Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The bill amends the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) to prohibit the President from imposing or increasing duties or creating tariff-rate quotas on imports under that statute. It preserves the President's authority to exclude imports entirely (embargoes) or exclude specific types of articles from particular countries.
Trade-off between limiting executive power and retaining emergency flexibility
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and well-specified statutory modification that clearly limits a particular executive authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by inserting precise prohibitory language into section 203.
The bill amends the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) to prohibit the President from imposing or increasing duties or creating tariff-rate quotas on imports under that statute.
It preserves the President's authority to exclude imports entirely (embargoes) or exclude specific types of articles from particular countries.
Technically simple and narrow but limits a key executive foreign‑policy tool; could pass if bipartisan consensus forms, otherwise faces resistance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and well-specified statutory modification that clearly limits a particular executive authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by inserting precise prohibitory language into section 203.
Trade-off between limiting executive power and retaining emergency flexibility
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Trade-off between limiting executive power and retaining emergency flexibility
Likely supportive overall because it constrains unilateral executive tax-like actions and protects consumers and supply chains.
Some concern may remain about losing a tool to defend workers or industries in emergencies, but the preserved exclusion authority mitigates that worry.
Generally favorable as a separation-of-powers clarification that improves legal certainty.
Wants safeguards so emergency responses to economic coercion aren't unduly hampered and may seek procedural requirements or limited exceptions.
Likely supportive because it restrains executive overreach and protects taxpayers from de facto tax hikes imposed by the President.
Some caution about constraining a national-security tool, but preserved exclusion power reduces that concern.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple and narrow but limits a key executive foreign‑policy tool; could pass if bipartisan consensus forms, otherwise faces resistance.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Trade-off between limiting executive power and retaining emergency flexibility
Technically simple and narrow but limits a key executive foreign‑policy tool; could pass if bipartisan consensus forms, otherwise faces res…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and well-specified statutory modification that clearly limits a particular executive authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by i…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.