With Donald Trump back in office, trade policy is once again center stage. Since he took over the presidency in 2025, Trump has revived what many are calling a "new chapter" in his trade war playbook: sudden tariffs, targeted penalties on imports, and executive orders that bypass Congress entirely. His approach has sparked bipartisan concern, prompting lawmakers to introduce a wave of legislation aimed at rebalancing America’s trade policy.
So, what’s really going on with Trump, tariffs, and Congress? This week, we'll rewind a bit, walk through the current situation, and take a closer look at some legislation currently on the table, each one representing a different angle on how Congress might try to reassert congressional control over international trade.
A Brief History of Tariffs and Power Plays
Tariffs (taxes on imported goods) have long been part of America’s economic toolbox. Congress has historically held the power, setting tariffs through legislation as part of its constitutional power to regulate commerce. But over the 20th century, particularly after the 1930s Smoot-Hawley Tariff debacle (foreign countries retaliated with their own tariffs, leading to a decline in international trade), Congress began delegating trade authority to the executive branch (the president). Starting with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, and especially through the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, this shift to the executive branch allowed tariffs to become tools for economic diplomacy and protectionism.
Overall, tariffs were meant to counter unfair practices, motivate desired outcomes, and address crises, but recent years—especially under Trump—have seen that authority pushed to its limits. During his first term, Trump used tariffs aggressively: citing national security to impose steel and aluminum duties under Section 232, hitting China with sweeping tariffs under Section 301, and threatening trade partners like Mexico, Canada, and the EU. Supporters praised him for shaking up the status quo , while critics said he sidestepped Congress, undermined alliances, and hurt American industries tangled in global supply chains.
Now, with Trump back and reigniting broad tariff campaigns, Congress is pushing back - kinda.
Trump’s 2025 Trade War Revival
Trump’s renewed trade war, marked by sweeping tariffs and sharp rhetoric, is putting serious pressure on both the U.S. economy and global markets. The Tax Foundation estimates that the latest round of tariffs effectively amounts to a $1,300 tax increase per U.S. household in 2025. Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund has downgraded U.S. growth projections to 1.8%, citing policy uncertainty as a drag on investment and market confidence. Financial markets have reacted with volatility with major indices like the S&P 500, Dow Jones, and Nasdaq all seeing notable declines and generally rollercoaster like behavior as investor unease deepens.
In his new war, Trump has once again zeroed in on China, this time invoking Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 allows the president to restrict imports based on a determination by the Department of Commerce that the goods in question “are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair national security.” This has been invoked 28 times, as of March 2025. Trump first invoked it in 2018 for the investigations into steel and aluminum, leading to the imposition of tariffs. And now they have again, in March and April 2025, launching investigations into copper, timber and lumber, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals.
The U.S. began by raising tariffs on Chinese goods by 10% in February 2025, followed by another 10% in March; China responded days later with a 15% tariff on American goods. On April 10, Trump suspended the country-specific reciprocal tariff for all nations except China for 90 days to allow time for negotiations, instead implementing a 10% across-the-board tariff. That same day, after weeks of escalation, the administration raised tariffs on Chinese imports to 125%. In response, China swiftly retaliated, and the tit-for-tat escalation intensified further, with U.S. tariffs eventually surging to 145% and China imposing 125% tariffs on American goods.
China’s Ministry of Commerce has also issued warnings to other nations against entering new trade agreements with the US that could weaken Beijing’s position. They’ve vowed “resolute and reciprocal” countermeasures for those who do. Some analysts suggest China may be better positioned for a prolonged standoff, unfettered by election cycles and more willing to absorb short-term economic pain in pursuit of long-term leverage.
This latest trade escalation has set off alarm bells in Congress, but the legislative response isn’t limited to Trump alone. In fact, lawmakers from both parties have introduced dozens of bills aimed at reforming tariff policy more broadly.
Current Bills Aimed at Tariffs
Check out the bill widget below on tariffs showing a clear trend: Congress and state legislatures are increasingly engaged in reshaping US trade policy. Concerns range from economic fairness and consumer impact to geopolitical strategy and restoring checks and balances. Many lawmakers are focused on curbing executive overreach and modernizing trade tools for today’s realities.
A look at Legislation Addressing Presidential Tariff Power
HR 2712 – Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2025
Introduced by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D), this bill takes a sweeping approach to reining in presidential authority over trade. It would repeal Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the mechanism being frequently used by President Trump to impose tariffs on national security grounds, and significantly curtail the use of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Under the bill, any presidential proposal to impose tariffs must undergo review by the International Trade Commission (ITC), include consultations with key congressional committees, and receive approval through a joint resolution—except in short-term emergencies, where the president may act unilaterally for up to 120 days before seeking congressional sign-off. The legislation also imposes new constraints on the U.S. Trade Representative, including a 60-day waiting period before taking certain trade actions and granting Congress the power to veto those actions.
Framing tariffs as consequential economic decisions, and not merely tools of foreign policy, shows the intent of the bill to restore legislative oversight and rebalance authority in U.S. trade policy.
Trade Review Act of 2025 (S1272 / HR 2665)
Introduced by Maria Cantwell (D) (S1272) and Don Bacon (R) (HR 2665), this bipartisan legislation creates a formal review process for trade actions taken under laws like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. It requires the International Trade Commission assess the economic impact of proposed tariffs before they take effect, and submit that report to Congress 60 days prior to action.
Rather than block presidential action outright, the bill adds guardrails to ensure decisions are grounded in independent analysis—not political calculus. Supporters see it as a critical check on unilateral moves that can roil markets and hurt American consumers, bringing rational, evidence-based decision-making back to U.S. trade actions. Critics claim it could tie the hands of a future president trying to negotiate tough deals.
S 348 – STABLE Trade Policy Act
Sponsored by Senator Chris Coons (D), the STABLE Trade Policy Act (Stopping Tariffs on Allies and Bolstering Legislative Exercise of Trade Policy) would prohibit the president from imposing tariffs on allied countries (think: Canada, the EU, Japan) without explicit Congressional approval. It also raises the bar for using national security as a justification for tariffs and gives Congress the power to override such measures.
The bill is widely seen as a direct response to Trump’s tariffs on Canadian and European goods under the guise of national security. It defines allied countries as NATO members and other “key partners.” Notably, the bill also strengthens requirements for congressional consultation during trade negotiations and codifies a more stable, rules-based approach to global commerce, something long sought by the business community.
HR 735 – United States Reciprocal Trade Act
This bill takes a notably different approach. Originally introduced in 2019 by former Rep. Sean Duffy (R) as US HR764, tthe United States Reciprocal Trade Act was widely viewed as the legislative embodiment of President Donald Trump’s “America First” trade agenda. It sought to give the president broad authority to impose tariffs on imports from countries that maintained higher tariffs on U.S. goods. At the time, Trump argued the legislation was essential for rebalancing trade relationships, particularly with major partners like China and the European Union. While it drew support from Republicans aligned with Trump’s hardline stance, critics warned it would expand executive overreach and increase the risk of retaliatory trade wars. The bill ultimately stalled but underscored a willingness within the party to embrace more aggressive, unilateral trade tools.
Fast forward to this year, the bill has been resurrected by freshman Rep. Riley Moore (R) with HR 735. The updated version preserves its core feature: allowing the president to impose “reciprocal” tariffs on a product-by-product basis against countries with unbalanced trade practices. Proponents argue it strengthens the president’s hand in trade negotiations by enabling rapid retaliation against unfair foreign tariffs. However, its return comes amid growing debate over the limits of presidential trade authority, sharply contrasting with other recent efforts to rein in that power.
S 1293 – No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2025
Introduced by Senator Rand Paul (R), this bill redefines tariffs as taxes, requiring Congressional approval for new duties. It amends multiple trade laws, including the Trade Act of 1974 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and includes sunset clauses and retroactive review. The bill argues that tariffs, which economically function as taxes on American consumers and businesses, should not be imposed unilaterally by the executive branch. Instead, any new duties on imported goods would require a formal proposal from the President to Congress and a joint resolution of approval before they could be enacted.
Supporters see it as a return to constitutional principles while opponents warn it could restrict the president’s flexibility in urgent trade matters.
Other Legislation
Beyond the debate over presidential trade authority, many bills emphasize economic defense and strategic competitiveness through targeted tariff and trade measures. The End China’s De Minimis Abuse Act aims to close loopholes that allow low-value Chinese imports to bypass tariffs, while the Stop Russian Market Manipulation Act bans imports of certain Russian minerals linked to geopolitical and economic risks.
Several bills highlight trade diplomacy and symbolic support, particularly for Taiwan. Resolutions such as IA HR 10, IL HR 0108, and WI SJR. 28 reaffirm sister-state relationships and back Taiwan’s efforts to join international trade agreements and global institutions.
Complementary enforcement-focused proposals, like the Fighting Trade Cheats Act of 2025 and the Protecting American Industry and Labor from International Trade Crimes Act, seek to crack down on customs fraud and other trade violations by increasing penalties and strengthening oversight.
Other notable bills bring a more analytical or administrative lens to tariff policy. A New Hampshire bill directs the Commissioner of the Department of Business and Economic Affairs to assess the potential economic impact of a proposed 25% tariff on Canadian goods, with a specific focus on how such a policy would affect New Hampshire’s residents and businesses. The Manifest Modernization Act of 2025 updates the Tariff Act of 1930, requiring vessels, vehicles, and aircraft arriving in the U.S. to submit more detailed public manifest disclosures, enhancing transparency and enforcement.
The Pink Tariffs Study Act directs the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. tariff rates within one year, examining whether they have regressive effects, disproportionately burdening lower-income consumers or if they exhibit gender bias based on tariff differences across consumer goods. Think of this like an investigation into the "Pink Tax".
Bigger Picture: Who Really Holds the Trade Levers?
Tariffs can shield industries or strain consumers. They can serve as strategic tools—or blunt instruments. But one thing is clear: they shouldn’t be wielded without checks. Across party lines, lawmakers are signaling a shift. From bills that curb presidential power to measures demanding deeper analysis and greater transparency, Congress is reasserting its role in shaping trade policy.
With inflation lingering and global supply chains still finding their footing, the stakes are high. At the heart of these proposals isn’t just trade—it’s the question of who gets to control it. Whether through analytical guardrails, protections for allies, or broader systemic reforms, these efforts share a common theme: restoring legislative oversight. Yet, the legacy of Trump’s trade agenda still casts a long shadow. His “America First” approach remains influential, and several lawmakers continue to champion it. Even if these bills gain traction in one chamber, clearing both hurdles remains a challenge.
Ultimately, trade wars are as much about power as they are about policy. And in 2025, the fight over tariffs has become a fight over governance itself. Much of Congress has a clear message, it wants back in the driver’s seat. These bills may be just the beginning of that journey.
As the debate unfolds—in campaign speeches, committee hearings, and headline battles—the era of “tariff first, ask later” may finally be drawing to a close. For now, the tug-of-war continues.