HR-4738-119
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the President from using International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authority to impose tariffs on baby carriages, strollers, carriers, and car seats imported into the United States. It would also require the President to terminate any such tariffs already in effect under IEEPA at the time of enactment. Additionally, it would bar the President from using any other authority to impose tariffs on these items that are substantially similar to IEEPA-based tariffs.
Who benefits
Parents and caregivers of infants and young children who purchase these products, particularly lower- and middle-income families for whom these items represent a significant one-time expense. U.S. retailers and importers of baby safety products who would face lower costs. Domestic distributors and e-commerce sellers of these goods. Consumers in states with higher birth rates who purchase these items in larger volumes.
Who is hurt
The federal government would lose tariff revenue currently collected on these imports. Domestic manufacturers of baby carriages, strollers, carriers, and car seats — if any exist — who benefit from tariff protection against lower-cost foreign competitors. The President's office would lose a tool of economic leverage over trading partners for this product category. Broadly, any policy goal the existing tariffs were intended to serve (e.g., trade negotiation leverage) would be undermined for these specific goods.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that baby safety items are essential, non-discretionary purchases for new parents, and that tariffs on these goods function as a direct cost increase on families at a financially vulnerable time. They contend that IEEPA was designed as a national security and foreign policy emergency tool — not a mechanism for broad consumer goods tariffs — and that applying it to infant products stretches the statute well beyond its intended scope, imposing costs on American families rather than foreign governments.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that selectively carving out specific product categories from presidential trade authority undermines the coherent use of tariffs as a negotiating tool, potentially weakening the U.S. position in broader trade disputes. They contend that Congress has historically delegated broad trade authority to the executive branch for good reason — the President needs flexibility to respond quickly to foreign economic threats — and that product-by-product legislative exemptions set a precedent that could fragment trade policy and reduce its effectiveness.
Constitutional context
The Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, including the authority to set tariffs. Congress delegated portions of that authority to the President through IEEPA. This bill would partially reclaim that delegated authority for a specific product category. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts independently assess whether executive actions fall within statutory delegations, making the scope of IEEPA authority an active legal question.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority over this product category by restricting the President's ability to impose tariffs; the executive branch loses discretionary tariff power for these specific goods, with no override mechanism specified in the bill.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously exempted specific goods from presidential trade actions — for example, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has administered exclusion processes for Section 301 tariffs — but a direct statutory prohibition on IEEPA tariff authority for named consumer products has limited direct precedent.