SJRES-77-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Tim Kaine (D-VA)
What it does
This joint resolution would terminate the national emergency declared by President Trump on February 1, 2025, via Executive Order 14193, which was used as the legal basis for imposing tariffs on goods imported from Canada. It invokes Section 202 of the National Emergencies Act, which gives Congress the authority to end a presidentially declared national emergency by passing a joint resolution. If enacted, the tariffs imposed under that emergency declaration would lose their legal foundation.
Who benefits
U.S. businesses that import Canadian goods (lumber, energy, auto parts, agricultural products) and would face lower input costs. American consumers who buy products made with Canadian materials, including housing, vehicles, and food. Canadian exporters and the Canadian economy broadly. U.S. manufacturers in integrated cross-border supply chains, particularly in the auto industry. Retailers whose supply chains depend on Canadian goods. Free-trade-oriented economists and policy advocates.
Who is hurt
U.S. industries that compete directly with Canadian imports and benefit from the tariff as a price advantage — including domestic lumber producers, some energy producers, and certain agricultural sectors. Workers in those competing domestic industries. Advocates of using tariffs as leverage in trade negotiations with Canada, who argue the emergency declaration provides bargaining power. The executive branch would lose a tool of economic pressure.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the February 2025 emergency declaration stretched the definition of "national emergency" beyond its intended legal scope, using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs on a close ally without a genuine security crisis. They contend that Congress — not the President — holds the constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce under Article I, and that this resolution restores that balance. They also argue the tariffs have raised costs for American consumers and disrupted deeply integrated U.S.-Canada supply chains, particularly in the auto sector, causing measurable economic harm.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the President has broad statutory and constitutional authority to declare national emergencies and impose economic measures in response to trade imbalances and border security concerns, and that Congress should not unilaterally dismantle an ongoing diplomatic and economic negotiation. They contend that terminating the emergency prematurely removes leverage that the executive branch is actively using to renegotiate trade terms with Canada, and that the National Emergencies Act's joint resolution mechanism — requiring a presidential signature or veto override — means this resolution faces a near-certain veto, making it largely symbolic rather than a genuine check on executive power.
Constitutional context
The Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, but Congress has delegated broad emergency economic powers to the President through IEEPA. The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. §1622) explicitly provides the mechanism this resolution uses. The boundary between congressional commerce power and presidential emergency economic authority is an area of ongoing legal debate, particularly regarding whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs of this breadth.
Checks and balances
The executive branch gains economic leverage through emergency declarations; this resolution would reassert congressional authority under the National Emergencies Act, though the President retains a veto, meaning a two-thirds override in both chambers would be required to enact it over presidential objection.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously passed joint resolutions to terminate national emergencies, and the Senate passed a resolution in 2019 to terminate President Trump's emergency declaration used to redirect military funds for border wall construction, though that resolution was vetoed.