> The president only needs to convince the court the finding has been made.

It's unclear to me if you think this is just a true statement of how Executive power works, or if you are arguing that the correct standard of review for a very restricted legislative delegation of authority is rational basis scrutiny.

I don’t think even rational basis review applies here, because there’s no constitutional right or due process issue. Courts simply don’t get to supervise this particular arrangement on the substance.

The phrasing is "finds a fact" (emphasis mine), not "makes a finding". They need to convince the court that what they found is a fact, which means that it needs to actually reflect reality.

That’s not how judicial review works. Even in the ordinary agency context when you’re talking about domestic issues rather than foreign policy, courts defer to fact findings of agencies.

Whether or not the courts defer to agencies in different scenarios is not nearly as big a part of "how judicial review works" as it sounds like you're trying to claim. Literally last year the Supreme Court removed a major precedent to how deferential the courts need to be to federal agencies[1], so there's absolutely nothing inherent to judicial review that would require things to continue working the way you claim they do even if it was current precedent.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...