Congress moves to reclaim trade authority from the White House

What it does

This bill repeals Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which currently authorizes the President to impose temporary import surcharges when the U.S. faces a balance-of-payments deficit. Repealing this authority removes a tool the President can use unilaterally to restrict imports without congressional approval, shifting trade-policy power back toward Congress.

Why we flagged it

The bill's sole operative mechanism is the repeal of a specific presidential trade authority. It is a straightforward constitutional-power reallocation, not a subsidy, carve-out, or deregulation — it constrains executive discretion in trade policy.

What the text implies

• Repealing Section 122 removes a dormant but available tool for addressing acute trade deficits without congressional delay — future administrations cannot use it even in balance-of-payments crises.
• The bill does not restrict the President's other trade authorities (Section 301 of the Trade Act, national-security tariffs under Section 232, etc.), so executive trade power is constrained but not eliminated.
• Congress would need to pass new legislation to authorize any import surcharges in response to balance-of-payments deficits, slowing response time but increasing democratic deliberation.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Removing unilateral presidential trade authority is a democratic accountability gain — Congress regains its constitutional role in trade policy. However, the bill also eliminates a tool that could be used to address trade imbalances or protect domestic industries, which some citizens may view as beneficial. The net civic effect depends on whether one values legislative oversight over executive flexibility in trade emergencies.

Named in the bill

Trade Act of 1974, Section 122, U.S. President, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means

Where it stands

21 cosponsors: 21 Democrats.

• Mar 27, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Mar 27, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

4 lobbying clients named this bill on 4 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $522,577 in lobbying spend. A filing names 12 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 72% of bills with at least one filing.

Jimmy Panetta, the sponsor, reported $1,676,556 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute — $292,577 on 1 filing
• Samsung Sdi America, Inc. — $170,000 on 1 filing
• Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (ahri) — $30,000 on 1 filing
• National Taxpayers Union — $30,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 22, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.