Sponsors (5)
Need help making sense of this bill?
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Limits the President’s emergency trade powers by stopping the use of IEEPA to impose new or higher duties or to create tariff‑rate quotas on goods entering the United States; it still allows the President to bar (exclude) all imports or specific categories of imports from a particular country. In short, the President could no longer use emergency authority to raise tariffs but could use that authority to block imports entirely.
Redesignates existing subsection (c) of Section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as subsection (d).
Adds a new subsection (c)(1) providing that the authority granted to the President by Section 203 does not include the authority to impose or increase a duty, or to impose a tariff-rate quota, on an article entering the United States.
Adds a new subsection (c)(2) stating that the limitation in (c)(1) does not prohibit the President from excluding all articles, or all of a certain type of article, imported from a country from entering the United States.
Who is affected and how:
Importers and merchandise sellers: They face a changed risk profile. The President could no longer impose emergency tariffs or tariff‑rate quotas on their goods, but could issue exclusion orders that block certain goods entirely. That means the threat of a sudden tariff increase is removed, but the risk of a sudden import ban remains.
U.S. businesses that rely on imported inputs: Firms that source parts or materials from abroad may lose an emergency option (tariffs) that can be used to punish or incentivize trading partners; instead, governments could opt for exclusion orders that more sharply disrupt supply chains.
Foreign exporters and foreign governments: Exporters could no longer face emergency tariff hikes under IEEPA, but could still face outright bans on certain products. That changes how trading partners might expect the U.S. to respond to crises.
American consumers: Removing the emergency‑tariff option may reduce the chance of higher consumer prices caused by sudden tariff increases, but import bans can also reduce product availability and raise prices if substitutes are limited.
Federal agencies and enforcement: Agencies that implement trade restrictions (customs, Treasury, Commerce, USTR) would shift toward administering exclusion measures instead of emergency tariff measures; legal and administrative processes governing exclusions would become more central.
Trade policy and international relations: The change may shift U.S. emergency trade policy away from tariff tools and toward bans, which could have different diplomatic and World Trade Organization implications and could prompt different foreign responses.
Overall effect: The amendment narrows one specific executive power (imposing duties or tariff‑rate quotas via IEEPA) while preserving another (excluding imports). That makes emergency trade responses potentially more binary (allow vs. block) rather than graduated (tariff adjustments), with implications for supply chains, markets, and international negotiations.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced January 17, 2025 by Jeanne Shaheen · Last progress January 17, 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced in Senate