Foreign Trade Policy in Congress: SCOTUS Ruling Upends Tariff Landscape as Lawmakers Scramble to Respond

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court struck down Trump's IEEPA-based tariffs in a 6-3 ruling, declaring the president exceeded his authority. This is the most significant judicial check on executive trade power in decades, and Congress is now debating how to fill the vacuum.
  • Democrats mounted a coordinated campaign this week spotlighting tariff damage to local businesses, citing rising prices on everything from bulldozers to brewery ingredients. Republicans countered by celebrating new trade deals with Japan and Taiwan and calling for a manufacturing renaissance.
  • Bipartisan legislation to reassert congressional authority over tariffs is gaining momentum, including the Trade Review Act and the Restoring Trade Fairness Act targeting China — while major corporations from Apple to Stanley Black & Decker are spending millions lobbying on the outcome.

The Supreme Court Ruling That Reshapes Tariff Policy in Congress

The week's defining event was the Supreme Court's February 20 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which held 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, reaffirmed that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution vests tariff authority squarely with Congress.

The ruling immediately voided sweeping tariffs that had been imposed on imports from more than 100 countries — tariffs that had become the centerpiece of the administration's foreign trade policy. As CNN reported, the decision represents the most significant judicial rebalancing of trade power between the executive and legislative branches since IEEPA was enacted in 1977.

Congressional reactions broke along predictable lines — but with notable nuance.

House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged the ruling reaffirms Congress's constitutional role, saying Congress and the administration will "determine the best path forward." Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a victory that will "finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve." Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) said the ruling "restores balance between the legislative and executive branches."

But the ruling doesn't eliminate all tariffs. As CNBC reported, tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act — covering steel, aluminum, semiconductors, vehicles, and auto parts — remain in effect. The administration's top trade negotiator, Jamieson Greer, had previously signaled the White House would move to reimpose tariffs under alternative statutory authorities if IEEPA tariffs were struck down. That sets up the next phase of the fight: whether Congress will grant, limit, or reclaim delegated trade powers through new trade agreements legislation.

On the lobbying front, the stakes are enormous. Apple Inc. disclosed $2.84 million in Fourth Quarter 2025 lobbying expenditures, with tariff and non-tariff trade barriers among its top priorities. Stanley Black & Decker spent $950,000 in the same quarter lobbying on Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs and Section 301 China tariffs. Delta Air Lines spent $1.4 million, with international air service rights and tariffs among its disclosed issues.

The National Foreign Trade Council, a leading pro-trade advocacy group, spent $120,000 on lobbying in the Fourth Quarter — a modest sum that belies its outsized influence as a convener of major exporters and multinational corporations pushing for open markets.

Democrats vs. Republicans: The Ground-Level Tariff Debate

While the Supreme Court ruling dominated headlines, the week also saw an intense messaging battle on Capitol Hill over the real-world impact of tariff policy in Congress — with Democrats flooding social media and local press with constituent stories and Republicans pointing to new trade deals as evidence of progress.

The Democratic offensive was methodical. Members fanned out to local businesses in their districts and returned with specific, quotable damage reports.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA-33) toured Warrior Machinery in Rialto, California, and reported: "Trump's reckless tariffs are hurting local businesses and driving up costs for Inland Empire families. Everything that Warrior Machinery sells, from bulldozers to forklifts and tractors, now costs more because of this Trump tax on companies and consumers."

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) zeroed in on Harley-Davidson, calling the iconic company one that is "being slammed by Trump's trade war and is stuck paying costly tariffs."

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC-6) cited New York Federal Reserve research, stating: "A report from the New York Fed finds that 90 percent of the cost of Trump's tariffs is being paid by U.S. businesses and consumers—not foreign countries."

Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY-6) offered specific price data: "Household supplies: +3.8 percent, Furniture and bedding: +4 percent, Dishes and flatware: +5 percent."

Even Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) highlighted an indirect effect — a sharp decline in Canadian tourism to New Hampshire driven by tariff threats, which she said "takes money right out of the pockets of small business owners across NH."

Republicans pushed a different narrative, emphasizing trade wins and manufacturing revival.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) celebrated what he called "ANOTHER historic trade deal secured by @realDonaldTrump" that he said would bring "billions in investment to America which means more good-paying jobs for working Americans and lower energy prices for families across the country."

Rep. Brad Finstad (R-MN-1) announced expanded pork market access to Taiwan: "After more than 15 years of work, U.S. pork producers have secured expanded market access to Taiwan – a major win for agriculture and rural America."

Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI-7) framed the broader argument: "For decades, so-called 'free' trade hasn't been free or fair to American workers. It's time to fight for Wisconsin by bringing back jobs, reshoring manufacturing, and producing more goods Made in America."

One Republican broke ranks. Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE-2) reported: "I've heard from NE02 constituents. Tariffs are NOT popular. While there is tolerance for very selective tariffs against unfair nations, there is not support for broad tariffs against six dozen countries, & tariffs initiated because of personal grievances."

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that the U.S. trade deficit in goods hit a record high in 2025 even as tariffs reshuffled global trade patterns — data that complicates the administration's argument that its US trade enforcement approach is working.

Legislation to Reclaim Congressional Trade Authority Gains Steam

The Supreme Court ruling gave new urgency to bipartisan efforts already underway to reassert Congress's constitutional authority over trade — efforts that touch on trade promotion authority, antidumping trade remedies, and the broader architecture of how America sets tariff rates.

The most prominent vehicle is the Trade Review Act of 2025 (S.1272), modeled after the War Powers Resolution. It would require the president to explain the reasoning and impacts of new tariffs to Congress within 48 hours and would cause all new tariffs to expire after 60 days unless Congress explicitly approves them. The bill was introduced by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), both senior members of the Senate Finance Committee. A companion House bill was introduced by Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX), Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY).

Separately, House Select Committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) continued pushing the Restoring Trade Fairness Act, introduced with Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), which would revoke China's Permanent Normal Trade Relations status and impose tariffs of 35 to 100 percent on Chinese goods depending on national security sensitivity. Moolenaar urged Congress to "quickly pass this legislation" to address China's "predatory trade practices."

Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI-3) introduced the Michigan-Canada Partnership Act to protect cross-border infrastructure and trade, noting: "Canada is Michigan's largest trading partner, and the Gordie Howe International Bridge will strengthen jobs, manufacturing, and economic growth across our region."

And Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX-7) pointed to a recent vote to end presidential tariff authority on Canada as evidence that Congress is beginning to act: "President Trump's reckless tariffs constitute the largest tax increases in our history. By voting to end his authority to impose costly tariffs on Canada, Congress finally took an important step toward reasserting our authority."

The lobbying world is watching closely. The Indian Pharmaceutical Association spent $900,000 in the Fourth Quarter of 2025 advocating for U.S.-India supply chain resiliency. Suntory Global Spirits spent $400,000 on tariff-related issues. Agricultural interests including Growth Energy ($640,000), POET LLC ($710,000), and Bunge North America ($320,000) all disclosed substantial lobbying on trade barriers and customs policy.

No Foreign Trade hearings were scheduled for this week, but the legislative pipeline is now full — and the Supreme Court has given Congress both the mandate and the political cover to act.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article