Higher Prices and Job Losses Linger as Senate Cannot Stop Trump Tariffs

The U.S. Senate came within a whisper of curbing President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff powers in April 2025, as a bipartisan resolution to halt his trade measures ended in a 49-49 tie. The vote, which aimed to end the national emergency Trump declared to justify broad import tariffs, exposed deep unease among lawmakers about the economic fallout and the erosion of Congress’s authority. It was a rare moment of unity for some Republicans and Democrats, yet the deadlock underscored the challenges of reining in executive power.

The tariffs, including a 10% baseline on all imports and up to 125% on Chinese goods, have reshaped America’s trade landscape. Supporters argue they protect domestic industries and counter unfair trade practices, while opponents warn of rising consumer prices and global retaliation. The Senate’s failure to pass the resolution leaves these tariffs intact, raising questions about the balance of power and the future of U.S. trade policy.

This clash reflects a broader struggle over who controls America’s economic borders. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce, but decades of laws have shifted significant authority to the president. As tariffs bite into household budgets and spark trade wars, lawmakers face growing pressure to reclaim their role.

The tariffs have hit American consumers and businesses hard. Economic data from 2025 shows a 3% spike in consumer prices, costing the average household $4,900 in purchasing power. Lower-income families, already stretched thin, lost $2,200 annually. Clothing and shoes saw dramatic price hikes, with shoe prices jumping 87% initially and staying 29% higher long-term. New cars now cost $7,400 more on average.

The broader economy hasn’t been spared. Real GDP growth fell by 1.1 percentage points in 2025, with a long-term reduction of 0.6%, or $180 billion annually. Unemployment rose by 0.57 points, and 770,000 jobs vanished, particularly in manufacturing and automotive sectors. U.S. exports dropped 16.3%, as foreign nations like Canada and China retaliated with their own tariffs, squeezing American farmers and manufacturers.

Businesses are scrambling to adapt. Over half of manufacturing CFOs surveyed in 2025 reported plans to diversify supply chains, while 40% rushed to stockpile goods before tariffs took full effect. The Midwest, deeply tied to North American trade networks, has felt the brunt, with local industries reeling from higher costs and reduced exports.

At the heart of the Senate’s vote lies a constitutional question: who gets to set trade policy? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign commerce. Yet, laws like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act have handed presidents wide latitude to act unilaterally, often under the guise of national security or economic emergencies.

Some lawmakers, including Senators Rand Paul and Susan Collins, argue that Trump’s use of these powers stretches beyond what Congress intended, effectively sidelining the legislative branch. They’ve pushed for bills requiring congressional approval for new tariffs, citing the need to restore checks and balances. On the other side, Trump’s allies contend that swift executive action is necessary to protect American industries and negotiate trade deals in a fast-moving global economy.

Legal challenges are mounting, too. Lawsuits filed by business groups and policy advocates claim the president’s tariff authority violates the nondelegation doctrine, which limits Congress’s ability to hand over its core powers without clear guidelines. Recent Supreme Court rulings suggest justices may be open to curbing executive overreach, but no definitive ruling has emerged.

The tariff debate has fractured traditional political lines. Some Senate Republicans, particularly from trade-heavy states, joined Democrats in opposing Trump’s policies, driven by constituent complaints about rising costs and job losses. Senators from manufacturing regions, however, see tariffs as a lifeline for industries battered by foreign competition, aligning with Trump’s vision of economic nationalism.

Democrats, unified in their opposition, argue that tariffs hurt consumers and strain alliances with trading partners like Canada and the EU. They advocate for multilateral trade agreements and stricter oversight of executive actions, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that supports jobs without triggering trade wars. Senate hearings have featured sharp exchanges, with lawmakers from both parties grilling administration officials on the tariffs’ economic toll.

The public is equally divided. Polls from early 2025 show support for protecting American industries but growing concern about price hikes and economic uncertainty. Business leaders, from small retailers to multinational CEOs, have lobbied Congress to act, warning that prolonged tariffs could reshape supply chains and erode U.S. competitiveness.

The tariffs’ impact extends far beyond U.S. borders. Canada’s economy contracted by 2.2% in 2025, while China’s shrank by 0.6%, as both nations faced higher costs for exports to the U.S. Retaliatory tariffs from the EU, Canada, and China have targeted American goods like agriculture and machinery, hitting exporters in states like Iowa and Ohio. Global supply chains, already strained by years of disruptions, face new uncertainty as businesses rethink trade routes.

The shift toward protectionism has also strained diplomatic ties. Allies like Canada and the EU have criticized the U.S. for undermining decades of trade cooperation, while China has vowed to escalate its response. Economists warn that prolonged trade wars could dampen global growth, with ripple effects for developing nations reliant on stable trade networks.

The Senate’s deadlock leaves Trump’s tariffs in place, with no immediate end to the economic and political tensions they’ve unleashed. Lawmakers face mounting pressure to bridge divides and assert congressional authority, but procedural hurdles and the threat of a presidential veto loom large. Bipartisan bills to limit tariff powers are gaining traction, though House resistance and partisan divides could stall progress.

For now, Americans are grappling with higher prices and an uncertain economic outlook. The debate over tariffs is more than a policy dispute; it’s a test of how the U.S. balances economic protection with global engagement, and whether Congress can reclaim its constitutional role in shaping the nation’s trade future. The outcome will shape markets, livelihoods, and alliances for years to come.