Congress reasserts control over tariff power, requiring approval before duties on farm imports.
H.R. 2842 — Stop Raising Prices on Food Act · Filed by Adam Gray (D-CA) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Apr 10, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires the President to get Congressional approval before imposing new tariffs on agricultural imports from the five countries that sell the most farm products to the U.S. (treating the EU as one country). The President must submit a detailed request explaining the tariff's purpose, why diplomacy won't work, and its impact on American agriculture, and Congress must pass a joint resolution authorizing it within 15 legislative days or the tariff cannot proceed.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core function is to constrain executive tariff authority by requiring Congressional approval for duties on major agricultural trading partners. It is a procedural/structural check on presidential power, not a substantive trade policy or price-control measure.
What the text implies
- The 15-legislative-day window for Congressional action is tight; if Congress does not act, the tariff is blocked by default, effectively giving Congress a veto over tariffs rather than requiring affirmative approval.
- The bill applies only to 'covered duties' under four specific statutes (§232, §338, Trading with the Enemy Act, IEEPA); tariffs under other authorities (e.g., Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, used in recent China tariffs) are not constrained.
- The EU is treated as a single country for purposes of the 'top 5' determination, which may exclude individual EU members from the restriction if the EU as a bloc ranks in the top 5 but individual members do not.
- The bill requires the President to assess impact on 'the United States agricultural economy' but does not mandate consideration of impacts on consumers, food prices, or non-agricultural sectors, potentially narrowing the scope of required analysis.
- The joint resolution procedure mirrors expedited procedures under Trade Act §152, which typically allow limited debate and amendment; this may constrain Congressional deliberation on tariff requests.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill shifts tariff authority from the President alone to require Congressional approval, restoring legislative oversight of trade policy. Citizens benefit from transparency (mandatory impact assessments on agriculture) and democratic accountability (Congress must affirmatively authorize tariffs affecting food prices), reducing the risk of unilateral executive action that could raise consumer costs without public debate.
Who stands to gain
- agricultural exporters and farmers in major U.S. trading partners (EU, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Austr
- U.S. agricultural importers and food retailers (reduced tariff risk)
- consumers of imported agricultural products and food
Named in the bill
President of the United States, Congress (House and Senate), European Union, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, Trading with the Enemy Act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Section 152 of the Trade Act of 1974
Where it stands
1 cosponsor: 1 Democrats.
- Apr 10, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Apr 10, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Rules and House Committee on Ways and Means · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $30,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 83 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 0% of bills with at least one filing.
Adam Gray, the sponsor, reported $1,352,141 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- National Taxpayers Union — $30,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (3,368 characters) on Jun 3, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress reasserts control over tariff power, requiring approval before duties on farm imports.” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr2842 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.