Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
This resolution, if enacted, would end a specific national emergency declared by the President on April 2, 2025 in Executive Order 14257. Ending that emergency would remove the special legal authorities the President was relying on to impose the global tariffs tied to the emergency. The joint resolution must be passed by both the House and the Senate and become law to have effect. If the President vetoes it, Congress could only overturn the veto by the required supermajority votes.
As a joint resolution, it requires approval by both chambers of Congress and presentment to the President; the President can sign or veto it. If signed into law, the national emergency is terminated on the date of enactment.
This joint resolution would terminate the national emergency declared on April 2, 2025 by Executive Order 14257, the order that invoked emergency authority to impose global tariffs.
It invokes section 202 of the National Emergencies Act to end that emergency effective on enactment.
The resolution does not itself modify the tariffs' statutory authority beyond ending the emergency declaration.
Narrow, administratively simple measure but touches contentious trade and executive-power politics; presidential veto risk and Senate supermajority requirements make enactment unlikely absent broad consensus.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted and precisely worded substantive measure that accomplishes a single legal change—terminating a named national emergency—by explicitly invoking the relevant provision of the National Emergencies Act and specifying effectiveness upon enactment.
Progressives stress restoring congressional oversight; conservatives emphasize loss of leverage.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress restoring congressional oversight; conservatives emphasize loss of leverage.
Likely supportive because ending an emergency declaration restores normal congressional oversight and limits executive overreach.
Support would depend on how tariffs affected workers and whether Congress pursues targeted trade remedies.
Mixed but cautiously favorable if termination is paired with clear transition and alternative measures.
Concerned about abrupt economic impacts and prefer legislative replacement or phased removal.
Likely opposed because the emergency tariffs are viewed as leverage to protect national security and U.S. manufacturing.
Termination is seen as limiting executive flexibility against unfair trade.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administratively simple measure but touches contentious trade and executive-power politics; presidential veto risk and Senate supermajority requirements make enactment unlikely absent broad consensus.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress restoring congressional oversight; conservatives emphasize loss of leverage.
Narrow, administratively simple measure but touches contentious trade and executive-power politics; presidential veto risk and Senate super…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted and precisely worded substantive measure that accomplishes a single legal change—terminating a named national emergency—by explicitly invoking…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.