Issues & Insights
Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

Don’t Like Trump’s Tariffs? Blame Democrats

I & I Editorial

President Trump’s announcement that he intends to impose tariffs on Mexico unless it works with the U.S. to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants across the border raised hackles all over Washington.

On Thursday, Trump said he’d impose 5% tariffs on all Mexican goods starting next week. He said they’d climb to 25% if Mexico didn’t step in to halt illegal border crossings.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) decried it as a “stunt.” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called it a “misuse of presidential tariff authority.”

Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), who heads the House Small Business Committee, complained that Trump “has yet again failed to understand — increasing tariffs means placing unnecessary taxes on the backs of American workers and small businesses.” 

Leave aside the fact that Trump’s aggressive move appears to have had its intended effect. Soon after his announcement, Mexico dispatched a delegation to start border control talks on Monday. 

Critics of the tariff threat are right that tariffs are little more than taxes on imported goods, paid for by consumers in higher prices. And there are increased calls to rein in the president’s seemingly boundless ability to impose tariffs.

But what Trump’s critics — especially those on the other side of the aisle — never mention is the fact that all of the legislation that is handing Trump the authority to engage in trade wars was passed by Democrats. And all but one piece of it was signed by Democratic presidents.

Shortly before the 2016 election, Gary Hufbauer looked into whether Trump could make good on his tariff threats should he be elected.

“The short answer, at least in the short term, is ‘yes,’ both because of the president’s constitutional power over foreign affairs and because multiple statutes enacted by Congress over the past century authorize the president to impose tariffs or quotas on imports and regulate foreign commerce in other ways as well.”

Trump has taken full use of these powers. 

He justified his tariffs on steel and aluminum imports using section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. That law gives the Commerce secretary the ability to determine if imports of certain goods pose a threat to national security, and Secretary Wilbur Ross has declared that steel and aluminum imports met that test. 

And who’s responsible for the Trade Expansion Act? In 1962, Democrats controlled the House with a 262-175 majority. They controlled the Senate by a 64-36 margin. Democratic President Kennedy signed the bill into law on October 11, 1962.

Trump used a provision of the Trade Act of 1974 — called Section 301 — to impose tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods. That provision lets the president do so if another country’s actions “violate, or are inconsistent with, a trade agreement; or are unjustifiable and burden or restrict U.S. commerce,” according to the Congressional Research Service.

The Congress that approved this bill was dominated by Democrats, who controlled the Senate 56-42 and the House 242-192.  President Ford signed it into law just months after Nixon resigned.

In making his most recent threat against Mexico, Trump cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 as giving him authority to do so. That law lets the president impose tariffs during a national emergency, which is what Trump has declared on the nation’s border.

And which party in Congress was responsible for giving this authority to the president? You got it. Democrats controlled the Senate by a 61-37 margin, and the House by a 292-143 margin. 

When the bill reached the president’s desk in October 1977, it was Democrat Jimmy Carter who put his signature on it.

Trade isn’t the only area where congressional Democrats have emboldened the president at their expense. During the Obama administration, Democrats gleefully handed the executive branch more authority and turned a blind eye to Obama’s abuses. 

Of course, Republicans have done the same in the past. But in this case, it’s Republicans who are leading the effort to pull back some of the president’s ability to unilaterally declare trade wars without any congressional input.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) introduced a bill with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) that would more tightly define national security, and require congressional approval for tariff hikes to take effect. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is drafting a similar bill.

Over in the House, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) introduced legislation that would impose similar restrictions. Americans for Prosperity, a group supported by the libertarian Koch network, even offered to help House Speaker Nancy Pelosi get the legislation through the House. Needless to say, she didn’t embrace the offer.

And more than four months after Gallagher introduced his bill, it’s still stuck in the Democrat-controlled House Ways and Means Committee.

— Written by John Merline

Issues & Insights is a new site formed by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. We’re just getting started, and we’ll be adding new features as time permits. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

Be sure to tell all your friends! And if you’d like to make a contribution to support our effort, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right.

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.


I & I Editorial Board

The Issues and Insights Editorial Board has decades of experience in journalism, commentary and public policy.


  • Democrats are also responsible for the border-related tariffs because they have refused to cooperate in finding a solution to the illegal crossings. They rejected the wall and have limited funding to new physical barriers. They have forced the President’s hand to do something that is, in fact, within his power. The Democrats should only blame themselves.

    • The reason for that is rather simple. Power & Money.

      Nancy Pelosi has zero incentive to restrict illegal immigration in advance of the 2020 Census, which will steal another 10 Congressional House Seats and 10 Electoral Votes (and the billions in federal $ that flow with it) to CA and other Sanctuary States.

      That’s why the Citizenship Question is critical as is challenging this and the 14th Amendment in the Supreme Court. I believe it to be a fundamentally unconstitutional act for me and my fellow Minnesotans to forfeit another House Seat and Electoral Vote to Pelosi just because we have fewer than 100,000 illegal immigrants here while she races to 5,000,000 illegal immigrants in CA.

      This needs to be settled once and all by the Supreme Court. I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers envisioned a world where political power would be distributed based on how many illegal people you can shove into an area of the country.

      • Dear Joan from Joliet (June 4, 2019 at 11:06 am):

        First, what do you mean by “challenging” the Fourteenth Amendment? It’s part of the Constitution; no “challenge” can be made against it.

        Second, what you “imagine” the Founders “envisioned” isn’t relevant. What counts is what the Amendment says. It clearly states that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers”. If the Framers of that Amendment wanted to say something different, they should have said so! (For example: “according to the number of voters in the State”.) It doesn’t, case closed!

        Third, where do you get your statistics from, thin air? In 2018 California had a population of 39.56 million. According to you about 5 million are “illegals”. Wow! That’s a “whopping” .012 percent. I’m sure that will make a “yuge” difference (even assuming that’s true).

        Then, of course, there’s the fact that under the Electoral College system the people in low population States (like Wyoming, for example) have greater “political power” when it comes to choosing a President than large population States like California, Florida, New York, and Texas. (Two “Blue” and two “Red”.) How do you “imagine” the Founders “envisioned” that?

        Of course, it’s not as if the “illegals” only are in “Blue” States. Last I checked Texas, along with much of the South and Southwest (Arizona, for example) have large numbers of them. Beware the “Law of Unintended Consequences”! It might turn out that by under-counting the “respective numbers” in such States the Republicans end up cutting their own throats!

  • Democrats continue to cram “Impeachment” Down our throats 24/7 in order to distract us from President Trump’s accomplishments!

    Dems have failed to do their jobs! They ignore the crisis at our border, infrastructure, China, Russia, etc.!

    They expect taxpayers to support the illegal aliens who are flooding our country! If this continues, illegals will outnumber American citizens! What then?

  • This is what the “Free For All but the US” tariffs have sucked out of the US economy:
    China trade deficit – $2.36 Trillion

    G7- -I 2009 – 2017 Trade imbalance.
    taly -$102,370,900,000
    Germany -$527,244,500,000
    France -$135,792,700,000
    Canada -$306,208,100,000
    Japan -$638,142,600,000
    UK -$25,294,300,000
    TOTAL – $1,635,052,800,000.

    US Trade Deficit with Mexico
    2001 – 2011 total = -$585,602,000,000.
    Between 2012 – 2016 – -$359,000,000,000
    That’s almost 1 trillion dollars

    4.96 trillion dollars – Because some people don’t know how to write a trade agreement.
    It also displaced an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs.

  • Both parties have, over the decades, ceded vast amounts of Congressional power to the Executive branch, not just re trade, but also in the areas of war, regulation, immigration, etc.

  • Both parties have, over the decades, ceded Congressional power to the Executive branch, not just in trade, but in the areas of war, regulation, immigration, etc.

  • There’s nothing like a fair, impartial, or reasoned Commentary, or Comments by readers, and this is nothing like it!

    I get it Democrats (and “liberals”) are bad, Republicans (and “conservatives”) are good.

    And let’s not bother to discuss whether or not the President is abusing the power he has in this area.

    • We normally would have not posted this comment due to our no all caps rule, but you make a good point, so we edited the word written in all caps and posted it.

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on donate button above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!
%d bloggers like this: