It’s perhaps no surprise that Donald Trump, a man who says that “tariff” is the most beautiful word in the English language, is a fan of trade wars. During Trump’s first term, he slapped selective tariffs on steel, aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines. Then as now, China was the country that received the most pressure. In 2019, Trump raised tariffs to 25 percent on about $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, and Beijing quickly retaliated.

This week’s chaotic roller-coaster of a ride, however, makes that era look stable in comparison. Trump’s imposition of a “reciprocal” tariff regime, his walk-back of that very same regime in favor of a near-universal 10 percent duty, and his increase in levies on Chinese goods to 145 percent has the markets and the brains of economists around the world spinning in perpetual motion. Between April 2 and April 8, the S&P 500 lost about 12 percent of its value. Soon thereafter, even the bond markets went into turmoil as investors dumped U.S. treasuries.

Markets and businesses hate chaos and value predictability. So do politicians, most of whom like to play it safe and whose ambition is usually restricted to grandstanding for the cameras during a congressional hearing. Trump’s tariff madness, however, has actually caused some pushback above and beyond the usual press release expressing concern. 

On April 7, two days before Trump announced a 90-day pause on the “reciprocal” tariffs, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill that would reclaim for the legislative branch the right to impose tariffs. Structured similarity to the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the bill would require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any new or increased tariffs and lift them within 60 days unless they are enacted into law. "For too long, Congress has delegated its clear authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce to the executive branch,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, one of the co-sponsors. The White House, not unexpectedly, threatened to veto the bill.

One can debate the merits of the legislation or whether it will even make it to the Senate floor, much less the president’s desk. But in a way, the actual text of the bill is less important than the sentiment behind it: A few high-powered lawmakers are tired of being sidelined and believe the president has grabbed too much power over trade policy. Whether this legislative effort is successful or not, the message it sends to the White House is that Congress is a co-equal branch of government, not some useless institution whose members are there to critique but not legislate. 

Why is this important? Because this is exactly how the framers of the American Republic envisioned the government to work. The president is the commander-in-chief and the chief executive, but he isn’t a king who can write legislation on his own, determine where taxpayer dollars are spent, or send the nation into war without a full, honest, comprehensive deliberation about the consequences for the nation. 

Yet theory isn’t the same as practice. As the years have gone by, the executive branch has indeed become the most powerful one in the federal government. Staffed with cunning lawyers who find creative ways to enhance the president’s authority through appeals to precedent and esoteric interpretations of the Constitution, the executive is adept at broadening its reach at the expense of the legislature. 

Crises only worsen the imbalance. The executive branch is led by only one person—the president—so can respond quickly during an emergency, whereas Congress comprises 535 lawmakers and is a slow-moving, often cumbersome, rules-obsessed body that by design requires consensus and debate. Often, when Congress does pass important legislation, it caters to whatever the executive wants, especially during periods of unified government. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the legislature’s role in perpetuating the steady growth of the national security state in the years following 9/11.

The resistance Trump is confronting on tariffs is therefore more an exception than the rule these days. It’s for that reason why this specific bill is all the more refreshing—not necessarily because tariffs in general are a faulty tool but because Congress may finally be starting to reclaim constitutional authority from the White House. 

Yet one can’t help but see an irony in all of this: Evidently, lawmakers are more interested in checking the president’s power to launch a trade war than they are in checking his power to conduct an actual war. Congress is acting like a grumpy octogenarian who complains to his neighbors about their loud parties but ignores the sounds of a robbery next door. With a few exceptions—Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Mike Lee, Tim Kaine, and Bernie Sanders come to mind—lawmakers seem perfectly content to delegate war-making authority to the president and wash their hands of the matter. After all, it’s better to avoid tough political decisions than stick your neck out and be associated with a conflict that could go badly. 

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

Email Address:

Politically speaking, separating yourself from decisions about war and peace is probably a smart move. No lawmaker has been defeated at the polls for staying away from war-related votes, though they sometimes suffer political consequences for taking an active interest in military matters: Hillary Clinton, in part due to her vocal support for President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, lost to Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic primaries. The lesson from that experience isn’t lost on politicians from right to left, though you might think more of them would at least wonder if vocally opposing unconstitutional wars might bring political benefits.

Moreover, just because ducking responsibility might be the politically savvy thing for lawmakers to do doesn’t mean it serves the country well. In fact, it’s extremely dangerous, since it provides executive-branch lawyers with yet more precedents to bolster their case that presidential war-making is appropriate and legally sound. Before you know it, the American Republic could descend into a de facto monarchy, with one individual determining what’s in the best interests of the nation. Sadly, we might already be there. 

Ideally, the sudden congressional interest in reasserting authority on tariffs would, over time, translate into an equally urgent desire to reclaim war powers. Alas, the ideal likely won’t become reality. But a dreamer can dream.