MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

How Congress Could Stop Trump's Trade War, and Why It Might Not

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he's "nervous" about getting into a global trade war. Here's what he could do to prevent one.

Jeff Malet Photography/NewscomJeff Malet Photography/NewscomSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly told Kentucky farmers and business leaders this week that President Donald Trump's trade policies could create a "slippery slope" that "can't be good for our country."

"I'm not a fan of tariffs, and I am nervous about what appears to be a growing trend in the administration to levy tariffs," McConnell said Tuesday, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Tariffs on steel and aluminum issued last month by President Donald Trump will do significant damage to a wide range of American industries, from farming to housing to manufacturing, that will have to pay higher prices for those materials. Trump followed those tariffs by calling this week for a 25 percent import tax on some 1,300 Chinese-made goods. If approved by the U.S. Office of the Trade Representative, those tariffs will force American businesses and consumers to pay higher prices for almost everything, including necessities like food and clothing. Reciprocal tariffs imposed by China will hurt American farms and businesses a second time, and Trump has already threatened an additional $100 billion in tariffs as a tit-for-tat to China's response.

No wonder, then, that McConnell says he is "nervous about getting into trade wars and I hope this doesn't go too far."

If only he were in a position to do something about it, right? He could, of course, and there's several ways Congress could push back against the White House's protectionist trade policies—but there may not be consensus on what to do, and Republican leaders so far seem unwilling to cross Trump, even as he pursues a course that's unclear in its aims and risks doing serious damage to the economy.

Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the explicit power "to lay and collect taxes, duties," and the like. Although the legislative branch has delegated much of its authority over trade and tariffs to the executive branch in the past century, it could take steps in the next few months to restore those original powers and check Trump's dangerous protectionist impulses. It will have at least one major opportunity to do so, thanks to a June 30 deadline for the reauthorization of one such provision delegating trade power to the White House.

Timing is a factor for other reasons too. Republican lawmakers that could face Trump-backed primary opponents are unlikely to want to break openly with the White House on trade. As spring turns to summer and primary season passes, that's less of a concern.

"Congress will have leverage, but it seems like they've been unwilling to use it," says Dan Ikenson, director of trade policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "It has more leverage today than it had a month ago, and that leverage gets stronger as the general election approaches."

The first round of tariffs—the ones issued in early March and applying to imported steel and aluminum from a variety of orgins—were imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which gives the president more or less carte blanche to impose tariffs on national security grounds. Officially, the Trump administration says that American weapons of war depend on steel and aluminum supplies, so domestic producers must be protected from international supplies that could be cut-off in the event of a conflict.

That's a weak rationale for a whole slew of reasons, but it exists, and under Section 232, that's enough. Congress could threaten to revoke Section 232 or modify it through new legislation. There is precedent for this—Congress overturned Jimmy Carter's national security restrictions on oil imports in 1980—but it would veto-proof majority and is therefore unlikely to happen.

The newer tariffs, issued by Trump last week and applying to a wide range of Chinese-made products, are a far easier target for Congress if lawmakers want to get serious about preventing a trade war.

The second round of tariffs were issued under Section 302 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the White House to initiate an investigation into supposedly unfair trade practices by another nation and to respond with tariffs if they are deemed appropriate. The United States has not used Section 302 since joining the World Trade Organization in 1995, because membership in the WTO requires that member states bring trade disputes before the organization rather than acting on their own.

Trump doesn't seem to care that his tariffs will flout WTO rules, but the breadth of tariffs issued last week could trigger political pushback from lawmakers. Unlike tariffs that narrowly target steel and aluminum—politically favored industries that lawmakers running for reelection want to appear friendly towards—the political ramifications of new tariffs on biscuit ovens, airplane parts, sewing machines, brewery equipment, and hundred of other items could swing the other direction, particularly since red states figure to bear the brunt of the tariff impact.

If Congress decided it wants to put the brakes on Trump, the June 30 deadline to reauthorize the president's Trade Promotion Authority will be crucial. Under TPA, the White House is authorized to fast-track trade deals with other countries by negotiating them without congressional interference. Congress pledges to hold a straight up-or-down vote on the final product, essentially promising that it won't try to alter or undermine whatever deal the president makes.

Congress granted TPA to President Barack Obama in 2015, and the authority remains in place for six years—but there's a catch. After three years, Congress can exercise an option to revoke that authority. While revoking Trump's TPA would not directly block tariffs, it would make it harder for the president to make unilateral trade deals with other countries—something Trump has clearly, and repeatedly, said he wants to do—and therefore could be used as a pressure point against the administration.

A more dramatic option would be to pass Sen. Mike Lee's (R-Utah) Global Trade Accountability Act, which would require congressional approval before tariffs could go into effect. The bill would also give Congress the ultimate authority on whether to withdraw from other trade agreements including NAFTA and the WTO, says Clark Packard, trade policy counsel for the R Street Institute, but would not apply to the steel and aluminum tariffs issued under Section 232.

Even though Trump's tariffs could do significant damage to the American economy and cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, Congress may be reluctant to step in because members believe there is something to be gained from Trump sparring with China.

Indeed, even as he was scolding the White House for triggering a trade war that will hurt farmers, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) this week defended the idea of imposing tariffs as a way of combating China's history of abusing trade rules and international norms. "The United States should take action to defend its interests when any foreign nation isn't playing by the rules or refuses to police itself," said Grassley. "But farmers and ranchers shouldn't be expected to bear the brunt of retaliation for the entire country."

Tough trade talk could be a "healthy shock to the global trading system" that makes China shape up and stop abusing the system for its own economic advantage, says Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Behind all the bluster, this may be the goal that the Trump administration is pursuing. But Trump has so far been unclear about what it is he hopes to achieve—and while his inattention to policy details have has caused problems in the past, the stakes have never been as high as they are now. That's exactly why Congress should be pressing the White House to limit tariffs, or at the very least to make it clear what terms they would accept from China to deescalate the pending trade war.

"Other than broad complaints about a series of longstanding Chinese practices such as intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers, the administration has not issued any clear demands," says Alden. "It is vital that Trump officials communicate their goals and intentions clearly and provide a path to a resolution. Otherwise, there is a serious danger that events could spiral out of control."

Even with clear goals and intentions, Trump's tariffs chart a dangerous course for the economy. Congressional action on trade does not have to constitute a direct confrontation with the White House, but if Trump is going to lead the country down this reckless path, it is imperative for congressional leaders like McConnell and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) to exert whatever power than can to limit the damage. Even if there is not consensus on what to do—and there very well may not be a majority in either chamber willing to fight the White House on trade—it is important to make the effort.

Certainly, it requires more than having the most powerful man in the Senate wringing his hands together and muttering about how "nervous" a trade war makes him feel.

The tariffs proposed by Trump already cover about $100 billion out of a $650 billion annual trade relationship. More retaliation from China and another $100 billion in American-imposed tariffs, as Trump suggested this week, would surely represent a point of no return.

"That would kill both economies," says Ikenson. "It would kill the global economy. It really would be bad news."

Photo Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tony||

    Was it Icahn who planted this stuff in Trump's brain? It wasn't his current or former economic advisor. And is Icahn actually a principled protectionist, or was he just in it for the insider trading? It would be kind of a classic move.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    It looks like we got ourselves a nice race set up between the Tortoise and the Hair.

  • DenverJ||

    Nice

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Trump doesn't seem to care that his tariffs will flout WTO rules, "

    What percentage of Americans care?

  • BYODB||

    And what exactly is the punishment if we tell China to pound sand?

  • Don't look at me.||

    A stern letter of warnings.

  • Tony||

    Well they could stop selling us rare earth metals.

    We depend on them even for our war machine.

  • BYODB||

    Which, if true, is a great argument not to do that. It's only true at the moment because it makes more sense to use theirs instead of mining our own. Of course, they're getting theirs from Africa (partially, at least) so it should get interesting when China starts to take over the dark continent.

  • Tony||

    Sorry, what would be the purpose of disrupting that supply chain, even temporarily? What's the purpose of any of this? Isn't it just another Trump psychodrama?

  • BYODB||

    I doubt it will even be disrupted, but even if it is worst case scenario we mine the same stuff here in the U.S. that we already know the location of. It might be a reason to actually relax the standards that have made U.S. mining prohibitively expensive, but I'm sure the government will just subsidize the shit out of it.

  • BYODB||

    Mitch is definitely too turtle-y for the Turtle Club.


    I seriously hope Mr. McConnell takes a very long walk down an exceptionally short pier.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Anything that strips power from the president's office a good thing.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Timing is a factor for other reasons too. Republican lawmakers that could face Trump-backed primary opponents are unlikely to want to break openly with the White House on trade. As spring turns to summer and primary season passes, that's less of a concern."

    That's not my interpretation.

    I've shown the stats here many times before. The statistical median (since 1910) says Trump's party should lose 24 seats in the House come his first midterm in November. The average is -31.

    If House Republicans have any chance of bucking that trend, it will be because they appeal to the same former Democrat, white, blue collar, middle class voters, especially in the Midwest who turned out for Trump--not just in the general election but the primaries, too. Those people voted for Trump partially because they were sick of progressives elitists who run the Democratic party being contemptuous of them, but they also responded to Trump's positions on immigration and trade.

    In other words, Trump standing up to China is a winner with the swing vote in swing states, so don't look for the House to stick their necks out for free trade.

  • Tony||

    I can't wait to see your post following Trump's shooting of someone on 5th Avenue.

    Have you ever considered that Trump's base voters are actually a self-selected group of the most odious people in America? They backed a pedophile for senate and are now backing a guy who was imprisoned for getting 29 coal miners killed. The entire movement has devolved into sheer maliciousness at this point. Why defend their motivations or pretend that this is some kind of multi-dimensional chess instead of thedangerous whims of an insane person?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Has it occurred to you that denigrating the swing vote in swing states is no way to win a national election?

    If you and your ilk keep denigrating the white, blue collar, middle class in the Midwest as deplorables, you're gonna send Trump back to the White House for sure.

    Better figure it out.

  • Tony||

    Swing voters are swung away from Trump in case you hadn't noticed. And it remains a big lie that Trump was the pied piper to struggling working class people. The average wage of his voters was higher than his opponent's, and 2/3 of his voters are in the top 50%.

  • BYODB||

    Based on your opinion, of course.

  • Tony||

    Those are numbers bud.

  • BYODB||

    Yes, specifically very rough numbers without citation. You'd need to be retarded not to notice that formerly blue bastions are being told to fuck off by the Democrat party.

  • Tony||

  • BYODB||

    See, when you cite things you provide an argument. Maybe you can be taught.

    Among people who said they voted for Trump in the general election, 35 percent had household incomes under $50,000 per year (the figure was also 35 percent among non-Hispanic whites), almost exactly the percentage in NBC's March 2016 survey. Trump's voters weren't overwhelmingly poor.

    So, what you're saying here is that blue state union workers make less than $50,000 a year? That is shocking considering to my knowledge Union workers generally make $55,000 or more on average.

    If you and your ilk keep denigrating the white, blue collar, middle class in the Midwest as deplorables, you're gonna send Trump back to the White House for sure.

    Gee wilikers, I guess when Ken says 'middle class' what you thought he said was 'the poor in America' but, sadly, you failed to understand what was being said. Again. You retard.

    The average wage of his voters was higher than his opponent's...

    Way to prove Ken's point for him, but nice try.

  • Tony||

    So why should I care more about people who are doing fine to the exclusion of all else?

    And the emphasis is on white.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I've shown the stats here many times before. The statistical median (since 1910) says Trump's party should lose 24 seats in the House come his first midterm in November. The average is -31."

    ----Ken Shultz

    Tony is so far out of it, he doesn't know who's arguing what. He's just arguing with voices in his head at this point--and imagining they're come from whomever is standing in front of him at the time.

    For everybody else, yeah, The Republicans are likely to lose the House come November. That's why they'll be reluctant to stick their necks out for free trade. The swing vote in swing states likes Trump going after China, and the Republicans only hope is appeal to them.

    Markets are smarter than the people who participate in them. If and when the worst of the trade war hits Americans in the pocketbook, there will be plenty of people who vote against Trump because their paychecks don't stretch like they used to--but praise Trump for standing up to the Chinese. That's just the way people are.

  • Tony||

    Utter psychobabble. Nobody cares about standing up to Gyna except to the extent Trump told them to care about it. Once they realize this is actually an unhinged and desperate move opposed by almost literally everyone and destined to harm their pocketbooks, what reason would they have to support it? Stupidity?

    Of course they were about to dump him anyway over the omnibus, which is conveniently out of the headlines.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's one of life's great ironies that people who don't believe in or understand markets participate in them as if they do.

    Market forces are people making choices, and price signals make people behave as if they're far smarter than they are.

    It seems so miraculous sometimes. It's the same kinds of choices we see in nature and evolution. It's hard to even describe this kind of market intelligence without making it sound supernatural.

    Watch a a nature documentary, and they'll talk about why the geese fly south for the winter, but they're not really talking about "why". They're talking about "how". The geese don't know anything about the seasons, weather, climate, navigation, or much of anything else. They're just responding to the evolutionary equivalent of price signals.

    Physiology has the same problem. They'll talk about why the certain organs behave in certain ways, but those organs have no consciousness of their own. Hemoglobin doesn't bind with iron so it can distribute oxygen to the cells. It's a relationship that's worked out over epochs in response to the evolutionary equivalent of market constraints and market forces.

    Geese, RBC's, Tony--they don't comprehend shit. But they all participate in markets as if they understand it. Markets make these people behave as if they were smarter than they are.

  • Tony||

    You're literally describing yourself as a market worshiper.

    Outcomes that are, shall we say, suboptimal happen in markets, same as in evolution, all the time. Your worldview is selection bias par excellence. Only notice the good outcomes and ignore all the death and destruction it took to get there!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I was talking about you, Tony.

    I was noticing that despite how out of it you are, markets even make you look smart.

    Even you!

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Tony,

    You're literally describing yourself as a market worshiper.


    A silly a term as calling you a Gravity worshipper because you tell the old lady she's going to fall if she's not careful.

    The Market is the result of people freely acting upon their choices. In other words, it is an inevitable phenomenon as people engaging in speech, making friends, etc.

    Only notice the good outcomes and ignore all the death and destruction it took to get there!


    You have an incredibly distorted view of markets. So far the main causes of most death and destruction in this world have been disease, government and bad weather. Markets are driven by mutually-beneficial trades. Exactly how that can cause death and destruction is something you have failed to explain time and time again, always pointing out to things that have nothing to do with exchange, trade or productive efforts but with government, tragedy of the commons or simply evil people doing evil things.

  • Tony||

    Defining a market is not the same as describing how its outcomes are always optimal for people.

    Creative destruction happens in evolution same as markets. People lose jobs, industries disappear, rich people starve, people go nuts for tulips for no reason. It's simply inadequate and Panglossian to say that all the outcomes of a free market are by definition the most desirable.

    You have to go deeper and ask what actually matters to humans, and if markets don't address all of those things, and they don't because, as I said, there are lots of losers in markets, then that's what we have other institutions for.

  • livelikearefugee||

    I am a market worshipper.

    It's democracy in it's purest form - whoever gives the customer what he wants gets the customer's money.

    Don't give the customer what he wants - don't get his money.

    It's pure arrogance ( or dishonesty) to suggest that the customer is not acting in his own rational self interest. How do you know that he isn't? The evidence that he is that HE'S PUTTING UP HIS OWN DAMN MONEY.

    Markets work until they are interfered with by outside forces - usually, but not always, governments, in the guise of working for the public's best interest or the greater good. Which really means distorting the market to favor politically connected cronies or naked self interest. Or, ask Kevin D. Williamson describes it "Fuck you, pay me."

    So, when ever someone says we need to sacrifice in the short term it for the greater good good in the long term (such as Il Duce Trump's tariffs), reach for the KY jelly.

  • Tony||

    Democracy is one person one vote. Almost the complete opposite of a market. And there is no such thing as a market without a government to make the rules that literally *are* the market.

  • TLBD||

    Outcomes that are, shall we say, suboptimal happen in markets, same as in evolution, all the time. Your worldview is selection bias par excellence. Only notice the good outcomes and ignore all the death and destruction it took to get there!

    You slam Ken for being a market worshiper, then advocate for intelligent design of markets.

    You still don't understand the information problem, do you?

    You are one unique combination of stupidity and hubris.

  • BYODB||

    Ken is way more savvy than you are. Your responses to him are the mental equivalent of a monkey hurling their own offal at passersby. Even when he's wrong he's smarter than you.

    Have you ever considered that Trump's base voters are actually a self-selected group of the most odious people in America?

    And, as we all know, making that explicit claim helped Hillary win the White House. I guess the next suggestion is perhaps all those people should be placed into camps?

  • Tony||

    They should be defeated in elections before they destroy the country.

  • BYODB||

    Based on your opinion, of course.

  • Tony||

    Fair enough.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Ken Shultz,

    In other words, Trump standing up to China is a winner with the swing vote in swing states, so don't look for the House to stick their necks out for free trade.


    That's actually an indictment on the voters' lack of perspective, not a praise of their wisdom.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm aware of that.

    I wasn't saying it was a good thing.

    I was just saying it was.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We seem to have entered a world of discourse in which telling each other noble lies is the default assumption.

    I guess we're not supposed to notice things we don't like anymore.

    But I still do!

  • livelikearefugee||

    It's either an indictment of their ignorance or their perception that some how they can benefit at someone else's expense. Benefitting at someone else's expense is rational.

  • Tony||

    And you could hardly do better summing up the Republican party's core message about almost everything. Liberals get accused of thinking economies result in zero-sum situations, but Republicans always have an "other" who's trying to ruin salt-of-the-earth factory workers and casino moguls. Mexicans, blacks, Gyna, trans children, children whose school was shot up, etc., etc.

  • TLBD||

    In economics there is generally always someone trying to screw someone else over. That the Republicans get the who wrong so often is definitely shitty, but it is no comparison to thinking that economics in general are bad, as the Democrats do.

  • Jerryskids||

    Way to be a team player there, Mitch. Let China know that you ain't got the President's back. They're sure to fold their hand quickly now.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Other than broad complaints about a series of longstanding Chinese practices such as intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers, the administration has not issued any clear demands," says Alden."

    There's a fat kid in North Korea, and the Trump administration has been quite demanding in regards to his behavior.

    Last I heard, there is a summit scheduled between Trump and and the fat kid in May. Has that been cancelled?

  • Tony||

    The quote is correct. I just sat there and watched Huckleberry make sure we all know that she just learned about the IP thing and they're totally on it. What that has to do with steel, you'd have to ask her.

    And I'd wager some good money that the meeting never takes place.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I have no idea what you're talking about.

    You've become about as unhinged as Hihn.

  • BYODB||

    C'mon Ken, you know the proper term is unhihnged.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In all seriousness, not that this is 3-D chess, just leverage--carrot and whip.

    China's support of North Korea was always a counterweight to America's support for Taiwan. American support for Taiwan isn't what it used to be--most people have come to terms with the idea that Taiwan will eventually go the way of Hong Kong.

    If China wanted to dangle anything in front of Trump and Trump wanted to demand anything of China, the thing that breaks free is China's support for North Korea. I'm not sure that's helping anybody at this point. China understands giving Trump something to save face. China can take credit of avoiding the trade war.

    Maybe that's just me hoping for the best. I'd love to see the whole trade war go away--along with North Korea's ICBM and nuclear programs. And we really shouldn't ignore the fact that there is a summit scheduled for next month. Why wouldn't that be in the mix? Why wouldn't that be a topic of conversation between the U.S. and China?

  • BYODB||

    What you say here is indeed the conventional wisdom of what's going on, and I think most people are too busy clutching their pearls to notice.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "American support for Taiwan isn't what it used to be--most people have come to terms with the idea that Taiwan will eventually go the way of Hong Kong."

    1) If you are ok with this then that is disappointing. Surrendering capitalist, functioning democracies that have long allied with the USA to authoritarians is morally wrong and makes the West appear weak. Taiwan should have a vote on their future.
    2) In my opinion you are misreading the situation. China has few levers over NK anyways barring invasion or regime collapse.
    Trump wants to stick it to China because they have a big trade surplus and they are assholes. Frankly it's past due someone told China to fuck off.

  • Christophe||

    American support for Taiwan isn't what it used to be--most people have come to terms with the idea that Taiwan will eventually go the way of Hong Kong.

    Fuck that. Let China prove that they can reintegrate Honk Kong without destroying it, then maybe Taiwan will be interested.

    China just lifted Pooh Bear's term limits, started banning "I don't agree" and "emigration" in web searches and social media, and they've stalled out on market reforms. They're not even moving in a reasonable direction.

    It's one thing for Hong Kong to be returned in keeping with a longstanding legal agreement, it's another one for a de-facto independent country that never agreed to be merged into the PRC to be thrown to the wolves.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Most Taiwanese haven't come to terms with that. And never will.

  • Tony||

    Everyone in the Huckleberry family is Huckleberry to me. I know them. They used to send some of their obese spawn to the same summer camp I went to.

    Is Kim aware that he has a meeting planned with Trump yet?

  • DenverJ||

    Progressives love to talk about women's rights and wisdom and how women should be respected. Unless, of course, that woman is a conservative- then they make fun of said woman. I find the hypocrisy offsetting.

  • Tony||

    When did I make fun of a woman for her womanness?

  • Tony||

    Huckleberry is actually quite svelte compared to your average Huckleberry.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Ken Shultz,

    There's a fat kid in North Korea, and the Trump administration has been quite demanding in regards to his behavior.


    And so the American consumer must pay dearly for that. Because.... Making America Grating Again!

    Logic, folks. Logic.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Again, because I don't approve of something doesn't mean that isn't the way it is.

    Am I supposed to not notice that there's an ongoing negotiation over North Korea's nuclear program--because I don't want to see trade policy held hostage to that?

    The world is full of things I disapprove of. They're still there whether I like them or not.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Hmm yes geopolitics do not exist.

    Have fun in your commie future, comrade. Hail to our Great Leader Xi!

  • Eidde||

    1) With a law

    2) Too much responsibility

  • SIV||

    MAGA bitchez

  • Tony||

    See, this kind of complete letting go is the most respectable form of Trump support. No pathetic excuses, no "but Gorsuch!" Just pure, unthinking support and unbridled insanity. You sir are a true patriot.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Punishing the American consumer isn't my idea of America first.

  • DenverJ||

    Huh. Who could've known that Congress giving away its power to the Executive would result in an imperial presidency taking unwelcome actions? If only somebody had warned them.

  • esteve7||

    TL/DR: Congress should do it's fucking job and stop giving all this power to the executive branch

  • Hank Phillips||

    Why are all tariffs horrible and bad? What have revenue or protective tariffs done that compares to the communist manifesto income tax the looter parties promised would replace those tariffs? To alter or collect tariffs politicians have to wade into a beehive of highly-paid backstabbing character assassins. To collect the capitation tax they send armed goons to your bank, drive off in your car and sell your home from under you. Why is tariff tax baaad, income tax goood?

  • livelikearefugee||

    If tariffs were broadly applied like, say a national sales tax, and were not severe enough to give domestic producers an advantage, they wouldn't be as heinous as what Il Duce Trump is proposing.

    But, they are always applied selectively and that's where the favoritism and crony capitalism sneaks in.

  • Paloma||

    It's not as if they are doing away with income tax. They are just adding on another tax called a tariff. Who pays? Not China. The US consumer pays.

  • DavidS-T||

    What makes Congress' failure to take action here particularly rankling (to me) is that the power to impose tariffs (and other taxes) is actually the *first* of Congress' delegated powers to be mentioned in Article One, Section Eight: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..." Everything else--borrowing money, raising an Army and Navy, coining money, establishing rules for naturalization, etc.--comes later

  • fdog50||

    Will China's tariffs on American goods have a major impact on American agricultural products before the election? If prices fall and farmer's lose sales to china, then I can see midwest states voting against Republicans in the House and Senate in order to push back against Trump.

  • LivHarp||

    What do you think about the trade wars affecting the stock market, came across this article http://snip.ly/u0nn6

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online