Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration o…
This bill (Stop Raising Prices on Food Act) restricts the President’s ability to proclaim new or increased tariffs under certain authorities (section 232, section 338, Trading with the Enemy Act, IEEPA) on imports from designated "covered countries." A covered country is one of the five countries (EU treated as one) that import the largest volume of U.S. agricultural goods in the prior fiscal year.
The President must submit a justification and an assessment of agricultural impacts to Congress and obtain a specific joint resolution of approval (with expedited procedures) before imposing such duties on those covered countries.
Technically narrow and administrable but touches separation-of-powers and foreign-policy prerogatives; Senate procedures are the main barrier.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive policy change that constrains executive tariff authorities by substituting a mandatory congressional authorization step for specified duties affecting major agricultural trading partners. It is precise in definitions and procedural mechanics for authorization but omits fiscal and contingency details.
Progressives emphasize consumer and farm protections; conservatives emphasize executive flexibility.
Progressives emphasize consumer and farm protections; conservatives emphasize executive flexibility.
Likely generally supportive because the bill aims to protect food prices and U.S. agricultural export markets while increasing Congressional oversight.
Concerned about potential limits on using tariffs for human rights, climate, or worker-protection objectives; would seek safeguards.
Views the congressional approval requirement as a check on unilateral executive actions that can raise consumer costs.
Likely cautiously supportive of the bill’s goal to avoid food-price increases and protect farmers, while worried about restricting the President’s flexibility.
Prefers amendments ensuring emergency exceptions and clear analytic standards.
Values expedited congressional procedures but expects tradeoffs between oversight and agility.
Likely skeptical or opposed because the bill restricts executive authority to use tariffs or emergency economic powers.
Worried this weakens national-security tools and cedes flexibility to a potentially gridlocked Congress.
Some conservatives may share the desire to limit price increases, but value preserving unilateral presidential response options.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and administrable but touches separation-of-powers and foreign-policy prerogatives; Senate procedures are the main barrier.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer and farm protections; conservatives emphasize executive flexibility.
Technically narrow and administrable but touches separation-of-powers and foreign-policy prerogatives; Senate procedures are the main barri…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive policy change that constrains executive tariff authorities by substituting a mandatory congressional authorization step for specified…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.