HR-4666-119
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Jimmy Gomez (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the President from using authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on specified baby clothing items — including garments, accessories, socks, booties, and shoes. It would also require the President to immediately terminate any such tariffs already in effect at the time of enactment. Additionally, the bill would bar the President from using any other authority to impose tariffs on these items that are substantially similar to those imposed under IEEPA.
Who benefits
Parents and caregivers of infants and young children who purchase baby clothing, particularly lower- and middle-income households who spend a higher share of income on such goods. Domestic retailers and importers of baby clothing who would face lower input costs. Foreign manufacturers — primarily in countries like China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Cambodia — whose goods would regain tariff-free or lower-tariff access to the U.S. market. Consumers broadly, if cost reductions are passed through to retail prices.
Who is hurt
Domestic baby clothing manufacturers who currently benefit from tariff protection against lower-cost foreign competition. Workers in U.S. textile and apparel production facilities. The federal government would lose tariff revenue currently collected on these imports. The bill also constrains presidential flexibility to use IEEPA tariffs as a negotiating tool in trade disputes involving countries that export baby clothing.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that baby clothing is a necessity purchased by virtually all American families with young children, and that IEEPA-based tariffs function as a hidden tax on those families — disproportionately burdening lower-income households who spend a larger share of their budgets on infant essentials. They contend that IEEPA was designed for national security emergencies, not routine trade policy, and that using it to impose broad consumer goods tariffs stretches the statute beyond its intended scope, making this bill a necessary correction to executive overreach.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that selectively stripping the President's IEEPA authority for one product category undermines the executive branch's ability to use tariffs as leverage in broader trade negotiations — potentially weakening the U.S. position in ongoing disputes with major trading partners. They contend that Congress, by carving out baby clothing while leaving other goods subject to IEEPA tariffs, creates an arbitrary and easily exploited precedent, and that the appropriate remedy for tariff policy disagreements is comprehensive trade legislation, not piecemeal product exemptions.
Constitutional context
The Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) gives Congress authority to regulate trade with foreign nations, including the power to set tariffs — authority Congress delegated to the President via IEEPA. This bill would partially reclaim that delegated authority for a specific product category. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts independently assess whether executive actions fall within statutory authority, which is relevant to ongoing legal challenges to IEEPA-based tariffs.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority over baby clothing tariff policy by restricting the President's IEEPA discretion; the executive branch loses flexibility in this narrow product area, with no override mechanism provided in the bill.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously passed product-specific tariff exclusion legislation, such as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act of 2018, which suspended duties on hundreds of imported goods not produced domestically in sufficient quantities.