The U.S. House Just Voted To Stop Trump's 'Emergency' Tariffs on Imports From Canada
But the numbers are a long way from a veto-proof majority, so Wednesday's vote may be a purely symbolic victory for free traders.
A small faction of Republicans broke ranks and voted Wednesday night to terminate President Donald Trump's "emergency" tariffs on many imports from Canada.
The 219–211 vote in the House is the first significant rebuke of Trump's tariff policies (and the emergency powers Trump has claimed to impose them) to emerge from the lower chamber of Congress. It may not be the last, as Democrats have threatened to put forward several resolutions to block various tariffs imposed, now that a procedural block on those votes has been lifted.
"I know tariffs are a tax on American consumers. I know some disagree. But this debate and vote should occur in the House," Rep. Don Bacon, one of the Republicans who supported the resolution on Wednesday night, wrote on X earlier in the day.
Shortly before the vote on Wednesday evening, Trump warned that "any Republican" who voted to revoke the tariffs on Canadian imports would "suffer the consequences come Election time."
That threat was not enough to hold all Republicans in line. In addition to Bacon, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R–Pa.), Jeff Hurd (R–Colo.), Kevin Kiley (R–Calif.), Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), and Dan Newhouse (R–Wash.) voted for the measure. Rep. Jared Golden (D–Maine) was the sole Democrat to vote against it.
"We got it passed. We broke the Republican blockade," said Rep. Suzan DelBene (D–Wash.), who has headed the Democratic efforts to repeal the tariffs since shortly after Trump announced them last February.
The Senate has voted several times to terminate national emergencies underpinning Trump's tariffs on imports from Canada, Brazil, and elsewhere.
Still, Trump will probably have the final say: Even if the House-passed resolution makes it to his desk, he could veto it. Actually blocking the tariffs would require a veto-proof two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress.
On Wednesday, Politico reported that the White House was working to limit the number of Republican defectors in order to prevent a future veto override. An unnamed administration official reportedly told Politico that the "baseline House Republican position" is tariff skepticism.
If that's true, it was not reflected in Wednesday's vote totals. As long as Trump continues to hold most House Republicans under his thrall, this vote will be only a symbolic victory for tariff critics.
Still, it is also an important acknowledgement of reality.
The "national emergency" underpinning the Canadian tariffs has never made much sense. The White House claims that the tariffs are part of an effort to block the flow of fentanyl into the United States, but little fentanyl is smuggled across the border from Canada. And even if that wasn't true, it's illogical to tax legal goods in order to stop the flow of illegal ones.
Trade between the U.S. and Canada is plainly not a national security threat by any definition of the term, and the tariffs have accomplished little besides raising taxes on Americans. The Congressional Budget Office was the latest to confirm that reality, reporting Wednesday that American consumers have borne 95 percent of the costs from Trump's trade barriers.
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
..this vote will be only a symbolic victory for tariff critics.
Congress is worthless.
Same people who were going to repeal obamacare.
Trump swill veto ANY legislation that says the the USA Cunts-tits-tuition says twat shit says!!! More news at 6:66!!!
(Cunt-ill then... ALL HAIL the Great Orange Caligula-Shitler!!!)
Are we still doing this?
The last article pointed out - and this one does to - that Congress has done no such thing.
They've voted to remove a procedural rule that might have blocked them from doing so.
They've held a meeting to schedule the premeeting.
'But the numbers are a long way from a veto-proof majority, so Wednesday's vote may be a purely symbolic victory for free traders.'
"Free traders"? In Congress?
Is that the same as globalist sweetheart deals and asymmetric tariffs and quotas and that bullshit?
I think the author meant us.
Youre not a free trader. You dont even realize the bills you scream are free trade are just collections of tariffs, caps, regulatory changes, etc.
As per usual. You speak from pure ignorance.
I am a free trader. I'm always for trade that is more free, over trade that is less free. That position is not an endorsement of any previous trade deals as actual "free trade". I'm not that dumb.
But I do know that 39% tariffs are less free than 15% tariffs which are less free than 0% tariffs. So as an advocate of free trade, I support improvements and am against large steps backwards.
This administration has been a large step backwards.
Canada can drop their terrifs to 0% and trump would drop us terrifs to 0%. As has already been stated
No he wouldn't.
He slapped heavy tariffs on Singapore. Singapore doesn't have tariffs.
Look at your utter nonsensical statement. Lol.
I'm always for trade that is more free, over trade that is less free.
Such a stunning statement. Fucking hilarious.
And then in your defense you either a) assume tariffs are equal between two countries or b) ignoring tariffs from other countries.
Disparate rules are not more free retard. It is advantaged. Advantaged trade is never free trade. It is manipulated trade. You honestly are arguing from a nonsensical standpoint. It is hilarious.
Thank you. I agree.
Congress could have voted much earlier if they didnt want to just scream into the sky. Wouldn't have needed a veto proof majority.
SCOTUS should read the Constitution and determine that any and all trade barriers not set by Congress itself are Constitutionally invalid. This would nullify all of this nonsense.
You stunning legal intellects have been right on so many of your interpretations. Lol. You do realize trump has cited his statutory justifications right? Ie. Laws passed by congress? Never mind. Arguing from ignorance as usual.
Trump has misstated his statutory justifications.
Good luck getting SCOTUS to rule any law passed by Congress as being unconstitutional. They couldn’t even manage that with the ACA.
I agree, but this SC rewrites the meaning of the Constitution with every big case.
SCOTUS should read the Constitution and determine that any and all trade barriers not set by Congress itself are Constitutionally invalid.
I know I'm talking to the "borders are imaginary social constructs" and "diversity is our strength" crowd(s) but, giving you credit you don't deserve, you mean "any and all trade barriers not set by Congress itself *from or within the US* are Constitutionally invalid".
If you claim that borders aren't real and that diversity is our strength and then talk as though the world just fundamentally works the way a small sub-class of mostly white Americans think it should or does, rather than the way it actually does, you start to seem really, really insular, racist, and stupid.
Congress says the minimum drinking age is 21. Does that mean the global drinking age is actually 21? Just within US borders and/or just for states receiving highway funds? Why is one regulation more critical because it only applies from the outside in (and even from a relatively tiny fraction of "the outside") rather than all the other regulations applied from the inside out?
canada still has 400% terrifs on importing some American goods. Why should we prop up canada?
Why is low terrifs only good in the direction that is bad for America?
I eagerly await your answer bohem
Foreign tariffs are free trade. Dont you Reason?
Trust the comms major on economics. He knows words.
Read Milton Friedman some time. He explained it all. Just because some other country wants to impoverish its citizenry does not mean that the US should do so as well.
When Trump De-Regulates and Cut Taxes it causes chaos and debt increases.
When Trump raises the 0% import tax he's Anti-Free-Trade.
It's pretty obvious how that narrative is getting set in stone.
Free-Trade = ZERO tax for [D]emon-crap coastal importers ONLY! /s
Trump imposed one of the biggest tax increases in US history.