for his invasion of Iran - Iran has been building long enough that he had plenty of time to go to Congress for permission if he thought attacks were needed.
Impeachment and removal as the primary remedy for executive overreach is - and always was - wishful thinking. We need a fundamentally less powerful executive.
This is most obvious with the pardon power. In the debate about its inclusion, the argument was "well if a president uses that power corruptly, they will be impeached". But no, that was wishful thinking. The same is true of "emergency" tariff powers and a bunch of other things.
Impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment, and the subsequent trial and removal is, probably correctly, very difficult to attain. That leaves a vast area of things a president shouldn't be able to do because it's illegal, but there isn't proportionate recourse.
The next Congress and the next president have a job to do there.
Emergency powers should only exist for things that need a very quick response. There's no reason for tariffs to be an emergency power. There's no emergency so urgent that it can't wait for Congress to convene and pass a law enacting the appropriate tariffs. The only reason that power exists at all is some mixture of Congress being too trusting of the President, and Congress not wanting to actually pull its weight in the government.