WASHINGTON – As the fallout over President Trump’s tariffs continues to sweep the global economy, Republicans in Congress have begun debating how a small number of Republicans can curb the president’s ability to collect tariffs.
Republican leaders have a “meeting” attitude towards tariffs and an ongoing impact on the swooping stock market and negative consumer sentiment. Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday that Congress “is going to be heavy on that, but the administration is parallel with the president.”
“I think we have to give the President a latitude, a runway to do what he was elected. It’s about moving the economy back on and balancing trade with other countries properly,” Johnson said.
But others in Congress, including a few Republicans in California, don’t want to wait.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced the bill last week along with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and other members of both parties to reaffirm Congressional authority and limit the president’s power over trade policy. The 2025 Trade Review Act requires the President to notify Congress of new tariffs within 48 hours, providing an analysis and reason for its purpose. It also allows Congress to consider the 60-day tax.
“I have long expressed my view that Congress has delegated too many trade powers to the executive branch under Republican and Democrat presidents,” Grassley posted on X.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said he would introduce a fellow bill at the house on Sunday, so he could move forward in both rooms.
Support from Californians
Several Republicans, including California Rep. David Valadao, a Hanford Republican who already holds a volatile swing seat in the 22nd Congressional district, have proposed support for the legislation. Baradao said on News Nation Sunday that he needed to “see better” the Bacon proposal, but that was “something to consider.”
“I have always been someone who supports empowering Congress in the way our founder father originally designed,” Valadao said. “And this is one of their strengths in Congress and I think we should look at it in a very serious way.”
Valadao represents the agriculturally rich strip of Central Valley, home to almond farms and acres of Lemon Groves. The lawmakers said they heard from members on both sides of the tariff debate – those whose exports are receiving harsh receptions from other countries and those who wanted higher tariffs on competing industries. As a dairy farmer himself, Baradao said he has lobbyed lawmakers on tariffs on countries where labor standards and regulations differ from the US, making it difficult for American companies to compete.
“They compete with me on grocery shelves, and that was frustrating,” Baladao said. “I think [tariffs] It should be used as a tool to reach equal arenas. ”
Other support for the law was deceived Monday as markets continued to fall and bankers spoke about the looming recession. Sen. Deb Fisher (R-Neb.) said Monday that he hopes to “give the president time” to see the effects of tariffs on the Fox business. However, she admitted, “it’s very important that we can give an opinion on these tariffs.”
A spokesman for Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills), who represents another swing legislative district in California, said the representatives were “encouraged” by the news that the country lined up to negotiate relief from tariffs.
“Rep. Kim knows the importance of free trade for Southern California’s economy and believes that it can strengthen the US industry while promoting free trade with like-minded allies and partners,” spokesman Curry Strock said in a statement. “While tariffs can be a strategic tool, Rep. Kim is concerned about the impact that long-term tariffs will have on families and small businesses hurting already high taxes and living costs.”
Another California Republican, Rep. Tom McClintock, posted on X last week. “Our trade targets are zero tariffs, zero subsidies, zero non-tariff barriers. Tariffs always do harm to the country.
Asked about the comments of an Elk Grove representative, spokesman Jennifer Cressy said “his opinion has not changed” since 2018, when McClintock opposed tariffs in a floor speech to the House.
“There’s no perfect way to turn abundance into rarity than impose customs duties on imports,” McClintock said at the time. “Remember, every producer in society is also a consumer. There is no benefit from consumers from higher prices, and no benefit from producers from scarce ingredients. All countries that have tried protectionism, including us, suffer badly.”
Despite complaining in Congress, Trump has moved forward. He ratcheted the trade war in a post on his website on Monday, threatening more strikes against China – the world’s largest trading nation retaliated against Trump’s 34% tariffs on the US.
Is Trump’s tariffs constitutional?
The Constitution gives parliament the authority to tax, obligations, import and export, such as “to regulate commercial transactions with foreign countries.”
But for many years, Congress pointed to legal experts and Professor Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School, who began with the Mutual Trade Agreement Act of 1934, allowing the president to make certain changes to tariffs without Congress’ approval.
“If you look at the executive order in this area, it’s the question of whether what the president is doing is within the scope of one of these laws where Congress basically throws the ball to the executive,” Levinson said.
Already, the New Civil Liberties Union, a nonprofit legal group that challenges administrative continuity, has filed a complaint claiming tariffs are unconstitutional. Trump has invoked the International Emergency Economic Force Act to issue tariffs.
Bacon agreed to CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that Trump’s announcement is not a true exercise of an emergency, but a change in tariff policy.
“This is what Congress is saying, intervening. Do we really want to create this new policy on tariffs?” Bacon said. “If that’s the case, it should come from Congress, not from the president.”
Another bill introduced in the Senate by the Virginia Democrats last week would effectively stop US tariffs on Canada – Trump enacted by declaring a national emergency over the fentanyl crisis – ending the national emergency.
Josh Robbins, a lawyer with the Pacific Law Foundation, said the president’s additional legal issue with tariffs was that Congress was wrong in handing over the tax authorities to the administrative department.
“Congress has given up much of its power because it’s unconstitutional… to the President with a law that doesn’t actually have a guardrail on how foreign commerce can be regulated after declaring a state of emergency,” Robbins said.
Trump’s first term saw a bipartisan effort in Congress to curb the president’s power when he evoked steel fees, but ultimately did not pass.
Source link
