President Donald Trump has initiated a significant increase in tariffs, casting uncertainty over whether Congress will intervene despite having the authority to do so.
On Wednesday, Trump announced an extensive tariff policy, imposing a uniform 10% duty affecting nearly all countries globally, while many nations experienced even steeper increases in their tariff rates.
This sweeping policy decision adversely impacted stock markets both in the U.S. and internationally, escalating recession fears and provoking strong pushback from China.
The newly imposed U.S. tariffs are part of a series of protectionist measures that Trump has championed since his inauguration in January, presenting tariffs as a panacea for economic challenges.
Trump’s Executive Authority
According to his executive order, Trump claims he derives his authority to impose these reciprocal tariffs from several provisions within the United States Code.
These include the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergency Act.
Utilizing these statutes, a president may declare an emergency and subsequently implement associated tariffs.
The declaration of national emergency was made in light of what the order terms an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the U.S. economy and security. This threat is characterized by “the domestic economic policies of key trading partners and structural imbalances in the global trading system,” according to the executive order.
Trump marks a historical precedent as the first president to employ the IEEPA for tariff imposition, as noted by the Congressional Research Service. His initial use of this authority occurred in February with the announcement of tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China.
Legislative Powers and Tariffs
The U.S. Constitution explicitly allocates the power to tax and impose tariffs to the legislative branch.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” along with the authority “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.”
However, Congress has passed laws granting the president certain tariff powers, which federal courts have generally upheld.
Historically, tariffs served as a primary revenue source for the government in the early years of the United States.
Even after the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, which introduced federal income tax, tariffs continued to play a vital role. Following the economic upheaval of the Great Depression and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, Congress afforded the president increased flexibility over tariff impositions.
Scott Bomboy, editor in chief of the National Constitution Center, explained that Congress found it unwieldy to manage tariffs directly.
Currently, there are at least six federal statutes that delegate specific tariff authorities to the president, as outlined by the Congressional Research Service.
Congressional Response
On Wednesday, four Republican senators—Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul from Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—joined all 45 Democrats and two independents to support a measure aimed at overruling Trump’s tariffs on Canadian imports.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, the resolution’s author, cautioned that failure to reverse the president’s tariffs could result in “massive economic heartbreak in this country.”
Kaine remarked that Trump began his presidency at the helm of the strongest economy and has quickly transformed it into one marked by turmoil due to his tariff actions.
A bipartisan Senate proposal presented Thursday seeks to compel the president to notify Congress 48 hours in advance of any new tariffs, granting Congress 60 days to either approve or allow them to lapse.
Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, emphasized the necessity for Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority to regulate trade policy, stating he is collaborating with Senator Maria Cantwell on the bipartisan Trade Review Act of 2025.
Despite Congress’s ability to legislate against the president’s tariff powers, uncertainty remains about whether lawmakers will take definitive action.
Any attempts to curtail Trump’s tariff measures are likely to confront a presidential veto. Given the Republican control of both the House and Senate, an override of such a veto seems improbable, and it remains uncertain whether the House would support the Senate’s proposed tariff limitations.
Trump has dismissed the efforts to revoke the Canadian tariffs as a “ploy” destined to fail due to lack of support in the House and his unwillingness to sign any such measure.
Legal challenges may offer a more viable approach to contesting Trump’s tariffs. A federal lawsuit filed in Florida argues that Trump’s expansive use of the IEEPA for imposing tariffs on Chinese goods contradicts constitutional provisions.
The lawsuit, brought forth by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative advocacy group, argues that the emergency law does not grant a president the authority to impose tariffs affecting the American populace.
This legal challenge may pose a more substantial threat to Trump than potential Congressional action, although the Congressional Research Service cautions that judicial precedent has typically allowed significant presidential leeway in tariff authority.
