With tariffs paused, Republicans dodge a fight with Trump
DONALD TRUMP HAS scrambled ideological alliances with his assault on global trade. The Chinese Embassy in Washington recently promoted a 1987 video of Ronald Reagan inveighing against protectionism. Meanwhile, an official White House account circulated a speech by Nancy Pelosi in 1996 criticising trade arrangements with China. Jamieson Greer, Mr Trump’s trade representative, had a rough ride while testifying to the Senate on April 8th. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina senator and one of the most endangered Republican incumbents in his chamber, told Mr Greer that he would give the administration space to test its “novel approach”. Yet he wanted to know: “Whose throat do I get to choke if this proves to be wrong?”
This mix of bravado and helplessness betrays an uncomfortable reality for Republicans on Capitol Hill. Congress has outsourced its constitutional trade authority to the executive branch over decades, but it can reassert that power anytime it wants. Whether lawmakers put an end to the chaos spawned by the “Liberation Day” announcements on April 2nd is solely a matter of political will. Yet the 90-day pause Donald Trump announced on April 9th, delaying most of his so-called reciprocal tariffs—a surprise on the Hill when it came—has halted whatever momentum had been building to take action.
In the days that followed Mr Trump’s April 2nd announcement, Democrats united in opposition. And even Republicans began to murmur dissent. Rand Paul, a libertarian otherwise supportive of the president, was perhaps the most direct, calling Mr Trump’s views of trade fallacious and arguing they were a political loser. Other free-trade-friendly Republicans directed their criticism at Mr Trump’s advisers.
“There are voices in the White House that want high tariffs forever,” Ted Cruz, a Republican senator, said on his podcast. “There are angels and demons sitting on President Trump’s shoulders. Who does he listen to? I hope he listens to the angels.”
The angels, in this telling, would include figures like Kevin Hassett, an economic adviser, and Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary. They are perceived to see Mr Trump’s radical actions as a means to an end—a rough way of renegotiating better deals that ultimately lower trade barriers. But Peter Navarro, a trade adviser, and Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, have a more hardline view that tariffs are an end in themselves—a way to bring back manufacturing jobs and fill America’s treasury. Top Republicans on Capitol Hill, and even within the White House, are never quite sure which camp Mr Trump is in.
While some newer senators are more open to Mr Trump’s protectionist instincts, as a whole Republicans in the upper chamber are privately frustrated by his incoherent trade strategy and contempt for allies. A Congress voting anonymously would almost certainly pass a law to repeal Mr Trump’s tariffs. But senators calculate that quiet nudging gets them further than public scorn.
Lawsuits challenging the legality of Mr Trump’s actions could help resolve the Republican Party’s political problem, but it’s unclear they will succeed. Legislative action is more certain, albeit politically perilous.
Congress could pass resolutions that declare the national emergency Mr Trump announced to justify his tariffs is not, in fact, an emergency. Or, there is a bill from Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, that would require new tariffs to be approved by Congress. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, as well as the more Trumpified House Republican conference, were already inclined to reject such legislation before the 90-day pause. Now they are even more likely to resist. And given that Mr Trump would veto such an encroachment on his power, only a strong bipartisan consensus could stop the president.
The White House has tried to spin sweeping levies as a positive for the Hill Republicans. “One nice side-effect of the tariffs is that they raise revenue,” says Stephen Miran, an adviser to Mr Trump. “If you use revenue raised from taxing foreigners to cut taxes in America, it is an enormous competitiveness improvement.” But Republicans who would like to see such tariffs give way to improve trade deals are unlikely to codify them as long-term revenue, despite the expanded fiscal space that would provide.
As the stockmarket was collapsing, one MAGA influencer waxed poetic, “Losing money means nothing. Digital ones and zeroes. In the end, you won’t miss any of it.” That’s easy to say when one’s audience and livelihood is based on servicing Mr Trump’s fan base, but lawmakers have to face elections in the real world. Republican congressmen think a time may come when inflation and economic pain endanger them enough that breaking with the president is less politically risky than losing their constituents’ faith. The massive market convulsions before Mr Trump backed down weren’t enough.
Mr Greer’s testimony on April 8th had been planned before Liberation Day, but Congress and the administration had known for some time that more aggressive trade action was coming. Mr Tillis and Mr Greer continued their back and forth, with the trade representative telling the senator that ultimately the president was “the final decision maker on all of these things”. Later Mr Tillis, speaking for much of his party in the upper chamber, concluded, “I wish you well, but I am sceptical.”