Congress moves to strip emergency tariff power from the President

What it does

This bill amends the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to explicitly prohibit the President from using emergency economic powers to impose tariffs, tariff-rate quotas, or import quotas on goods entering the U.S. Currently, the President can invoke emergency economic powers to restrict trade; this bill strips that specific authority away, requiring the President to use other legal channels (like Section 232 or 301 authorities) if he wants to impose tariffs during a declared emergency.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core function is to narrow the President's statutory authority by carving out a specific power (tariff imposition) from an existing emergency statute. It is a restraint on executive discretion, not a grant of new authority or a subsidy.

What the text implies

• The bill does not affect the President's tariff authority under Section 232 (national security), Section 301 (trade retaliation), or other non-IEEPA statutes — those remain untouched and may be used to impose tariffs without emergency declaration.
• If a genuine economic emergency (financial crisis, supply-chain collapse) requires rapid trade response, the President would need to seek congressional authorization or rely on alternative statutory authorities, potentially slowing response time.
• The bill creates a bright-line rule but does not address whether the President could use IEEPA for other economic measures (asset freezes, sanctions, capital controls) that have tariff-like effects on trade.

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

Who it affects

Restricting presidential emergency tariff power protects consumers and importers from sudden trade shocks and preserves congressional oversight of trade policy (a democratic accountability gain). However, it also constrains the President's ability to respond to genuine national-security or economic emergencies with rapid trade measures, which some argue is a legitimate executive tool. The trade-off is real: more predictability and democratic control versus less executive flexibility in crisis.

Who stands to gain

• import-dependent retailers and manufacturers
• consumer goods importers
• industries reliant on supply-chain stability

Named in the bill

President of the United States, International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Section 203 of IEEPA, House Committee on Ways and Means, Congress

Where it stands

75 cosponsors: 75 Democrats.

• Jan 15, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 15, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means and House Committee on Foreign Affairs · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a…”

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

Money around this bill

5 lobbying clients named this bill on 6 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Sep 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $7,050,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 61 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 78% of bills with at least one filing.

Suzan DelBene, the sponsor, reported $1,632,799 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $2,500 of that came from 1 PAC tied to these lobbying clients.

• Fedex Corporation — $2,930,000 on 1 filing
• Entertainment Software Association — $2,810,000 on 2 filings
• AFL-CIO — $760,000 on 1 filing
• United Steel Paper & Forestry Rubber Manufacturing Energy — $520,000 on 1 filing
• 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.