HR-2873-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA)
What it does
This bill would permanently preserve Executive Order 14220, signed February 25, 2025, which directed a national security investigation into copper imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. It would also lock in place any regulations or agency actions taken pursuant to that order. Without this bill, the executive order could be revoked by the President at any time; the bill would make it a statutory requirement that the order and its resulting actions remain in effect.
Who benefits
Domestic copper miners and smelters who may gain protection from foreign competition if the investigation leads to tariffs. U.S. copper fabricators and manufacturers who source domestically and would benefit from a more stable domestic supply. Workers in the U.S. copper mining and processing industry, concentrated in states like Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Montana. Defense contractors and the U.S. military, which rely on copper for weapons systems, electronics, and infrastructure, and who may benefit from a more secure domestic supply chain.
Who is hurt
U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported copper — including electronics, construction, plumbing, and electric vehicle producers — who could face higher input costs if the investigation results in tariffs. Consumers who may see higher prices for copper-intensive goods such as appliances, wiring, and vehicles. Trading partners that export copper to the U.S., particularly Chile, Canada, and Mexico, who could face reduced market access. Downstream industries employing far more workers than the mining sector itself, who could be exposed to cost increases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that copper is a foundational material for national defense, electric grid infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing, and that U.S. dependence on foreign copper — particularly from geopolitically sensitive sources — poses a genuine security risk. They contend that codifying the executive order into statute prevents a future administration from quietly reversing the investigation before it can produce protective measures, ensuring continuity of a policy designed to safeguard critical supply chains.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that converting an executive order into permanent statute removes the executive branch's flexibility to adjust trade policy as geopolitical and market conditions change, and that locking in an open-ended investigation without defined outcomes or sunset provisions creates regulatory uncertainty for industries that depend on copper imports. They contend that Section 232 actions have historically been used to impose broad tariffs — as with steel and aluminum in 2018 — and that permanently entrenching this order could raise costs across the entire U.S. manufacturing sector without a clear, proportionate national security benefit.
Constitutional context
The Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) grants Congress authority to regulate international trade, and Congress has delegated significant trade authority to the President through statutes like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This bill exercises Congress's power to codify and preserve an executive action, effectively converting a revocable presidential order into a statutory mandate — a reversal of the typical direction of delegation. No active Supreme Court case directly governs this specific mechanism, though the scope of Section 232 presidential trade authority has been contested in lower courts.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority by locking in the executive order as a statutory requirement, reducing the President's ability to unilaterally revoke it; the executive branch retains implementation discretion, and courts could review any resulting agency regulations for compliance with the Trade Expansion Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Historical precedent
Congress similarly codified Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs in various legislative proposals following the 2018 executive actions, though none were enacted; the underlying Section 232 mechanism was upheld in American Institute for International Steel v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2019).