Nebraska Lawmaker Advocates for Restoring Tariff Authority to Congress, Challenging Presidential Power

Nebraska Lawmaker Advocates for Restoring Tariff Authority to Congress, Challenging Presidential Power

Republican Representative Don Bacon from Nebraska has expressed concerns regarding the delegation of tariff authority to the presidency. He believes that Congress has erred by permitting this concentration of power and is advocating for a return to constitutional norms, where tariff decisions originate from the legislative branch.

During an appearance on CNN with host Wolf Blitzer, Bacon stated, “In Article I of the Constitution, really, tariffs should be a Congressional-initiated action. So this should come from Congress.” His remarks highlight a growing sentiment among some lawmakers who seek to reevaluate the distribution of economic power.

Bacon elaborated on his concerns, saying, “However, I think we made a mistake. In the past, we enacted legislation that granted the president temporary tariff authorities. I believe we should reevaluate and restore this power back to Congress.” His comments reflect an ambition to revise the influential role the Executive Branch currently holds in tariff determinations.

Concerns Over Unilateral Authority

The Nebraska lawmaker emphasizes that Congress has allowed presidents from both parties excessive unilateral power concerning tariffs. He argues that this authority should reside squarely within the legislative chambers, specifically the House and Senate. Bacon insists, “Take away the authorizations that we’ve allowed the presidents, not just President Trump, but also President Biden and President Obama before him.” His perspective suggests that restoring Congress’s role in tariff legislation is crucial for maintaining a balanced distribution of power.

Historical Context of Tariff Powers

The current discussion regarding tariff authority cannot be separated from historical legislative actions. In 1962, Congress enacted the Trade Expansion Act, effectively granting the president sole power to lower tariffs on goods priced less than 5 percent. Furthermore, Section 232 of this legislation provided the president significant authority to control imports that could jeopardize national security.

Recent developments have reignited the conversation on tariffs. On Wednesday, President Trump announced a new tariff of 25 percent on all imported automobiles. He claims that these new tariffs will foster growth in the automotive sector as well as create jobs in the United States. This move has sparked considerable debate over its potential economic implications.

Reactions from Political Leaders

In response to Trump’s announcement, Ontario Premier Doug Ford criticized the tariffs, stating they will merely increase costs for American families and put jobs at risk. Ford’s acknowledgment of the potential adverse effects speaks to the broader economic concerns shared by various stakeholders.

Additionally, during a press conference, Trump issued stern warnings to both Canada and the European Union about potential increased tariffs if they collaborate to inflict economic damage on the United States. Such statements indicate that the administration remains assertive in its trade negotiations.

Impact of Recent Tariff Policies

Trump’s 25 percent tariff increase on all foreign steel and aluminum imports, which began on March 12, 2025, has already provoked responses on an international scale. The European Commission announced plans to impose counter tariffs on approximately $28 billion worth of U.S. goods, effective by mid-April. This escalation raises concerns about a potential trade war and its consequences for global trade dynamics.

Negotiation Tactics or Long-Term Policies?

Amidst these developments, Bacon posited that recent tariff announcements might be part of a larger negotiation strategy. He noted, “I think this is maybe part of a negotiation that he’s doing.” According to him, the manufacturing of cars in America heavily relies on parts sourced from abroad, particularly Canada and Europe. He remarked that modern vehicles often consist of components from multiple countries.

Bacon hopes that the tariffs represent a short-term approach rather than a long-lasting policy. He stated, “In the end, tariffs do cost more for the consumers. The consumers will be paying more. I hope these don’t continue long-term. I see them as a negotiating technique. Ultimately, free trade is the best for consumers.” His viewpoint underscores the delicate balance between protective economic measures and the principles of free trade.

Looking Ahead

The ongoing discussions regarding tariff authority and its implications represent significant shifts in U.S. economic policy. Lawmakers, like Bacon, are pushing for a reevaluation of powers that can affect international relationships and domestic economies alike. As Congress considers reasserting its role in tariff legislation, the consequences of such decisions will likely shape the future of trade policy in America.

In summary, the landscape of U.S. tariff authority remains complex and contentious. With challenges to presidential power emerging, Congress might find itself at a crossroads, redefining its role in determining economic policy for years to come. The debate also encourages lawmakers and the public to reflect on the implications of economic authority and its effects on local and global economies.