House Votes to Overturn Trump's Canada Tariffs in Rare Bipartisan Rebuke — But the President Holds the Veto Pen

The GOP lawmakers who crossed the aisle represent a mix of retiring members, incumbents in competitive districts, and ideological conservatives who view tariffs as a constitutional overreach by the executive branch. Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Kevin Kiley of California, Dan Newhouse of Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, and Jeff Hurd of Colorado each voted to terminate the national emergency underlying the Canada tariffs. Only one Democrat — Rep. Jared Golden of Maine — voted with Republicans to oppose the measure.

The political calculus varied for each defector. Bacon and Newhouse are both retiring and thus immune to Trump's primary threats. Massie already faces a Trump-endorsed primary challenger. But Fitzpatrick and Hurd represent swing districts that are top Democratic targets in November, making their votes a calculated risk that reflects how deeply tariff anxiety has penetrated Republican-leaning constituencies.

Bacon, who said the White House tried unsuccessfully to flip his vote by offering policy "sweeteners" for Nebraska, was blunt in his rationale. "I voted on principle," he told reporters. "They were trying to do sweeteners for Nebraska, but I said what about the other 49 states?" He argued that tariffs have been a "net negative" for the economy and amount to "a significant tax that American consumers, manufacturers, and farmers are paying." Hurd framed his vote in constitutional terms: "If we normalize broad emergency trade powers today, we should expect that a future president — of either party — will rely on the same authority in ways many of us would strongly oppose."

The vote itself was the culmination of a procedural battle that House Speaker Mike Johnson tried — and failed — to prevent. For months, GOP leaders had blocked lawmakers from forcing votes on Trump's tariff authority using a House rule that expired in January. Johnson engineered a complicated rules change on Tuesday that would have extended the ban through July 31, effectively shielding Trump's tariffs from congressional scrutiny through the summer.

But that strategy collapsed late Tuesday night when Massie, Kiley, and Bacon voted with every Democrat to defeat the procedural measure, ensuring the Democratic resolution could advance to a full floor vote. Johnson could be seen personally lobbying holdout Republican lawmakers as the leadership team scrambled to shore up support, but the numbers were insurmountable. With Republicans holding a razor-thin House majority, Johnson can afford to lose only one Republican vote when all Democrats are present and unified.

"This is life with a small majority," Johnson conceded to reporters. He later appeared on Fox Business, calling the vote "a big mistake" and arguing that Congress should not limit the president's negotiating power while trade agreements are being hammered out. "The president's trade policies have been of great benefit," Johnson insisted. Kevin Hassett, director of the White House's National Economic Council, expressed similar frustration: "We're disappointed in what the people have done. The president will make sure they don't repeal his tariffs."

The political debate over tariffs unfolds against a stark economic backdrop. U.S. customs duties have surged to extraordinary levels under Trump's trade regime. In January alone, the government collected approximately $30 billion in tariff revenue, putting the fiscal year-to-date tally at $124 billion — a 304% increase over the same period in 2025, according to Treasury Department data reported by CNBC. The revenue has helped reduce the pace of the federal budget deficit, which fell roughly 17% year-to-date compared to fiscal 2025.

But that revenue comes directly from American importers, who have overwhelmingly passed the costs on to consumers. A Congressional Budget Office report cited by NPR found that while tariffs are projected to help reduce deficits by over $3 trillion over a decade, companies are passing approximately 90% of tariff costs to consumers. Poll after poll has shown that Americans largely disapprove of the sweeping levies, and Republican lawmakers in competitive districts are hearing increasingly urgent complaints about rising prices on groceries, energy, and everyday goods.

Democrats have seized on the consumer cost argument as a core campaign message heading into November. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Trump's tariffs were "causing prices to skyrocket and creating unnecessary uncertainty for American families." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer added: "This price-spiking tariff tax is raising costs on everything from grocery prices to energy bills — all because Trump chose chaos over common sense." Republicans who support the tariffs counter that they are necessary tools for national security and trade leverage, but the political ground is shifting as kitchen-table economics collide with presidential loyalty.

Beyond the congressional battle, a potentially far more consequential reckoning awaits at the Supreme Court. The justices heard oral arguments last November in a case challenging the legal authority under which Trump imposed the tariffs — specifically, whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the president the power to levy sweeping trade duties unilaterally. Reports indicate the court appeared skeptical of the administration's legal arguments, and a ruling could come at any time.

The stakes are enormous. If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, it could not only invalidate the current tariff structure but potentially force the U.S. government to reimburse the $124 billion in duties already collected — a fiscal shock that would dwarf the deficit reduction the tariffs have produced. The White House has reportedly expressed concern about the implications of an adverse ruling.

Several of the Republican defectors explicitly cited the pending Supreme Court case as a reason to act. While Speaker Johnson argued that Congress should wait for the court's decision before intervening, Rep. Bacon pushed back: "Why doesn't the Congress stand on its own two feet and say that we're an independent branch? We should defend our authorities." Rep. Kiley offered a narrow legal argument for his vote, noting that the resolution addressed the emergency declaration over fentanyl from Canada specifically, and that since "Canada has now significantly cracked down on fentanyl, there's no basis to extend the emergency another six months."

The resolution now moves to the Senate, where the path forward is uncertain but not without precedent. The upper chamber voted twice in 2025 to block Trump's Canada tariffs, with four Republicans joining Democrats on both occasions. However, even if the Senate passes the measure again, the two-thirds supermajority required to override a presidential veto remains well out of reach in both chambers.

Trump's threat of primary challenges against Republican dissenters may carry less weight than intended. Two of the six defectors are not running for re-election, one already faces a Trump-backed challenger, and the others represent districts where opposing tariffs may actually be a political asset. Speaker Johnson seemed to acknowledge this reality when he told reporters — minutes before the vote — that he had just spoken with Trump at the White House and the president was "not upset," understanding that "he can veto these things if they come to him."

Meeks has signaled that the Canada vote is just the beginning. He plans to introduce additional resolutions targeting Trump's tariffs on Mexico, Brazil, and the sweeping "Liberation Day" global tariffs. Each vote would force Republicans to go on the record on trade policy months before voters head to the polls. The political dynamic is clear: in an environment where the CBO's own analysis shows consumers bearing the overwhelming share of tariff costs, each vote becomes a potential campaign advertisement — for either side.