Trump tariffs face bipartisan pushback on inflation risks

Why bipartisan opposition to Trump’s tariffs is growing

Skepticism of President Trump’s tariff strategy has widened beyond traditional critics and is now a cross-party phenomenon. Republican fiscal conservatives and trade-focused Democrats increasingly converge on two concerns: higher consumer costs and the concentration of tariff power in the executive branch.

The shift has coincided with a broader reassessment of tariff efficacy. As reported by the Financial Times, trade watchers flagged signs of “peak tariff,” reflecting fatigue with unpredictable duties and a desire for steadier policy footing.

What the bipartisan backlash means for policy and consumers

Analysts warn that “reciprocal” or ad hoc tariffs can be arbitrary, raise corruption risks, and are unlikely to narrow trade deficits; according to the Brookings Institution, such frameworks also inject uncertainty that filters into prices and supply chains. In practice, broad-based duties tend to lift import costs first, then ripple through to wholesalers, small businesses, and households.

Fiscal conservatives inside the GOP argue that tariffs function as taxes and should remain a congressional prerogative under the Constitution. “Tariffs are a tax, clear and simple,” said Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

While the inflation path depends on implementation and duration, the direction of pressure from new or higher duties is typically upward. Historically, tariff shocks have also produced uneven outcomes across sectors, aiding a narrow set of producers while raising input costs for many others.

Immediate actions in Congress and key voices driving pushback

House lawmakers moved to check the policy on allied trade by passing a resolution to end tariffs on Canada that were imposed under emergency authorities; as reported by the Associated Press, the vote marked a rare bipartisan rebuke of the White House’s tariff use against a close partner. The step underscores an appetite in both parties to reassert oversight when national-security rationales spill into longer-running trade restrictions.

Key Republican voices have sharpened the critique. According to ABC7, Senator Ted Cruz has called the tariffs a tax on consumers and warned of inflation and job risks if they persist, framing the policy as economically counterproductive over time.

At the time of this writing, market context for tariff-sensitive names remains mixed. Based on data from Robinhood, United States Steel trades near $54.84 with a market capitalization of about $12.42 billion and a 52-week range of $26.92 to $54.91, illustrating how sector pricing often reflects shifting expectations about trade barriers and input costs rather than policy headlines alone.

Constitutional checks and the Trade Review Act explained

Congressional leaders have advanced a structural fix to rebalance authorities. As summarized by Wikipedia, the bipartisan Trade Review Act of 2025, introduced by Sens. Maria Cantwell and Chuck Grassley, would require the president to notify Congress of new tariffs and obtain approval for any duties lasting beyond 60 days.

In regulatory terms, the proposal would install a time-bound checkpoint on unilateral tariff actions, reinforcing Article I taxing and commerce powers while preserving short-term flexibility for emergencies. If enacted, it could make tariff policy more predictable for consumers and businesses, although its real-world impact would hinge on how frequently and forcefully Congress exercises the review window.