# Trump’s Next Trade War Could Be With Congress Lawmakers aim to reclaim constitutional trade powers following widespread voter dissatisfaction with current tariffs. - **Source:** [Foreign Policy](https://foreignpolicy.com) - **Published:** 2026-11-04 - **Topic:** [politics](https://brifing.si/c/politics) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/cbb06bb8-2364-44bd-aeb6-685dda4e56f2 ## Midterm Election Mandate The sweeping Democratic victory in the recent U.S. midterm elections was largely driven by voter dissatisfaction with President Trump’s trade policies. Exit polls indicate that economic concerns, specifically inflation and high prices, were the primary issues for voters. Approximately two-thirds of the electorate reported that existing tariffs have caused them significant economic harm. ## Reclaiming Constitutional Authority With a new majority in both chambers, Congress is positioned to challenge the executive branch's unilateral control over trade. Lawmakers seek to claw back constitutional powers over taxation that have been delegated to the White House over the past century. Recent polling shows 70 percent of Americans support requiring congressional approval for new tariffs. ## Legislative Strategy Ahead Rep. Richard Neal, the incoming chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, has signaled a firm stance against executive overreach. Congress may focus on clarifying existing trade statutes to facilitate easier judicial review. By making trade laws more explicit, lawmakers aim to prevent the president from bypassing legislative oversight on critical economic decisions. ## Targeting Specific Statutes Congress is scrutinizing Section 232 and Section 301 of the Trade Act, which the administration uses to impose tariffs under national security or anti-discrimination grounds. Legal experts suggest amending these laws to mandate compliance with World Trade Organization rules. Such changes would provide courts with clearer criteria to distinguish valid authority from abuse. ## The Canada Tariff Dispute The administration’s tariffs on Canada face intense opposition from border states and are currently being litigated in court. Lawmakers may attempt to address these specific duties during the lame-duck session. There is bipartisan sentiment that the 1930 statute invoked for these tariffs has been superseded by subsequent trade legislation from later decades. ## Judicial and Legal Hurdles The administration has already lost five consecutive trade cases in court, with more challenges pending. Current legal arguments focus on whether older statutes remain valid in the face of modern trade laws. By explicitly stating that certain sections have been superseded, Congress could effectively neutralize the president’s ability to justify these controversial economic measures. ## Historical Context of Delegation The current tug-of-war stems from a century-long trend of Congress delegating trade authority to the executive branch. This shift followed the legislative failures of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley bill. Rebalancing this relationship is complex, as the 1974 Trade Act overhaul took two years to complete, suggesting that a total reversal remains a difficult long-term goal. ## Defining Trade War Powers The core debate centers on whether the power to initiate a trade war should mirror the constitutional requirement for declaring military war. As lawmakers weigh their options, the focus remains on restoring the balance between foreign policy needs and domestic economic oversight. The outcome will determine the future of presidential trade authority in America. ## Sources covering this story - https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/11/04/midterms-democrats-trump-tariffs-trade-war-congress/ — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._