The STABLE Trade Policy Act aims to limit the President's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs on imports from U.S. allies and free trade partners by requiring congressional approval for such actions.
Christopher Coons
Senator
DE
The STABLE Trade Policy Act aims to limit the President's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs on imports from U.S. allies and free trade partners. It requires the President to seek congressional approval before enacting new or increased duties on these countries by submitting a request justifying the tariffs, which Congress must then approve through a joint resolution. This ensures that trade policy decisions impacting allies and free trade partners are subject to congressional oversight.
This bill, officially named the "Stopping Tariffs on Allies and Bolstering Legislative Exercise of Trade Policy Act" (or the much easier to remember "STABLE Trade Policy Act"), changes who gets to call the shots on tariffs. Specifically, it limits the President's ability to slap new or increased import taxes (duties) on goods coming from countries the U.S. considers allies or has free trade agreements with.
The STABLE Trade Policy Act basically says the President can't unilaterally impose tariffs on countries we've got close ties with. Think NATO members, major non-NATO allies, and anyone we have a free trade agreement with – they're all considered "covered countries" under this bill (Section 2). If the President wants to put new duties on goods from these places, they'll need to get a thumbs-up from Congress first.
This is a shift from the current setup, where the President has broader authority under laws like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This bill specifically limits the President's power under those, and a few other acts, when it comes to our allies (Section 2).
Here's how it'll work if this bill becomes law:
For businesses that import goods from allied countries, this bill could mean more predictability. Instead of sudden tariff announcements, there'd be a more structured (and potentially slower) process involving Congress. Let's say a U.S. furniture company imports wood from Canada (a "covered country"). Under this bill, any new tariffs on that wood would need Congressional approval, giving the company more time to adjust and potentially preventing sudden price spikes for consumers.
For workers in industries that rely on imported materials, this could provide a layer of protection against sudden cost increases. It's not a guarantee against tariffs, but it does make the process more deliberate and transparent.
This bill is really about the balance of power between the President and Congress. It's Congress saying, "We have a say in trade policy, especially when it comes to our allies." While this could lead to more stable trade relationships, it could also potentially slow down the response to urgent trade issues, since getting Congressional approval takes time. It also means the potential for more lobbying as different industries try to sway members of Congress. The bill also doesn't fully define what counts as a valid national security concern, so that could become a point of contention down the road. Overall it's a significant shift in how trade decisions with close partners are made. It's a move towards more Congressional oversight, and potentially, a more stable – but also more complex – trade landscape.