RPT-BREAKINGVIEWS-US Congress will be reluctant trade war spoiler

By Gabriel Rubin

WASHINGTON, May 14 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Donald Trump may have temporarily paused his trade war with China and other countries. But the extreme economic uncertainty unleashed by the president’s tariffs still raises the question of what, if anything, can stop his assault on global commerce. The White House has relied on an expansive interpretation of existing laws to impose a dizzying array of levies on trade partners around the world. If risky legal challenges and faltering negotiations fail to bear fruit, Congress could reclaim its primacy over trade – but only if the economic and political costs become too large to ignore.

Under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause, the legislative branch has jurisdiction over foreign and domestic trade. Congress must approve treaties, including trade deals, while also determining tax policy, of which tariffs are a part. Over the past century, however, the legislature delegated more of that authority to executive bodies with technical expertise, like the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce, relegating itself to an advice-and-consent relationship with the president. Until recently, it was easy to ignore how power had shifted from the Constitution’s intent. But Trump’s overreach has become more obvious, prompting a reaction.

The most direct domestic challenge to the president so far has come through the courts. At least six lawsuits have been filed in federal courts challenging the Trump tariffs. The plaintiffs are small businesses, Democratic state attorneys general, and a Native American tribe. The lawsuits target the legal authorities underpinning Trump’s 10% across-the-board tariff on nearly all goods imports, which the White House attributes to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

No previous president has used the law to justify tariffs. Indeed, the word “tariff” does not appear as a remedy the president may use to address “unusual and extraordinary threats” to national security or the U.S. economy. The plaintiffs argue that a “persistent trade deficit,” the reason the administration gives for imposing the tariffs, hardly constitute a rare situation or a particularly dangerous threat that warrants an emergency response. A hearing for one of the cases took place in federal trade court on Tuesday.

It’s hard to see the U.S. Supreme Court, which will be the ultimate arbiter of the issue, accepting the plaintiffs’ argument that the administration’s actions far exceed its authorities under the law. Supreme Court justices have previously been reluctant to interfere with the president’s conduct of foreign policy, including in recent immigration cases. At the same time, though, the court took a dim view of President Joe Biden’s expansive use of emergency powers for domestic purposes during the pandemic. In 2023, it struck down his administration’s mass cancellation of student loans, arguing that he was overstepping his power, despite the existence of a law giving the president the ability to “waive and modify” government debts during a national emergency.

Failure to block the tariffs in court would leave the Republican-controlled Congress as the remaining domestic avenue for stopping Trump’s trade policy. That’s not as far-fetched as it may seem. The Senate has already voted on resolutions of disapproval of the president’s tariffs, one of which passed with four Republicans voting in favor. Republicans in the House of Representatives have used procedural chicanery to prevent a vote on the measure, at least for now. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a close Trump ally, says he’s giving the president the benefit of the doubt on trade policy. But even he nodded to Congress’s prerogative in setting trade policy: “If it gets close to where the imbalance is there, then we would step in,” Johnson said on April 30.

Challenging the president’s signature economic policy would be a brave act of rebellion for Republicans in Congress that would carry heavy political costs, including the ever-present threat of an election primary challenge that hangs over insufficiently loyal members. Trump frequently targets legislative rebels on social media, an unwanted burden for representatives who face re-election in 2026. Besides, even if Congress did vote to limit his powers, the president still has a veto. Overcoming that would require a two-thirds majority in each chamber. That would require a lot of Republicans to defy Trump: 14 senators and upwards of 75 congressmen, assuming all Democrats supported the move. A challenge might become more feasible if Democrats take control of one or both legislative chambers after the midterm elections in November 2026, but that would be too late to prevent the economic fallout from the trade war.

Still, the case for eventually pruning presidential trade powers continues to gain support. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the dean of farm state Republicans, introduced legislation the day after Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” announcements to pry back authority from the executive. The bill, co-led by Senator Maria Cantwell - whose state of Washington is home to Amazon, Microsoft, and major Boeing facilities - would sunset presidential tariffs after 60 days if Congress did not vote to approve them. The bill now has 13 co-sponsors, seven of them Republicans. While the bill wouldn’t resolve the current crisis, it’s a sign that a backlash to Trump could codify longer-term changes to trade law.

The administration’s climbdown in its confrontation with China, announced on Monday, should limit the immediate damage from halting trade between the world’s two largest economies. Still, retailers project imminent disruptions in the flow of consumer goods to shelves. Expectations for inflation in the year ahead have spiked to 5% in May from 2.6% in November 2024, according to the University of Michigan, raising the prospect of unexpected price increases that doomed Biden’s presidency. The economic roller coaster has already hurt Trump’s popularity: his net approval rating has slipped from -2.8% on April 2 to -6.9% on Monday, according to political analyst Nate Silver.

All longer-term changes to trade policy remain on hold, for now, as the parallel tracks of litigation and international negotiation proceed. A supply chain crisis or rapid downturn in economic conditions would likely be necessary to change the political terrain enough for Republicans in Congress, tight in Trump’s grip, to buck him in sufficient quantities. No doubt they are hoping it won’t come to that.

Follow @Rubinations on X

CONTEXT NEWS

On April 23, 12 Democratic state attorneys general sued to block many of the Trump administration’s tariffs on grounds that they had “upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy.” California separately sued the administration, claiming the president’s policies harmed its economy and budget.

Mike Johnson, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, said on April 30 that the “executive has a broad array of authority that’s been recognized over the years” related to trade, but left open the possibility of congressional intervention: “If it gets close to where the imbalance is there, then we would step in.”