House Republicans Just Voted To Give Even More Tariff Power Away to Trump
House Republicans passed a resolution that prevents Congress from ending the national emergency Trump is using to impose tariffs until March 31.

Since President Donald Trump took office, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority—and responsibility—to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" to the executive branch. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted yet again to prevent itself from reclaiming these powers from the president.
The vote was on a procedural measure that passed out of the Rules Committee on Monday, which included a provision to "extend until March 31 a block on efforts…to end the national emergencies underlying Trump's sweeping tariffs," reports Politico. The measure passed in a partisan 213–211 vote, with only Reps. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), Kevin Kiley (R–Calif.), and Victoria Spartz (R–Ind.) breaking party ranks.
The measure mirrors House Resolution 211, which cleared the House in March and "blocked the most direct pathway for lawmakers to revoke the emergency executive powers" Trump used to levy tariffs "on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China," Reason's Eric Boehm wrote at the time. The March resolution deemed each remaining day of the first session of the 119th Congress as not a day "for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act [NEA] with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1."
The NEA grants Congress the authority to cancel all national emergencies declared by the president through a law or joint resolution. This includes emergencies invoked by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—the law that Trump has used to levy tariffs on many of America's trade partners—which authorizes the president to impose asset freezes, trade embargoes, and sanctions, but not tariffs. By refusing to recognize days during which Section 202 of the NEA is considered, Congress ceded its ability to nullify Trump's February IEEPA tariffs until January 3, 2026.
Tuesday's resolution follows the same logic. House Resolution 707 nullified the provisions of "section 202 of the National Emergencies Act…from September 16, 2025, through March 31, 2026 [with respect to] a joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared by the President on July 30." That national emergency was declared the day before Trump's July 31 executive order further modifying the reciprocal tariff rates, which were first imposed on "Liberation Day" in April. This order not only levied across-the-board duties on Mexico, Canada, and China, as Trump did in February, but imposed not-so-reciprocal tariffs on every country with which the U.S. has normal trade relations. By passing this resolution, the only way Congress can interfere with Trump's reciprocal tariffs would be to pass a law amending the IEEPA statute itself, which almost certainly will not happen.
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D–Wash.), who voted against the resolution, tells Reason that "House Republicans have yet again abdicated their constitutional role over trade policy to President Trump, effectively capitulating to the largest tax increase on Americans in history."
As Congress has sat idly by, courts have been deliberating the constitutionality of Trump using IEEPA to set tariffs.
In May, the Court of International Trade (CIT) unanimously ruled that Trump's IEEPA tariffs were "beyond the scope of executive power, and…blocked [them] by a permanent injunction," Ilya Somin, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, explained at the time. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the CIT's ruling on August 29, but vacated the lower court's universal injunction. Pending an oral argument before the Supreme Court in the first week of its November session, Trump's tariffs remain in effect.
The Supreme Court wouldn't be involved if Congress hadn't delegated its tariff power to the president through laws like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (responsible for Section 232 tariffs) and the Trade Act of 1974. Unfortunately, Congress has long been eager to offload its constitutional duties to the executive branch. Tuesday's resolution is merely a continuation of this trend.
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
They also voted to never balance the budget and just let the country end in chaos.
Pretty much.
Well at least they fully spend the $2 million and 15-20 staffers they employ to erect barriers to entry against challengers. I'd hate to think they themselves face electoral chaos.
I'm sure a favorite benefit in Congress is the multimillion dollar fund to quietly settle sexual harassment suits.
But remember - DEMOCRACY!
Because you can vote for one Representative and two Senators that means you have to accept the authority of all the people you don't get an opportunity to vote for.
If you think the Constitution means what it says then you're a leftist Marxist with TDS.
... and on Constitution Day
Well, Brandon respected it, at least.
Hey Sarc, here’s a little goodness for you…….
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-jimmy-kimmel-abc-disney.html
America wins again!
Whining about Trump is easier than taking any responsibility by actually doing anything.
I'm convinced the only solution would be to eliminate the Presidency. If Congress wants Chief Mugwumps for the various agencies, hire them directly. They already interview the President's nominees. They already haul them in front of cameras to chew them out and rant their pet peeves, as if Congress were their boss, not the President. So get rid of the Presidency, force Congress to either make the hard decisions themselves, or hire someone themselves who only they can fire, and stop all this fingerpointing.
I think you're on to something.
ya it's called Italy
Ya it's called not knowing what a parliamentary system is.
hey now I was just commenting on all the projected yelling.
That is the parliamentary system. Most former British colonies adopted it.
So, a European-style Parliamentary System, essentially?
I get what you're saying & sympathetic to your frustration, but having lived under two of them, you may not like the results of that type of governance in the US...
France is on their third one just this year!
Germany has their version of the GOPe make deals with the far left to keep power!
Yes, and that wave of 7 AfD politicians who all died within, what, a 10 day window? Hmmm....
And. Fuck The French. Even *they* don't like each other.
That 'wave' is conspiracy nonsense. There were 20,000 candidates/alternates for office in those local elections in North Rhine Westphalia. Those candidates had to be named and put on ballots three months ahead of the elections. There were a total of 14 of those candidates/alternates who died between them being placed on the ballot and that story a week or so before the election. That's a 0.07% mortality rate over three months. Seven of them were AfD (meaning seven candidates died who were not AfD) - but they died over the course of those three months.
Further, the main reason the death rate is higher for AfD is because the average age of AfD candidates is significantly older than other parties - and particularly so in the former West Germany - and even more so because they are a party with no 'bench churn' for local offices (unlike established parties).
Within 13 days of each other.
The ages ranged from 59 to 80. Not super statiscally anomolous, that's true.
Still, I thought it was remarkable.
All those candidates (except the one who died of suicide) also had known pre-existing conditions. AfD chose to stuff their candidate list with people unlikely to have many chances to win future elections - and who have never won previous elections. Not really a surprise for a party that has never won anything there. The same sort of decisions that parties chose to select people for their conventions. Even the AfD acknowledged this was a nothingburger.
I never claimed a "conspiracy". I said, I thought it was remarkable.
Not really a surprise for a party that has never won anything there
Now you're being dishonest, JewFree...
Also, not just Deutchland, but pretty much every member of the EU operates that way, with maybe, depending on the country, a fringe party or two of little consequence.
Until a coalition is needed for a PM.
I do remember some here arguing, years & years ago, a parliamentary system would be The (L)iberaltarian Party's only way to be relevant within a system of governance. Ken Shultz in particular.
Men was probably right, as the current system virtually guarantees two parties mathematically.
France has a strong President.
It's not even close to a parliamentary system. God that's a stupid hasty interpretation.
* There is no prime minister, no cabinet.
* Congress interviews and hires and fires Chief Mugwumps for whatever agencies they want. They don't get to blame it all on the President and wash their hands of any responsibility.
Is that so hard to comprehend?
No, it's not hard to comprehend.
I also said, "essentially". However, I think the nation as a whole would not be in favor of such a system, which by the way would require a brand new Constitution as well.
Sounds like a lovely utopia in theory, but with *only* Congress (directly elected) & a Supreme Court (yes, Congress approves nominees - expect court packing to be the norm), the Royal Road to The Socialist Paradise would be hastened that much quicker.
Like it or not, The Executive Branch can be an effective bulwark against a potentially hostile, Uniparty Congress.
In other words, don't even think about trying to improve the system, just whine about how bad the system is. Sounds exactly like Congress now.
Improving the system within the existing framework is one thing. And you're correct, it's a very diffcult thing to do. Which is the source of your frustration, & am sympathetic to it.
Starting from scratch is an entirely different ball of wax. And I fear that would be an exceptionally bloody task to do so.
Also, even without a discretely designated PM or some other Big Enchilada, history has shown, regardless of sytem, *someone* will rise to be an individual seat of power, be it a charismatic leader or some oligarch (or group of them) pulling strings behind the scenes.
No shit. So why not make it easier to fire those assholes when they accrete power?
No, better to whine.
A) If the "assholes" in question, especially if they come a legit Uniparty state, like California, can't be voted out because *you're* in the minority?
Even now, there's only *one* Thomas Massy, & *one* Rand Paul. The odds of having more, even without your Dream System, is exponentially low. Hell, can't even do it *now* under the current Constitutional Republic system.
B) And, regardless of party affiliation, refuse to go? How many reps and senators have promised to term limit themselves, yet few (I only know of one - Dr. Tom Coburn of OK) actually keep that promise?
GM is making a good faith argument. You’re being a Jesse. Stop.
I would love to immediately fire over 60% of congress.
Britain didn't have a Prime Minister until 1721. The House of Commons dates to the 13th century and the House of Lords dates back to before the Norman Conquest although it had a different name then. (In fact, its election of Harold Godwinson as King in 1066 was what caused William of Normandy to launch his successful invasion.)
For those that don't like the deep state - the fact that European governments can be formed and broken up so fast is just evidence that the elected mean nothing, its all run by their bureaucrats.
In France its even *explicit* - they have a whole social class that are the only people allowed in senior bureaucracy, business, and political positions.
No, the opposite is true. The elected representatives are able to kick out bad officials. We are stuck with Trump until 2029.
Nope, abolish the house, then cut the senate in half.
Increase the responsibility per representative.
A Platonic Democracy then? Specialized philosopher kings?
I favor shock collars.
So our options are to completely overhaul the constitution and end the presidency or raise critical arguments? Or as you say, complain. You live in a very interesting brain space.
Whining without suggesting improvements is just whining. If that's what you prefer, keep on.
Now you want a parliament? You want the head of the Senate to be the head of government? Executive and Legislative all under one set of thumbs?
Cause its not working all that well for Europe.
Congress is a committee. You can't ever pin responsibility on a single person in a committee - that's the *point* of having a committee. As soon as more than one person is in charge no one is.
So you can't force Congress to make hard decisions without a President any more than we can with one.
At the end of the day, if the average voter won't get out and just vote 'no' on everything, Congress will keep on being worse than useless.
"Since President Donald Trump took office, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority—and responsibility—to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" to the executive branch."
It should go without saying, but with Reason you always have to say it.
They did the abdication thing long before Trump the Magnificent took office.
And since the resolution was passed by the duly elected house of congress, this is democracy in action.
You aren't against democracy, are you?
(with Reason, the question is not rhetorical)
I find it hilarious they think it is only since trump was elected.
Everything is only a problem since Trump took office. Tariffs, congress abdicating their authority, military action, etc..
Oh, and I posted this above, but it’s just too much fun not to post it again….
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-jimmy-kimmel-abc-disney.html
Half of Reason's writers are Millennials and older GenZ - the sort that gravitate to these jobs are the sort that do not thing anything existed prior to their becoming aware of it.
Yes, many of us ARE against democracy when it results in insane policy and practice. The Constitution guarantees us a "republican form of government", i.e. a non-monarchy (or oligarchy). The word "democracy" (or any of its forms) is never used. The entire structure is designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
The House is clearly derelict in its duties, and the only thing keeping SCOTUS from stepping in is Art. I, Section 5 "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings", although this does not seem to me to be a rule about proceedings (i.e. process), but very thinly veiled trick to achieve a certain political aim.
In fact, Holmes was dead wrong when he said it was not his job to keep the nation from going to Hell if that was what was voted for. The USA IS the Constitution, and all three branches swear to protect and uphold that Constitution.
If Congress doesn't want to do its job, why do we continue ro pay their salary?
No Taxation without Representation
Don't worry. We're not paying congress, our grandchildren are.
Fortunately - the people who own Treasury debt are either a)central banks or b)the top 10%. Far far more highly skewed towards the high income/wealth than taxes. So the grandchildren are paying them (in the olden days ii was called selling your children into slavery and was both understood and frowned upon) - and that quintile receives as much in interest payments as they pay in income taxes.
Good nothing no one ever thinks about this.
Has it occurred to you that your leftism is part of the problem?
Oh noes. The economy will collapse even faster than the last apocalypse earlier this year. Guess trump shouldn't have asked congress like you all demanded.
As indie, I try to maintain a healthy disdain for both parties. But this is quickly losing it's "boaf sides" cred , and is starting to look like we really need a new crop of republicans.
The neo-cons that I couldn't stand are starting to look pretty good compared with the populist Trumpists in there now.
You're not independent. You dont even try both sides. You attack only one side.
He might be an unregistered Democrat that only votes for extreme far left candidates.
You're not independent. You dont even try both sides. You attack only one side.
You're not independent. You dont even try both sides. You attack only one side.
You're not independent. You dont even try both sides. You attack only one side.
(I wanted to join the bandwagon.)
See. Real independents don't join bandwagons. Fucking populist!
Did Jesse ever claim to be independent?
Jesse did not seem to claim he was independent. Can you point to him doing so?
Liberty made that claim.
Cowards and fools.
They better enjoy it now, because November of 2026 is going to be a bloodbath at the polls. And, the pendulum swing to the left in 2028 is going to make 2008 look like a mantel clock.
You really think the midterms will swing the pendulum after the actual bloodbath in Utah? The dems lost their minds and humanity after Kirk's assassination. Republicans will focus only on the leftist crazies justifying Kirk's murder. All the gaslighting and fascist accusations will backfire.
The economy is going to shit. Prices are up and jobs are down. That's what people care about. Trump shooting the messengers doesn't change the message. And that's why Republicans are going to get their asses kicked in the next election. Because you elected a guy who is far left on economics, and that never works out well. The murder of this nobody who nobody knew about will be forgotten. The economy won't. Unfortunately Democrats are not better on economics than Trumpians. So no matter what it's going to get worse. No thanks to you and others who traded in your principles for a cult of personality.
* Midterms usually go against the President's party.
* 2024 voters were still bitching and pissed about Biden's inflation, which dropped below 4% in June 2023, 18 months before, and was below 3.7% and dropping after September 2023. Do you really think voters will forgive Trump for the rising inflation we have now?
* But the Democrats seem to be doing their best to help Trump, and Trump has pulled rabbits out of hats before. But he didn't pull a rabbit out in 2020, and he barely squeaked by with a 1.5% margin in 2024 against possible the most inept incompetent candidate in US history.
2026 is unpredictable. Neither Trump nor the DNC are doing themselves any favors.
We have the memory of a goldfish. This will all be forgotten by next year when we are in a recession.
I agree with the first part. The second part is overdue but very much in doubt.
The Rs are really only of any use as a stopgap when they control a single house, so I won't really care if they take a thumping. But I am extremely dubious based on the 20% approval of the party that is supposed to provide the thumping. And that number certainly didn't go up in the last 2 weeks.
You should be very afraid of the democrats ever regaining power. But with luck, there won’t be a democrat party in the near future.
There is no Democrat Party in the US today! But President Ocasio-Cortez will reduce all tariffs to zero, fire every ICE thug, rehire all the NIH and CDC staff who were fired by DOGE, refund all the DEI-related grants that were canceled, and rescind the disapproval of all the solar and wind projects Trump canceled. On her first day in office in 2029.
Yeah, Kimmel just lost his show. This is different. A lot of normies just had how evil the democrats have become shoved in their face.
Ive had it on good authority from your team the term bloodbath is Hitler like language.
Concern trolling noted though.
Isn't it appropriate whenever actual blood is being poured out?
Yeah, I almost edited that to a milder word, but decided that bloodbath (figuratively) was indeed the word I intended.
maybe things are working fine and you are the one who is wrong.
Things are always working fine for the Power Elite. The rest of us are expendable.
If the Senate approves this it may guarantee a Trump tariff win in the Supreme Court as Congressional approval of what he has done. Whether the Senate will is doubtful because of a guaranteed filibuster and no cloture likelihood.
The Supreme Court will overturn Trump's "emergency" tariffs. The House GOP has just covered their asses with this vote.
SCOTUS has no enforcement powers. If they rule against Trump he will do whatever he wants anyway. So to cover their asses they will give him a narrow victory.
This is becoming the big issue: SCOTUS has no physical power and Trump has no understanding of the structure of our government, and no respect for the third branch except when he gets his way.
Given trump is 18-0 at scotus.... maybe he and his team understand it better than most of his critics.
Most of the attacks I see against him claiming he doesn't understand government are far more ignorant of processes and structure.
And when has Trump ever ignored a SCOTUS ruling? As always, it’s just more democrat lies.
he’ll bitch and moan on Truth Social, stop whatever he gets smacked down for and look for an alternative way to do what he wants.
Because that’s what he did the last time he lost at the SC.
We are six months in. That’s it. You really think he will obey for the next three and a half years? I don’t. You think Jesse and company will stand for him obeying the courts. Get real. He has taken taxing powers, sent soldiers to cities, murdered people on the high seas, issued illegal executive orders, and we’re not even a year in. The republic is done. Most of the yahoos in these comments will vote for what they believe will be his fourth term, and riot if he loses.
All the while saying it’s ok because Democrats did it first.
Still, it would certainly be nice if congressional people's of all pronouns actually voted on principle and actually had the balls/vulva to challenge power grabs rather than continously bend the knee. I know - there's a greater chance of finding the entrance to Narnia in my closet.
I’m pretty sure their “principle” right now is just not upsetting Mr. Trump.
As always, their principle is “get reelected”.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Yep, agreed.
Your party’s priority is power grabs. Are you really foolish enough to believe otherwise.
So Trump’s FCC pressured ABC and affiliates to cancel Jimmy Kimmel because Kimmel didn’t parrot the MAGA narrative regarding St Charlie.
Amazing. I remember how butthurt conservatives were when Biden pressured Facebook on Covid.
Of course conservative butt-hurt only goes in one direction.
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia#aversion-therapy
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
You're an MAPedo & linked to Kiddie Pr0n, resulting in a commentary ban.
Never been banned, fool.
Yeah you were Kiddie Raper. Everyone here knows that.
Turd lies.
moneyshot 7 years ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Reason has my email address.
For all I know some conservative asswipe in IT made an editorial decision on his own.
fuck him -- and you too.
Proof it was directed by the FCC?
It came from Sinclair. Review their statement.
And nextar. Probably others.
You were banned for posting a link to child porn.
Regardless of how you feel about tariffs - Reason has been complaining that Trump doesn't have the authority to do what he's been doing, that its Congress' authority that he needs.
And then Congress goes and authorizes him.
And you're mad at it?
>Since President Donald Trump took office, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority
Insofar as Congress has abdicated anything, they abdicated tariff power *before you were born Nicastro!* Not 'since Trump took office' but decades ago.
If they voluntarily gave the President authority to lay tariffs - and you can certainly believe, as I do, that they should not have done this, but they did - and refuse to take it back . . . that's defacto authorization of the President laying tariffs.
So we can drop the 'Trump is usurping power' stuff now? Complain about Congress not doing its job, don't complain about a President that uses the power given him.
You certainly didn't when Obama said he had a 'pen and a phone'.
Libertarians as a general rule don’t support Congress delegating power, period.
Trumpians fully support delegation of power to Trump, but believe it’s evil when Democrats exercise delegated powers.
As always Trumpians decide right and wrong based upon who, not what.
Libertarians and Reason objected to Obama’s executive orders. But the narrative says otherwise, therefore those articles don’t exist. I won’t bother with the history because Trumpians don’t believe it.