Passage of House Resolution Opposing Trump Tariffs, Limited Efficacy Amid Revenue Justification and Plan B Safeguards

House Rejects Rule Blocking Anti-Tariff Resolution
Senate Approval and Presidential Veto Power Constrain Practical Effect
Alternative Measures Prepared Under Trade Expansion Act Section 232 and Trade Act Sections 301 and 122

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote as early as this week on a resolution opposing tariff measures imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump. Republican leadership had sought to block consideration of the resolution, but defections within the party enabled the vote to proceed. Even if the defections hold and the resolution passes the House, its substantive impact is projected to remain limited, given the need for Senate approval and the possibility of a presidential veto, alongside the Trump administration’s preparation of alternative statutory mechanisms.

Opening the Path to a House Vote on Tariff Opposition

According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on the 11th (local time), an effort led by House Speaker Mike Johnson (Republican–Louisiana) to block a vote on the anti-tariff resolution failed on the House floor the previous day. The vote concerned a procedural rule that would have barred consideration, through July 31, of any resolution opposing President Trump’s tariff policy. The measure was defeated by a vote of 214 in favor and 217 against. Three Republican representatives—Don Bacon (Nebraska), Kevin Kiley (California), and Thomas Massie (Kentucky)—joined all 214 Democrats in voting against the rule. Republican leadership extended the vote by approximately one hour in an effort to reverse the defections, but all three lawmakers maintained their positions.

The vote, which exposed fissures within Republican ranks over tariffs, has opened the door for Democrats to directly challenge the administration’s trade policy. Political observers indicate that Democrats could move as early as the 12th to bring to a vote a resolution rescinding tariffs on Canada. The Trump administration has asserted that tariffs on Canada are justified by a national emergency tied to fentanyl trafficking, yet fentanyl entering through Canada reportedly accounts for only 0.2% of total inflows. Democrats plan to begin with a resolution targeting Canadian tariffs and subsequently pursue similar votes concerning tariffs on other countries, including Brazil.

Republican efforts to temporarily prohibit tariff-related votes were intended to buy time pending a Supreme Court ruling on the scope of presidential tariff authority. At a press conference on the morning of the 10th, Speaker Johnson argued that “it is logical to allow more time until the judiciary resolves this issue.” Representative Bacon, who voted against the rule, stated that the constitutional authority to impose taxes, including tariffs, rests with Congress. He added that the Republican Party has opposed tariffs since World War II and that his position remains unchanged. Bacon emphasized that tariffs represent a net negative for the economy and constitute a significant tax burden borne by American consumers, manufacturers, and farmers.

Trump Pressures Supreme Court, Warning U.S. Collapse Without Tariffs

Even if the House passes the anti-tariff resolution, it must clear the Senate, and any measure approved by both chambers could still face a presidential veto, rendering practical enforcement unlikely. President Trump has reiterated his longstanding claim that tariffs are not passed on to consumers. On the 13th of last month, he stated that none of the predictions advanced by critics of his tariff policy had materialized, asserting that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that tariffs are borne by foreign intermediaries rather than American consumers.

Pressure on the judiciary has also intensified. In November of last year, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of the legal basis invoked by the Trump administration to justify its tariffs. The central issue concerns whether the president possesses authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping country-specific tariffs. Several justices expressed concern during arguments that presidential authority could be excessively expanded, and Justice Brown Jackson reportedly posed skeptical questions regarding the administration’s rationale. A ruling had initially been expected in January, but no decision has yet been issued.

President Trump and his advisers have underscored the contribution of tariffs to narrowing the U.S. fiscal deficit. According to the U.S. Treasury, tariff revenue totaled $30 billion in January alone, bringing cumulative tariff receipts for fiscal year 2026 to $124 billion, an increase of 304% from the same period in fiscal year 2025. The surge in tariff revenue has coincided with deficit reduction. The January fiscal deficit stood at $95 billion, down 26% year-on-year. On a cumulative basis for fiscal year 2026, the deficit totaled $697 billion, a 17% decline from the same period a year earlier.

On April 2 of last year, President Trump designated the date “Liberation Day” and imposed across-the-board tariffs on all goods and services imported into the United States, supplemented by reciprocal tariffs applied on a country-by-country basis. While the White House has since engaged in negotiations with key trading partners and adjusted certain high tariff rates, the core protectionist framework remains intact. These measures are widely assessed to have generated short-term revenue gains.

Within the White House, officials have warned that an adverse constitutional ruling could require the refund of tariffs already collected, increasing pressure on the Supreme Court. U.S. national debt stands at $38.6 trillion. Net interest payments in January alone amounted to $76 billion, representing the largest expenditure category after Medicare, Social Security, and healthcare spending. On a cumulative fiscal year basis, total interest outlays reached $426.5 billion, up from $392.2 billion during the same period a year earlier. The administration contends that any large-scale tariff refunds would significantly erode recent fiscal improvement.

Immediate Substitution of Tariffs in Event of Legal Defeat

President Trump has also formalized the possibility of substituting tariffs with a “licensing fee” should the Supreme Court curtail his tariff authority. Under this approach, imports would be restricted and subjected to licensing fees designed to replicate the economic effect of tariffs. At a White House press conference on the 21st of last month marking the first anniversary of his second term inauguration, Trump stated that he does not know how the Supreme Court will rule but that the introduction of licensing is permissible, adding that tariffs would in fact be less severe than licensing.

In subsequent remarks, responding to questions about the implications of a Supreme Court ruling against the administration’s tariffs, Trump indicated that he would examine the concept of “licensing” and other alternatives, emphasizing that additional options exist. He characterized the current tariff framework as the most effective, powerful, swift, straightforward, and uncomplicated approach. His comments reaffirmed the administration’s position that while a favorable ruling remains the primary objective, contingency alternatives are fully prepared.

Indeed, the Trump administration has developed a detailed Plan B in anticipation of judicial defeat or legislative resistance. According to the Financial Times (FT), the administration has prepared to rely on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Sections 301 and 122 of the Trade Act as alternative legal foundations for tariff imposition. Section 232 authorizes import restrictions and tariffs when foreign imports are deemed to threaten national security, and has already served as the basis for tariffs on automobiles, steel, and aluminum. Additional tariffs on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and aerospace components remain under consideration.

Section 301 of the Trade Act permits broad retaliatory measures against unfair trade practices by trading partners. The Trump administration has conducted investigations under this authority targeting China, Brazil, and Nicaragua, and further expansion of the list of countries cannot be ruled out. Section 122 authorizes tariffs of up to 15% for a period of up to 150 days against trading partners and was reviewed early last year as a mechanism for reciprocal tariff imposition.

Separately, Section 338 of the Tariff Act could also be invoked. This provision allows the government to impose tariffs of up to 50% immediately against countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. Although rarely used in recent history, it was likewise examined early last year as a reciprocal tariff instrument. Ted Murphy, a lawyer at major U.S. law firm Sidley Austin, stated that no one believes tariffs will disappear; they would simply be imposed under a different authority. He added that if the Supreme Court rules the tariffs unlawful, the Trump administration would reimpose them on the same day.