Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) (Joshua Roberts/Reuters) The tariffs showcase the problem with executive power. The Trump administration, following indications that it might take a different course, has doubled down on its unwise strategy of deterring imports by way of tariffs. Tariffs on Chinese products do not come as a surprise, despite the hints of détente last month. The president and his advisers have emphasized the menace of China as an industrial power and competitor for some time now. And to an extent, they even have a point: While China has been a strong economic partner for a few decades now, and while a lot of good can come from trading even with rival powers, China is not typically thought of as a U.S. ally. Advertisement But now Canada and the European Union have been caught up in the dragnet as well. The president has reportedly proclaimed his desire to ban imports of German cars. This wave of protectionist sentiment forms the backdrop to this year’s G7 summit, an economics-focused meeting among representatives from the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Japan, Italy, France, and Germany. (If the administration is serious about tackling fraud in Chinese business practices, coordinating with, rather than alienating, the other G7 nations might have been a good start.) A “trade war” is not quite the same thing as a regular war, but the unilateral nature of this one has led to an interesting, and welcome, pushback: the reassertion of congressional power. The tariffs are bad policy on their merits, but they are made more dangerous by the fact that they are issued by executive fiat, on spurious national-security grounds. Procedure matters, even where the policy outcomes are desirable. Advertisement Some members of Congress, it seems, have had quite enough, though Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opposes their efforts. Senator Bob Corker introduced a bill yesterday, joined by five Republicans and four Democrats, that would require the president to submit to Congress any proposals to change import policy on national-security grounds. It would apply retroactively, to all changes made in the past two years. Corker hopes to introduce it as an amendment to a defense-spending bill, as McConnell has ruled out a standalone tariff-reform bill. It’s disappointing that more Republicans, who habitually decry the abuse of executive discretion, and more Democrats, who continuously talk about the administration’s flouting of norms in foreign relations, did not join as sponsors, but perhaps the difference will be made up in the voting. Congress is the supreme branch of government, invested with the ability to impeach members of the other branches. Within the original constitutional framework, this is buttressed by the different nature of power between the two houses of Congress, each of which was considered reflective of the body politic in a unique way. The House was designed to represent the people, as individuals, whereas the Senate was designed to represent the states, as states. In this, the Framers (who, let us not forget, were Englishmen) aimed to preserve in text a version the Settlement of 1689, which enshrined de facto parliamentary sovereignty in England. Despite this, Congresses have seen fit to play second fiddle to the presidency, allowing administrations to engage in policy beyond their constitutional purview. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in their complete abdication of the congressional war-making power, allowing the Obama and Trump administrations to engage in unauthorized operations throughout the world. Jefferson had hoped that jealousy of power would cause different elements and levels of government to constrain one another, but this has not been borne out. Advertisement The founding generation was reared on a diet of Roman writers, cultural “ancient liberties,” and David Hume’s History of England. Consequently, they feared that a powerful executive might try to seize power, and that vigilance would be required to prevent that. They did not anticipate that this power would gladly be given up, or that the people would come to regard the executive as a national icon, to be scorned or flattered depending on orientation. I am pleased that part of Congress is asserting its power, and I hope that this tendency will grow. The trade war, though, might just be the catalyst. The optics of foreign wars are different; politicians fear being seen as weak by opposing them, and the financial disaster is deferred through inflation of the national debt. The costs are much more immediate for the families of those killed, but they number few by comparison. In contrast, a trade war, brought on against not only the specter of Chinese manufacturing, but against America’s traditional allies as well, including Canada and Europe, would find itself felt by every constituent, through higher prices, lost jobs, and a lower standard of living. Advertisement The traditional explanation for how special-interest laws get passed is that their costs, though high, are dispersed through the entire population, whereas the benefits are concentrated on the politically active constituency that lobbies for them. The Trump administration’s barrage of proposed import taxes, though, might impose high enough costs that the public at large will take notice — especially given the loudness of pro-tariff voices. I am pleased that part of Congress is asserting its power, and I hope that this tendency will grow.<doc-sep>(CNN) — The allies are giving the American President a piece of their mind. After Trump bucked his party and most economists by announcing a new raft of tariffs on aluminum and steel produced by US allies in Europe, Canada and Mexico with the stated purpose of improving US security, leaders of those countries are letting loose in public, and with the President on the other end of the line. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sounded angry and jilted in interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.” It’s a far cry from the previous efforts by the young liberal to charm Trump and his many outings with Ivanka Trump. The gloves are off, diplomatically speaking. “The idea that we are somehow a national security threat to the United States is quite frankly insulting and unacceptable,” said Trudeau, speaking to the American political audience in a very direct way and pointing out the longtime connection of the US and Canadian militaries. Asked by Chuck Todd what Trump wants, Trudeau seemed to honestly say, “I don’t know.” But he did promise tit-for-tat tariffs on US goods and to up the ante with new tariffs on finished consumer goods. Mexico is preparing its response and so is the EU. 01:36 - Source: CNN Mexico on tariffs: Actions have consequences European leaders aren’t hiding their anger either. French President Emmanuel Macron had tried to good-cop Trump, developing a bro-ship with the unpredictable American leader and trying to influence him in favor of international agreements. That didn’t work on the Iran deal. And when the two spoke about trade and immigration recently, the bromance seemed to be over. “Just bad. It was terrible,” one source told CNN in a report by Michelle Kosinski and Maegan Vazquez. “Macron thought he would be able to speak his mind, based on the relationship. But Trump can’t handle being criticized like that.” Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, planned to express her displeasure at the “unjustified and deeply disappointing” tariffs, according to Downing Street. The effort has not not swayed Trump, according to the White House. “The President feels very confident in his decision,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said during a short briefing with reporters, “and will continue to make sure that the unfair trade practices that have gone on for decades do not continue and that he’s protecting the interests of American workers and American businesses.” The tariffs, however, have put Trump at odds with normal US allies like Canada and Mexico – and also complicate separate but related negotiations on NAFTA. International allies are being unusually direct with Trump and so are Republicans. Leaders in the House and Senate have criticized Trump’s move, although it is not at all clear there’s support in Congress for any sort of revolt. None of this should be a surprise at this point in the Trump presidency. On foreign affairs, he’s been pulling out of international deals and upsetting the decades of US foreign policy from his first days in office, when he withdrew the US from a massive trade deal with Pacific nations (they’ve moved on without the US), and held combative conversations with leaders from Mexico and Australia. The combination of Trump’s decision to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal, his dogged pursuit of a face-to-face meeting with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un, his separate high-stakes game of tariff escalation (or maybe a trade deal) with China and the confusing US relationship with Russia, makes finding a specific message out of Trump’s foreign policy a fraught exercise.<doc-sep>WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is working to head off a confrontation with members of his own party on trade, personally reaching out to senators to express his opposition to legislation that would tie his hands on tariffs. On Wednesday morning, Trump called Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., to say he opposed the senator's introduction of legislation that would give Congress oversight of tariffs. Corker said that he listened, but declined to drop the push. “I’ve got a job to do," he said. "I’m a United States senator, and this is our responsibility." The legislation was crafted after Trump announced tariffs on U.S. allies Mexico, Canada and the European Union. Trump cited national security, also known as section 232, for his reason for imposing the tax on goods. Corker’s bill would require congressional approval for any tariffs that are imposed for national security purposes. He’s hoping to offer it as an amendment to a must-pass defense authorization bill that is expected to come to the Senate floor this week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been reluctant to buck the president, has yet to commit to bringing Corker’s amendment for a vote. Trump's top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, defended the president’s trade tactics against Canada and other allies, telling reporters at the White House press briefing Wednesday that the president is determined to equalize the playing field and not start trade wars. “He regards himself as a free trader. But until we can deal with these unfair practices and so forth, we will not have fair trade. Until we can have reciprocal relationships, we will not have free trade, we will not have fair trade,” Kudlow said. But the president’s pressure campaign appears to be having an impact on a party that has traditionally been opposed to trade barriers. Even though at least seven Republicans have already signed on to Corker’s measure, many Republicans on Capitol Hill who express concern about tariffs are hesitant to legislate oversight of the president. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., came away from a meeting with Trump opposed to Corker's legislation. “Now is not the time to undercut President Trump’s ability to negotiate better trade deals. I will not support any efforts that weaken his position," Graham said in a statement after his meeting. “I strongly believe there is a plan in place to lead us to better trade deals. We should give the president the time and ability to achieve his goals.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that he has not yet decided whether he’d support Corker’s proposal. He and other senators speculate that it’s an effort to get better bilateral trade agreements or that it’s an attempt to raise pressure for a renegotiated NAFTA. They also say that China’s influence in North Korea plays a role in the president's thinking on the trade disputes. “I still believe that the president is too smart to get us into a trade war and that this is all horse trading. And I think he deserves some latitude in terms of doing that,” Kennedy said. “Now, if there comes a time that I realize it’s not just horse trading and he’s serious about starting a trade war, then I reserve the right to reconsider.” And after Trump's meeting with Republicans at the White House Tuesday to discuss trade and talked to Trump on the phone Wednesday morning, Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., who is opposed to tariffs, said that he now understands the president’s process. “We had really an open and honest conversation about trade, foreign relations, military and so forth and that’s what this is coming to — you just can’t deal with trade in a silo. You have to deal with it in a comprehensive way, and I think that’s what Trump’s trying to do,” Perdue said. Outside groups, however, are pushing Republicans to support Corker's legislation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is siding with Corker, calling the “modest” congressional oversight he's proposing “welcome and long overdue.” “The constitutional authority of the Congress to ‘regulate foreign trade’ and its oversight of tariff policy is unambiguous," said Neil Bradley, Chamber of Commerce executive vice president. And Koch Industries is also supporting Corker's proposal, which Philip Ellender, the company's president of government and public affairs, said "helps restore Congress’ constitutional authority on matters of trade."<doc-sep>Lots of Republicans in Congress are complaining about President Donald Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs. But will they do anything to stop them? A few Republicans, including Sen. Pat Toomey, are pushing for legislation to override Trump's tariffs. This will only work if Republicans are willing to stand up to Trump, and Democrats are willing to stand with them. The reviews are in: Republicans in Congress hate President Donald Trump’s new tariffs on steel and aluminum. Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska says they are "dumb." Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida says "instead of opening up another front in trade disputes, we should be teaming up with Europe to confront China." Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee says “these tariffs will raise prices and destroy manufacturing jobs, especially auto jobs.” Sen. Bob Corker, also of Tennessee, says they are the “wrong approach” and an “abuse of authority.” House Speaker Paul Ryan says "there are better ways to help American workers and consumers." House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady says administration officials "will need to come to Capitol hill to provide answers about the indiscriminate harm these tariffs are causing our local businesses." Okay, so they hate the tariffs. But will they do anything about them? Trade policy is Congress's job The Constitution vests the power to levy tariffs in Congress. Trump only has the power to impose tariffs Republican lawmakers hate because past congresses passed laws to give presidents those powers. If Congress thinks the president is using those delegated powers stupidly, they can take the powers back — or at least impose a rule that lets Congress override the president when he really screws up with a tariff policy. So, will Congress do that? Probably not, I think, but the answer depends on the answer to two sub-questions: Are Republicans committed enough to free-trade ideology to stand up to Trump? And is this a topic on which Democrats are inclined to #resist Trump, despite many Democrats’ previous resistance to free trade? Some Republican senators want to pass a law to override Trump on tariffs Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., right, listens as President Donald Trump speaks Evan Vucci/AP In the Senate, there are at least two pieces of legislation aimed at blocking Trump’s trade agenda. Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake has offered a bill to reverse the tariffs on steel and aluminum. He has exactly one cosponsor: Heidi Heitkamp, a Democratic senator from North Dakota. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has proposed a broader bill that would allow Congress to reverse presidential trade actions by a majority vote, now or in the future. This bill has three Republican cosponsors (including Flake) and another announced his support on Friday: Sen. Pat Toomey, of Pennsylvania. “Congress should assert its constitutional responsibility and lead on trade policy so Americans keep access to affordable goods and services, and the opportunity to sell our products abroad,” Toomey said in a tweet. But this opposition will only matter if one of those proposals comes to the floor for a vote — either as a standalone bill or as part of another piece of legislation. “I think we need to find a vehicle that is very likely to pass with a big bipartisan vote, and attach one or more of these,” Toomey told me. That would set up a high-stakes confrontation with Trump. But Toomey is ready for it. "I think we need to move right now," he said. Tariffs put Republican lawmakers in a very difficult situation U.S. Senate candidate Republican Sen. Pat Toomey speaks to members of the media following the debate with Democrat Katie McGinty in Pittsburgh, Monday, Oct. 17, 2016. AP Photo/Jared Wickerham The president has put Republicans in Congress between a rock and a hard place on tariffs. They have two very unappealing options. One is to stand by and let him impose the tariffs. The problem with this is not just that it's not just a policy they dislike. They note, correctly, that the president’s tariffs will cause a variety of economic problems, for which voters may hold Republican lawmakers responsible. Tariffs will raise consumer prices — as Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah notes, they are “a tax hike on Americans.” They will also reduce employment. While about 400,000 Americans work directly in the steel and aluminum production industries, which benefit from the metal tariffs, there are about 4 million Americans who work in motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts manufacturing, aerospace, machinery, or fabricated metals. Those industries will all face higher input costs due to tariffs — costing jobs. In the midterm elections, Democrats will be able to throw Republicans' own words back at them about the negative consequences of the tariffs they failed to stop. But Republicans’ other option, the one Toomey proposes — try to use their legislative power to stop the president — is also fraught. It would require them to engage in open conflict with a president who remains very popular within the party, depressing enthusiasm among Republican voters. And since Trump would be likely to veto any such proposal, it might not even work. Republicans do not have more time to stall Given how bad both of these options look, Republicans instead tried to talk Trump out of his preferred trade policy. It looked for a few weeks like that strategy was working, since the president rendered the tariffs mostly symbolic by exempting some of our largest trading partners. But now those exemptions are over, and Republicans must choose one of the bad options before them. There is a key question to which Republicans need to figure out the answer, before they choose. Whether Republicans actually have the power to stop Trump’s tariffs depends entirely on whether Democrats in Congress would go along with their legislative efforts to intervene. With enough Democratic support, they could attach the proposal to a must-pass spending bill, or even pass it with a veto-proof supermajority. The anti-tariff push would surely enrage Trump and would cause intra-party turmoil, but at least Republican free-traders would win a policy result for their trouble. Would Democrats play ball on such a push? They should.<doc-sep>
Theresa May has told Donald Trump that US tariffs on EU steel are “unjustified and deeply disappointing”, speaking by phone with the American president for the first time since the levies were imposed last week. Downing Street said the 30 minute call on Monday afternoon was constructive and stressed the close national security relationship between the two countries. May will not push for a UK exemption to the new US border tariffs of 25% on EU imports of rolled steel and 10% on aluminium as the UK will join the bloc’s push for European exemption. “The PM said that the US, UK and EU are close national security allies and we recognise the importance of the values of open and fair trade across the world,” May’s spokesman said. “The prime minister also underlined the need to safeguard jobs that will potentially be affected by this decision. They agreed to discuss this, and wider issues of free and fair global trade, further at the G7 summit later this week.” The EU, Canada and Mexico were granted exemptions when Trump imposed the tariffs in March, saying a reliance on imported metals threatened national security. Last week however, US commerce secretary Wilbur Ross said the US had made insufficient progress with its allies to reduce America’s trade deficit, and lifted the waiver. May’s spokesman stressed that the UK was not trying to strike its own deal with Washington. “We are members of the European Union and we have been clear that we and our EU allies are seeking an EU-wide exemption,” he said. In a speech on Tuesday, Jeremy Corbyn will suggest the prime minister’s hesitancy to use stronger terms to condemn Trump’s actions was May trying to “appease” the US president in the hope of getting a better trade deal with the US in the wake of Brexit. The Labour leader will tell the GMB union that the move to impose further steel tariffs would risk hurting workers in America and around the world. “The Tories are too weak to stand up to the powerful, and too in hock to them even if they wanted to. Theresa May is appeasing Donald Trump in the hope of getting a race-to-the-bottom trade deal with the US after we leave the European Union. The Trump trade tariffs show that’s a Tory pipe-dream,” he said. Corbyn will say that US workers have long suffered from a “completely rigged system” that shifts more power and wealth to a tiny financial and political elite. “Trying to hold back the tide with one hand and giving eye-watering handouts to the super-rich with the other is no substitute for a government taking a proactive role in modernising and upgrading industry,” he will add. Speaking in the House of Commons earlier however, the international trade secretary, Liam Fox, said he hoped once the UK had left the EU, “we’ll have no problems with a UK exemption.” He suggested he was cautious about some of the retaliatory tariffs under discussion at the EU, including classic American products such as Levi’s jeans, bourbon whiskey, cranberries and peanut butter. “We still want to see what the measures themselves are, specifically we have been talking to the Irish government about the issue of bourbon being on the list because of the potential implications for the Scotch whisky industry and the Irish whiskey industry,” he said. The shadow international trade secretary, Barry Gardiner, said the issue must be given a formal place on the agenda at the forthcoming G7 summit in Canada. “The UK must insist that this matter is given a high priority on the formal agenda and not relegated to the sidelines,” he told the Commons. May is expected to discuss the tariff with Trump at the summit this week. Gardiner said there would be “no winners” if the EU and the US entered a full-scale trade war. “Only President Trump has said he believes he can win one. The UK and the EU must stand up to this behaviour and restore the rules-based system,” he said. MPs called for even tougher retaliatory steps, with Labour MP John Mann suggesting the UK impose “golf tariffs” aimed at Trump’s properties. “Giving into this, the only language that Trump understands, is people fighting back, and it’s about time this country fought back,” he said. “We can do it. Golf – he likes golf – let’s have some golf tariffs on golf owners in Scotland.