SJRES-88-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Ron Wyden (D-OR)
What it does
This joint resolution would terminate the national emergency declared by President Biden on April 2, 2025, in Executive Order 14257, which was used as the legal basis for imposing broad tariffs on imports from countries worldwide. It would invoke Section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), which gives Congress the authority to end a declared national emergency by passing a joint resolution. The termination would take effect on the date the resolution is enacted into law.
Who benefits
U.S. importers of foreign goods who would face lower costs if tariffs are lifted. Domestic retailers and businesses that rely on imported components or finished goods, potentially including manufacturers, electronics companies, and apparel retailers. American consumers who may see lower prices on imported goods. Foreign trading partners and their export industries. Domestic industries that use imported raw materials or intermediate goods as inputs. Economists and trade groups that argue tariffs raise costs across supply chains.
Who is hurt
U.S. industries that compete directly with foreign imports and benefit from tariff protection, such as domestic steel, aluminum, and manufacturing sectors. Workers in those industries who may face increased foreign competition if tariffs are removed. Communities economically dependent on protected industries. Domestic producers who had adjusted business plans or investments in anticipation of continued tariff protection. The executive branch would lose a tool it has used to conduct trade and foreign policy.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the global tariffs imposed under Executive Order 14257 have raised costs for American businesses and consumers, functioning as a broad tax on imports that affects virtually every sector of the economy. They contend that Congress — not the President alone — holds the constitutional authority over tariffs and foreign commerce under Article I, and that using a national emergency declaration to impose sweeping global tariffs stretches emergency powers beyond their intended scope. They further argue that the National Emergencies Act's joint resolution mechanism exists precisely for situations where Congress believes an emergency declaration has exceeded its proper bounds.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the tariffs serve as a legitimate and necessary tool to address unfair trade practices, protect domestic industries, and strengthen U.S. leverage in international negotiations. They contend that the President has broad statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose economic measures during declared national emergencies, and that Congress terminating this emergency would undermine executive flexibility in foreign policy and trade. They further argue that abruptly ending the tariff regime could disrupt ongoing trade negotiations and send an inconsistent signal to trading partners about U.S. resolve.
Constitutional context
The Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, including tariffs. However, Congress has delegated broad emergency economic powers to the President through statutes like IEEPA. The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) explicitly provides Congress a mechanism to terminate declared emergencies by joint resolution, making this resolution a direct exercise of that statutory check. The separation of powers between Congress's commerce authority and the President's Commander-in-Chief and foreign affairs powers is the central constitutional tension here.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to end the tariff regime by passing this resolution; the President retains a veto, meaning a two-thirds override in both chambers would be required if the President vetoes the joint resolution, preserving executive leverage.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used joint resolutions under the National Emergencies Act to attempt to terminate presidential emergency declarations, including resolutions related to the border wall national emergency declared in 2019, though those were vetoed and the vetoes were not overridden.