Is Rand Paul’s bill the last chance to limit Trump’s tariff powers?

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to impose massive new tariffs on goods imported into the United States. tax increase it could cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

If Congress doesn’t act soon, Trump may be able to do all this without a single vote from the country’s elected representatives.

Opponents of Trump’s tariff plans, including business groups and trade associations whose members will hit those higher costs— view the upcoming failed session of Congress as perhaps the last and best hope for wresting some tariff powers from the chief executive. With a slim Democratic majority in the Senate and President Joe Biden in the White House until January, there is at least a slim hope that lawmakers can restore some of the balance of power on trade policy.

“President-elect Trump’s aggressive tariff proposals, including across-the-board tariff increases on our closest allies, will have significant economic and foreign policy consequences, including higher prices for consumers and businesses, potential trade wars and supply chain disruptions,” Ed Brzytva, Vice President of International Trade Association of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), said: Cause by email. Previously STA rated that Trump’s tariffs could add up to 40 percent to the starting price of game consoles, as well as increase the prices of goods such as smartphones, laptops and televisions.

“To prevent such consequences, Congress should immediately consider and pass the Anti-Taxation Without Representation Act,” Brzhitva wrote.

This billsponsored by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), would require congressional consent before the President could impose new tariffs. Introducing the bill in September, Paul said it would restore “a fundamental principle of American governance” by ensuring that Congress would approve new taxes.

“The executive branch’s unchecked actions imposing tariffs tax our citizens, threaten our economy, raise the prices of everyday goods, and destroy the system of checks and balances that our founders so carefully created,” Paul said in a statement. statement.

Proponents of the measure say that in addition to restoring the balance of power in trade policy, it would promote economic stability by preventing sharp fluctuations in tariffs at the whim of the president.

Brian Riley, director of the Free Trade Project at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, a nonprofit organization that opposes tariffs. calls Paul’s proposal “the most important bill” Congress could consider during the unsuccessful session. It may seem unlikely that the House Republican majority would support a proposal to limit Trump’s trade powers, but Riley argues that failure to do so could be a short-sighted mistake.

“Today, 81 of the 100 largest agricultural congressional districts are represented by Republicans,” he said. writes. “Many of these representatives worked to pass the Farm Bill. The benefits of the new farm bill are small compared to the potential costs of a new trade war.”

Indeed, the costs of Trump’s trade policies have fallen directly. about American farmers during his first term, as tariffs raised the prices of farm equipment and other needed goods and retaliatory measures from other countries hurt agricultural exports. Trump eased some of the pain by inviting taxpayers save the farmersbut lawmakers included a provision in this year’s farm bill ban another bailout.

If Congress doesn’t block Trump’s tariffs, there’s a chance the courts could get involved. Jennifer Hillman, professor at Georgetown Law Center, tells NBC News said it could be “problematic” for Trump to impose broad tariffs on all imports without congressional authorization, since most laws delegating those powers to the executive branch require more specific actions related to certain products or imports from certain countries.

Some recent Supreme Court rulings covering “fundamental questions doctrine“—a theory of constitutional law that holds that Congress must expressly authorize executive action on matters of great “economic and political significance” may also be a factor. This theory was at the center of Supreme Court decisions that blocked Biden’s student loan forgiveness scheme And put an end to To Chevron respect. This could also be a stumbling block for Trump’s tariffs.

However, Congress would be better off taking an active role rather than waiting for the courts to intervene. The Constitution and common sense say that the executive branch should not be able to impose huge tax increases on American consumers and businesses without the consent of Congress. The next few weeks may be the last chance to see if this is still true.