Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill repeals Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, eliminating the statutory authority for the President to impose import surcharges to address balance-of-payments deficits.
Progressives stress consumer price and executive power limits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive change that is legally precise in mechanism but minimal in supporting detail.
This bill repeals Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, eliminating the statutory authority for the President to impose import surcharges to address balance-of-payments deficits.
Narrow, administratively simple repeal aids prospects, but contested by stakeholders and requires Senate buy-in; lacks built-in compromises.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive change that is legally precise in mechanism but minimal in supporting detail.
Progressives stress consumer price and executive power limits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress consumer price and executive power limits
Likely supportive because the bill removes a broad unilateral presidential tariff tool that can raise consumer prices and be used without congressional approval.
They may worry about lost leverage to protect jobs, but view congressional control and regulatory tools as preferable.
Mixed; appreciates limiting executive unilateral power but recognizes repeal removes a macroeconomic tool.
Will weigh need for clear alternatives, oversight, and predictable rules before endorsing.
Likely opposed because the bill removes a presidential tool to protect domestic interests and respond to international imbalances; worries about ceding flexibility and weakening U.S. negotiating posture.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administratively simple repeal aids prospects, but contested by stakeholders and requires Senate buy-in; lacks built-in compromises.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress consumer price and executive power limits
Narrow, administratively simple repeal aids prospects, but contested by stakeholders and requires Senate buy-in; lacks built-in compromises.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive change that is legally precise in mechanism but minimal in supporting detail.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.