Rand Paul Is Leading Another Long-Shot Effort at Stopping Trump's Terrible Trade War
Bills introduced Tuesday in the House and Senate would terminate the emergency declaration Trump issued last week.

Lawmakers from both parties and both houses of Congress have launched a long-shot effort at stopping President Donald Trump's global trade war amid the falling stock market and rising fears of a recession.
Bills introduced Tuesday in the House and Senate would terminate the emergency declaration that Trump signed last week and used to impose tariffs on nearly all goods imported into the United States.
"Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax belongs to Congress—not the president," Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) said in a statement. "Abusing emergency powers to impose blanket tariffs not only drives up costs for American families but also tramples on the Constitution."
Paul and Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) are the lead sponsors of the Senate resolution, which has also picked up support from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) and Sens. Tim Kaine (D–Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (D–N.H.), Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Peter Welch (D–Vt.).
Over in the House, a similar resolution was introduced Tuesday and is backed by dozens of Democrats, including the ranking members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.
"Trump is dragging our country into a trade war against our allies and imposing the largest tax increase on the American people in our history," said Rep. Suzan DelBene (D–Wash.), who has led other efforts in the House to rein in executive authority over tariffs.
Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose a 10 percent tariff on all imports last week. Higher country-specific tariffs—some in excess of 40 percent—are scheduled to be enacted on Wednesday. That law allows Congress to cancel a presidential emergency declaration, though lawmakers have never done so without the sitting president going along.
Trump also used the IEEPA as the legal basis for the 25 percent tariffs on nearly all imports from Mexico and Canada, which he announced in February. Prior to that, the law had never been used to impose tariffs, which has raised some questions about whether Trump is overstepping the letter of the law. He's clearly well outside the spirit of the law, as it is ridiculous to claim that all imports to the U.S. somehow constitute an emergency that demands unilateral executive action.
Last week, the Senate voted to cancel Trump's tariffs on Canada. Paul was one of four Republicans to support that measure, which has not yet received a vote in the House. Separately, the Senate is also considering a bill that would cancel any new tariffs after 60 days unless Congress affirmatively voted to continue them. The White House has threatened to veto that bill (and Trump would likely veto any attempt at curbing the IEEPA as well). To overcome a presidential veto, these antitariff bills would need support from at least 77 Republicans in the House and at least 20 Republicans in the Senate.
As a practical matter, these efforts can not succeed unless more Republicans get on board. They should. Trump's reckless trade war is a dangerous expansion of executive power and a stark example of how central planning results in economic catastrophe.
Plenty of Republicans know that combination is bad news for the country. The question is whether they can overcome their fear of Trump long enough to do something about it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm glad they're trying. Too bad they didn't try before, but it was different oxen being gored then.
It's inevitable. Congress critters are like everybody else, too lazy to want to do their job, too eager to pass off the responsibility to someone else, especially when there is not only another chamber to blame, but 99 and 434 other critters to blame. I'm sure there's some name for this effect, when a crowd of people stand around and watch a thug beating someone up and do nothing because they assume someone else already has called 9-1-1, so why get involved? And why intervene directly when there's cops on the way, right? Too much trouble. And the courts don't help much, because they're likely to be arrested just because the cops are only interested in arresting everybody, then someone will bring race into the matter, the bad guy will accuse the good guy of interfering, the courts will take years to sort it out and probably do it wrong, and you'll need your own expensive lawyer just to protect yourself.
So it is that suddenly a 227 year old law is reprehensible, a 50 year old law is reprehensible, but oh, what about all those other delegations of congressional authority to the President? Oh, don't look at them. They haven't been abused yet, they can still be used by our side when our guy is President.
Lazy good for nothing bums.
Get rid of the Presidency, period. Congress already reviews all officer appointments, they already haul them before committees for hearings, they ought to just hire them directly instead of this farce of them having two bosses, the President and Congress.
Then allow any individual chamber to repeal laws and fire these executive employees.
And require 2/3 majority to pass bills. Get better consensus, or make the vote trading more obvious, and pass fewer stupid bills.
And next I'll invent flying toasters.
Let’s do everything my way!
Feel free to suggest alternatives. Or maybe you're satisfied with the status quo.
I'm just glad Rand Paul is finally out of Reason's doghouse again.
Give him time.
Paul and Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) are the lead sponsors of the Senate resolution, which has also picked up support from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) and Sens. Tim Kaine (D–Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (D–N.H.), Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Peter Welch (D–Vt.).
Remember to judge based upon who, not what. Looking at the who there's no need to look at the bill to see that it's wrong.
Remember to judge based upon who, not what.
This has been your M.O. for years.
Hypocrisy is aspirational for Sarckles.
Sarc changing his entire philosophy based on which team is helped or hurt is ok though. He's part of the in-group and therefore subject to a different set of standards.
Nice confession by projection.
And we see sarc do it again. Pointing out someone else's errors is in no way a confession, but since it works to attack those he hates sarc says it anyway. Evidence and reality are simply not relevant factors to sarc.
You claim to oppose weaponized government, but you always excuse Trump when he does it. Heck, you did it earlier today in the comments about Trump going after attorneys. So when you accuse others of having a different set of standards, you are indeed projecting your own lack of principles onto others. You're like Jesse in that you attack people for doing what you are doing while you are doing it.
You claim to oppose weaponized government, but you always excuse Trump when he does it.
Incorrect as always. Sanctioning people for weaponizing government is not weaponizing government, it is de-weaponizing government. The idea these are the same is equivalent to claiming I support putting people innocent of murder in jail because I support putting people guilty of murder in jail. Ignoring the difference between innocent and guilty will always lead to the wrong conclusions.
Completely separately from this error you are once again criticizing others for what you are undoubtedly guilty of: opposing weaponizing government only when it targets your team. You never criticized the left for attacking attorneys even as you now pretend to believe doing so undermines our entire system of government.
You never criticized the left for attacking attorneys
Actually I did, but because I'm not a loser like Jesse with thousands of bookmarked comments I can't prove it. And even if I did you wouldn't accept it because it conflicts with the narrative.
By the way, where is your criticism of Trump weaponizing government? I have yet to see it. All I see is you proving me right when I say "It's ok because Democrats did it first." You're just projecting your own dishonest partisanship and lack of principles. Confession by projection.
Actually I did,
Liar.
By the way, where is your criticism of Trump weaponizing government? I have yet to see it.
Not real bright are you?
"Sanctioning people for weaponizing government is not weaponizing government, it is de-weaponizing government."
Is it kidnapping to arrest someone for kidnapping? Of course not.
It is 100% appropriate to remove people who previously weaponized government from the government. But ultimately it's this mistake which reveals your priorities. You, along with all the other left wingers, desire a government eternally weaponized against the right even when the right wins elections. That is the result of making it illegitimate to remove those who weaponized government in the first place.
He's not sanctioning people for weaponizing government. He's weaponizing presidential power to get retribution on political enemies. Calling it something else doesn't make it something else. And you're applauding it because you fully support weaponized government if you hate the people it's being weaponized against. It's all about who, not what. No principles whatsoever.
Your post is just another confession by projection.
He's not sanctioning people for weaponizing government.
Of course he is. USAID engaged in a propaganda campaign against the American public, DOE weaponized Title IX and tried to stick the bill for college bloat to American taxpayers. There were many reports of federal employees committing to opposing him again this term including a USAID employee caught on tape doing so. The government itself fought him during his first term, so this time he's removing them so they can no longer do so. All this is perfectly legitimate. If they had been a professional civil service without political loyalty impeding their work ss people now pretend they are they would have been left in place. They chose poorly.
Perkins Coie participated in the Steele dossier hoax including both coordinating it and trying to cover up the source of funds including misreporting it for election reporting purposes. This misreporting is exactly what left wingers claim was such a big deal Trump got 34 felonies for it, but when someone did the same thing to advance left wing interests you and the other left wingers defend them.
As usual your only interest is attacking the right and defending the left.
The subject of the article was Trump punishing law firms (which you defended). Sorry but I can't keep up with the goalposts. You're moving them too fast.
The subject of the article was Trump punishing law firms (which you defended).
That law firm was Perkins Coie, the relevant section is reposted below since you're apparently too stupid to recognize that.
"Perkins Coie participated in the Steele dossier hoax including both coordinating it and trying to cover up the source of funds including misreporting it for election reporting purposes. This misreporting is exactly what left wingers claim was such a big deal Trump got 34 felonies for it, but when someone did the same thing to advance left wing interests you and the other left wingers defend them.
As usual your only interest is attacking the right and defending the left."
More lies and projection because I didn't defend anyone.
I didn't defend anyone.
Of course you did. You argued it's wrong to remove these people from government. That is defending them.
I argue that Trump's cuts should be done legislatively because we have a government of laws, not a government of men, and because it's a lot easier to rescind an executive order than to repeal legislation. You're so hung up on being a partisan attack dog that you don't understand or even care what that means. I'll tell you but I'm sure you'll ignore it and substitute some leftist caricature for what I say because this isn't the first time I've said it and you respond to leftist caricatures. It means that I support the majority the cuts Trump is making to the federal workforce, and I want those cuts to remain in place after Democrats retake the White House. What I do not want is for everything DOGE doing to be undone on day one of the next Democratic presidency. I don't oppose what he is doing. I'm concerned that the manner in which he is doing it will make it all for naught.
Now I'll wait for you to call me a liar because I'm contradicting what people say about me (the thought that the people talking shit are the liars has never and will never cross that tempest of emotions that passes for your mind) and continue to attack strawmen. Because that's all you ever do.
I argue that Trump's cuts should be done legislatively because we have a government of laws, not a government of men,
You also argue that removing these people is weaponizing government, which because weaponizing government is wrong means they must be left in place. You should realize having one argument does not preclude having another.
The rest of our blather is trying to distract from this obvious error where you did defend this group and also denied doing so. If you engaged your brain for half a second before attacking any comment you wouldn't accidentally step on your dick quite so often.
You also argue that removing these people is weaponizing government
I never said anything of the sort you fucking liar. Weaponizing government is using power against personal and political enemies, not firing people.
The rest of our blather is trying to distract from this obvious error where you did defend this group and also denied doing so.
Yeah, when I said "I want Trump's cuts to the federal government to be legislative so they'll be more permanent than executive orders and not immediately undone by the next administration" I really meant "None of those federal workers should have been fired and he needs to give them their jobs back."
Just as I said you are ignoring what I say, substituting lies, and then arguing against them.
I never said anything of the sort you fucking liar. Weaponizing government is using power against personal and political enemies, not firing people.
You are dumber that two bags of shit sarc, but do you expect me to believe you don't recognize that firing people can be using power against personal and political enemies?
You defended his firings as sanctioning people for weaponizing government, not weaponizing government.
Then, being the reflexive contrarian partisans retard that you are, you attack me for saying that firing people is not weaponizing government.
That means that you are defending him for weaponizing government, while saying government shouldn't be weaponized.
Then you call me stupid.
Dude. I'm surprised you remember to breathe.
you attack me for saying that firing people is not weaponizing government.
Right, because you're trying to claim you could not possibly have meant that even though it's what we've been discussing for two months. Numerous people have referred to his appointments, reorganizations, and firings as retaliatory. The fact that I say it can be is not the same as saying it was.
But if you want to pretend you've been droning on about weaponized government for months and your only concern was Perkins Coie losing their security clearance knock yourself out. I don't believe you since that particular event occurred long after your accusations of weaponizing government began. No, you only claimed that because you think it helped you score a point in this particular circumstance, and having no principles to adhere to that was good enough.
50 countries including the eu are look to renegotiate terrifs the eu is looking at a 0 for 0 policy, you know what trump said he wanted. Fuck off, go to Canada, and participate in maid bohem
Trump says he wants three things, depending on who he's talking to. When talking to free traders he says his goal is zero tariffs across the board. When talking to average people he says his goal is to replace the income tax with modest tariffs. And when talking to businesses he says his goal is high tariffs to protect domestic industry from competition.
So, which is it?
Those are all good things.
That's debatable. But even if they are, there is some conflict between items 1 and 3.
Trump seems like a “I like all three of these outcomes, and I don’t really care which one is the winner” kind of guy.
Which end result makes you the maddest, Sarc? Also, you're kind of lying about your premise.
Ah ah ah -- hold on there, buckaroo. You and your crowd have been saying for years to only judge Trump by what he does, not what he says. Are we now to judge those press releases by what they say?
And Trump doesn't want zero for zero tariffs.
* He put non-zero tariffs on countries which already had zero tariffs.
* It would conflict with his stated goals of onshoring manufacturing, making up for lax foreign regulation, stopping drug smuggling, eliminating the trade deficit, and replacing the income tax.
* He violated 15 existing trade treaties, including his own USMCA. Do you really think those 50 countries are going to trust new trade treaties?
* Oh wait, they won't be trade treaties, because he'd have to get Senate ratification. So they'll just be more executive orders he can change on a whim.
Stop spouting his nonsense like a beat-up 45 playing the last refrain over and over. Try thinking for a change.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. One of the factors that makes Trump so intimidating to other Reps is Elon's threat to bankroll a primary opponent. But Elon isn't with Trump on this (as opposed to cutting spending), and Trump has never spent his own money on politics. So while Trump's opposition will still cost any Rep some votes we'll see how much of the intimidation is the combination of votes and money.
20 Reps in the Senate seems like too many, it seems like this is based on the old 2/3 rule. But wasn't this changed to 60 votes to override in which case they'd need 13?
lol veto. did Aesop address counting pre-hatched chickens or is it just a wives' tale?
I'm a fan of Rand Paul. Glad to see him trying to rein in emergency declarations, executive authority, and tariff power. That said, the dude couldn't even knock Fauci off his lawnmower.
Fuck Donald Trump
Doesn’t have the same ring to it.
You too, with the TDS? He's done far more good than bad, and all good compared to Biden. Biden even doubled down on Trump's stupid first term tariffs.
So let me fix that for you.
Fuck Donald Trump's tariffs.
If you're going to equate criticism of Trump with praise for Biden then you better think twice about criticizing Trump on economics and tariffs. Because, by your own rules, that equates to saying Biden was better.
Never said he wasn't better. I don't need to qualify anything about the guy robbing me at gun point, especially in an article about his robbing me at gun point. Never did with Biden.
Fuck Donald Trump.
Decades ago, the magazine Consumer Reports described Japanese industrial practice. American skis weren't allowed to be sold because 'Japanese snow is different." And American medical equiptment wasn't allowed to be sold because "Japanese blood is different." The Japanese economy didn't implode. In fact, it took a huge number of American manufacturing jobs.
And their economy has been pretty stagnant for decades. I don't really think we want to look to Japan for best economic policies.
The economic stagnation happened because they got rid of the 80's policies in order to "compete in the global market" and China then ate their lunch.
It might have happened eventually anyhow, probably a decade and a half later in 2008, but caving to American pressure to open their markets certainly immanentized their eschaton.
This topic leads to considerable frustration. I see a temporary chance to get majority support to trim back executive tariff authority, and I don't much care why the sides are drawn as they are, I just see a way to get a lasting change from a momentary advantage, and I think Rand Paul does as well. My friend Bob says I'm naïve because failure to support Trump in things Trump parades as important now will lead to the downfall of his presidency, and in 4 years it'll be the end of democracy at the hands of the Democrats. I think he's the naïve one.
This is great, happy to see it. Hopefully the bills address the emergency powers in general, not just the specifics of this current crop.
And again.....
You Leftardarians at Reason.
He's not against 'Trump' Tariffs.
He's against E.O. Tariffs that FDR and [D]-trifecta put there.
Typical leftard blame-shifting.