How House Republicans quietly shielded Trump’s tariffs
Plus: Dems slam GOP judicial and voter bills while a Democratic rising star stalls Trump’s foreign policy nominees.
👋🏾 Hi, hey, hello! What a wild week in Congress. Keep reading for what else is worth knowing from the Hill today before you call it a night—straight from my notebook to your inbox.
○ ● ●
The fine print protecting Trump’s trade agenda
The House narrowly passed a GOP compromise budget framework this morning, enabling Republican-led committees to begin drafting a filibuster-proof bill to enact President Donald Trump’s tax, border, energy, and defense priorities.
But buried in the rule governing its debate was a less noticed win for Trump’s trade agenda: The procedural measure, which passed along a straight party-line vote on Wednesday afternoon, blocks the House from voting to revoke the emergency declaration Trump is using to impose tariffs on Canada until at least October—delaying a Democratic effort to reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over trade.
Allow me to explain: While the provision drew little public attention, its implications are sweeping. Republican leaders used procedural tools—not a floor vote or open debate—to block a bipartisan conversation about the limits of presidential trade powers.
And with budget politics grabbing the spotlight, few noticed as the balance of power quietly tipped further toward the executive branch.
In his own words: “Why are Republicans afraid of an up or down vote to show the American people where they stand?” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told me this morning. “This is a consistent theme. They are unwilling to defend their policies before the American people.”
In the know: The emergency declaration Trump is relying on to justify tariffs on Canadian imports was issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that grants the president broad authority to regulate commerce during a national emergency.
Trump has invoked the law to impose tariffs against Mexico and Canada until each country stems the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., setting the stage for a new round of trade restrictions during his second term.
But under the National Emergencies Act, Congress can vote to terminate such declarations, which Senate Democrats did last week with help from four Republicans.
House Democrats had planned to force a vote on the measure as part of a broader effort to reassert congressional authority over trade policy—a power explicitly granted to Congress in the Constitution.
With the rule now in place, that challenge is effectively frozen—and Trump’s tariff agenda moves forward with one less check from the legislative branch.
● ○ ●
Dems slam GOP judicial, voter bills
The House passed the No Rogue Rulings Act Wednesday and the SAVE Act this morning—two messaging bills designed to address alleged judicial overreach and so-called election integrity.
Both speak to MAGA base grievances. But neither offers relief for Americans facing high prices and economic anxiety, especially as Trump’s renewed trade war threatens to drive up grocery and gas costs.
Allow me to explain: It’s the latest sign that Republicans are prioritizing culture-war battles over the persistently high cost of living.
What they’re saying: Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, argued that the SAVE Act amounts to a hidden tax since many of the required documents for voter registration cost money to obtain.
“I thought voters expressed themselves [in the election] about lowering the cost of living, making America more secure, and making sure we have an economy that works for everyone,” he said. “This didn’t do anything. This added costs.”
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the No Rogue Rulings Act would silence independent judicial interpretation and contort the law to serve one person—President Trump.
“The Republicans are in a tailspin and are focusing on everything except what is top of mind for Americans,” she told me. “And rising costs, shuttering businesses, trade wars for no reason are the issues of the day—unnecessary drama created by this administration.”
Not so fast: The Trump administration and its Hill allies are touting this morning’s inflation data as a win, but Democrats contend that modest price relief won’t fix what their economic agenda could break.
Republicans argue that the tax cuts and spending reductions in their budget reconciliation plan will grow the economy.
But most independent experts say the benefits will largely flow to wealthy individuals and large corporations, while deep cuts to programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and housing assistance would erode the social safety net.
GOP leaders also claim their deregulatory push—repealing Biden-era rules through the Congressional Review Act—will lower costs. But those rollbacks could worsen the climate crisis, weaken labor protections, and reduce oversight of powerful special interests.
It’s why Democrats claim Republicans are offering economic policy aimed more at donors and industry than struggling families.
Want to reach the people shaping policy and politics? Once Upon a Hill puts your message in front of the Capitol’s most plugged-in audience—where influence meets insight. Let’s talk about how a sponsorship can align with your goals. Email michael@onceuponahill.com to learn more.
● ● ○
Schatz escalates nominee confirmation blockade
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) escalated his pressure campaign against President Trump’s foreign policy agenda this week, expanding his hold to more than 300 nominees—including 50 newly announced names.
Allow me to explain: His blockade now stretches across more than a dozen federal agencies and includes bipartisan foreign affairs legislation, marking one of the most sweeping procedural protests of Trump 2.0.
With Senate Republicans eager to move nominees amid escalating global crises, Schatz’s maneuver forces them to burn precious floor time and raises the cost of GOP inaction on oversight.
It’s also a marker of how Democrats are recalibrating post-2024: more aggressive, more values-forward, and more willing to wield institutional tools to jam the Trump agenda.
In his own words: In a brief interview this week, Schatz told me that confirming each nominee would take between two to four hours—far more time than the Senate has.
“Republicans still have a 53-47 majority, so if they want to confirm someone, they have the votes for that,” he said. “But what this means is that none of these people will move unanimously and without expending any time.”
“Normally, if the parties are to agree to confirm someone unanimously, there has to be negotiation, right? And so I’m open-minded to a negotiation.”
A closer look: Among the blocked: Anthony D’Esposito, tapped for the Labor Department’s top watchdog; Scott Kupor, nominee for the Office of Personnel Management; and nominees across State, Defense, and Homeland Security.
Schatz has also placed holds on nine bipartisan bills that cleared the Foreign Relations Committee, pressuring the panel to step up oversight.
The big picture: Schatz’s sweeping hold is part of a broader pattern taking shape among Senate Democrats. Alongside Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), he’s emerged as one of the party’s key voices against Trump 2.0.
The three senators—all members of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s leadership team—have combined traditional tools like holds and filibusters with media-forward tactics to mount a new generation of resistance.
In the know: Senators have increasingly used holds on executive branch nominees to challenge presidential policies.
This week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) placed a hold on Trump’s pick to lead the cybersecurity agency over what he calls a “multi-year cover-up” of telecom vulnerabilities.
In 2023, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) blocked military promotions to protest Pentagon abortion access policies.
And in 2020, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) held up Army promotions to defend impeachment witness Alexander Vindman.
Schatz’s holds fits squarely within this tradition: Leveraging confirmation power to check executive overreach.