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

Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties

Your Vote Counts postid

Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties

New polling and expert analysis reveal a shifting and increasingly complex political landscape among Hispanic and Latino voters in the United States. While recent surveys show that economic pressures continue to dominate voter concerns, they also highlight a broader fragmentation of political identity that is reshaping long‑standing assumptions about Latino electoral behavior. A Pew Research Center poll indicates that President Donald Trump has lost support among Hispanic voters, with 70% disapproving of his performance, even though 42% of Latinos voted for him in 2024, a ten‑point increase from 2020. Among those who supported him, approval remains relatively high at 81%, though this marks a decline from earlier polling.

At the same time, Democrats are confronting their own challenges. Data comparing the 2024 American Electorate Voter Poll with the 2020 American Election Eve Poll show that Democratic margins dropped by 23 points among Latino men, raising concerns among party strategists about weakening support heading into the 2026 midterms. Analysts argue that despite these declines, sustained investment in Latino voter engagement remains essential, particularly as turnout efforts have historically influenced electoral outcomes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy
Changing Conversations Around Immigration
Leif Christoph Gottwald on Unsplash

Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy

I am writing this not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as an American who believes that compassion and common sense must coexist. I understand why many people feel sympathy for those who come to the United States seeking safety or opportunity. That compassion is part of who we are as a nation. But compassion alone cannot guide national policy, especially when the consequences affect every citizen, every community, and every generation that follows.

For more than two centuries, people from around the world have entered this country through a legal process—sometimes long, sometimes difficult, but always rooted in the idea that a nation has the right and responsibility to know who is entering its borders. That principle is not new, and it is not partisan. It is simply how a functioning country protects its people and maintains order.

Keep ReadingShow less
SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure

SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.

The Supreme Court Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs) and consolidated related cases relate to the following issues:

(1) Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump; and

Keep ReadingShow less
Immigration Was the Loudest Silence in Trump’s State of the Union

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Immigration Was the Loudest Silence in Trump’s State of the Union

President Donald Trump spoke for 108 minutes during the 2026 State of the Union — the longest address in American history. He covered the economy, foreign policy, manufacturing, and national pride. But for all the words, one of the most consequential issues facing the country was reduced to a single statistic and then set aside.

Immigration — one of the administration’s signature issues — was nearly invisible in the address. A Medill News Service analysis shows the president devoted less than 10% of his remarks to the topic, amounting to roughly ten minutes in total.

Keep ReadingShow less