Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Must Reclaim Its Constitutional Authority Over Trade

Opinion

divided Congress

Capitol Hill

zimmytws/Getty Images

This op-ed is part of a series laying out a cross-partisan vision to restore congressional authority as outlined in Article I of the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances.

Our Founders deliberately placed the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” with Congress for a reason. The legislative branch, closest to the people, was always intended to decide the terms of our economic relationships with the world because trade policy has always been about more than tariffs – it shapes our economy, our diplomacy, and our national security.


Yet Congress has steadily ceded its constitutional role in trade policy to the executive branch over the course of many decades. What was once the responsibility of the People’s Branch has increasingly become the domain of presidents who wield tariffs and trade agreements as instruments of foreign and domestic policy. This imbalance was not created overnight. But the result is a dangerous concentration of power that runs contrary to our constitutional order.

Historically, Congress played the central role in setting tariffs and trade policy. That began to shift in the 20th century when lawmakers began delegating increased negotiating authority to the executive branch. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The Trade Act of 1974 established the Trade Promotion Authority — a statute that allowed for the President to work in tandem with Congress to approve trade agreements. Nonetheless, each of the aforementioned laws gave presidents greater leeway to cut deals or impose restrictions in the name of national security or economic stability. While these moves were intended to provide flexibility, they also blurred constitutional lines.

In recent years, presidents from both parties have increasingly exploited these powers in unilateral and unpredictable ways. Trade wars have been launched without debate, presidents have imposed sweeping tariffs against allies and adversaries alike, and major international agreements have been entered into or abandoned without legislative approval. This is not how our system of checks and balances was meant to function.

The danger is twofold. First, unchecked executive power on trade undermines democratic accountability. When a president can, with the stroke of a pen, raise costs for American farmers, manufacturers, and families, the people’s representatives are sidelined. Second, it erodes the very principle of separated powers that our republic depends on.

Congress has a constitutional duty and responsibility to reassert itself—and the American people agree. In a recent poll released by Issue One, 56 percent of American voters surveyed nationwide do not believe that the president should be able to impose tariffs unilaterally without congressional approval.

Restoring balance does not mean returning to the tariff protectionist era of the 19th century. It does mean setting clear parameters around when and how the executive may act, requiring congressional approval for significant tariff actions, and reclaiming oversight of trade agreements that have significant repercussions for our economy.

Several bipartisan proposals in recent years have sought to rein in presidential tariff authority and restore Congress's proper role. The Trade Review Act of 2025, introduced earlier this year by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), would reestablish limits on the president’s ability to impose unilateral tariffs without the approval of Congress. It would require the president to notify Congress of any new tariffs within 48 hours, and Congress would have to pass a joint resolution approving the new tariffs within 60 days; otherwise, all new tariffs would expire. The bill would also give Congress the ability to end tariffs at any time by passing a resolution of disapproval. This proposal should be taken up with urgency.

As James Madison warned, the accumulation of power in any single branch is “the very definition of tyranny.” Allowing the executive to dominate trade policy erodes the balance Madison and his colleagues carefully constructed. Reasserting Congress’s authority would not only protect our economy from the whims of individual leaders, it would reaffirm the basic principle that in a republic, no single branch governs alone.

Congress must reclaim its rightful place in trade policy – not as a matter of partisanship, but as a matter of constitutional principle. Our prosperity, our democratic accountability, and our checks and balances depend on it.

Charles Boustany (R-LA) is a former U.S. representative serving Louisiana’s 3rd and 7th congressional districts. He is a member of Issue One’s ReFormers Caucus, the largest bipartisan coalition of its kind ever assembled to advocate for sweeping reforms to fix our broken political system.



Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less