this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
299 points (99.3% liked)

politics

22674 readers
3454 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Senators Chuck Grassley and Maria Cantwell introduced the bipartisan Trade Review Act of 2025 to reassert Congress’s authority over tariffs, following Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff announcements.

The bill would require the president to justify new tariffs and submit an economic impact analysis. Congress must approve tariffs within 60 days or they expire; it could also revoke them anytime.

Grassley’s support signals growing Republican concern over Trump’s trade policies.

The bill echoes the War Powers Act (1973), underscoring fears that unchecked trade actions harm U.S. allies, exports, and consumers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mPony@kbin.earth 50 points 2 days ago (4 children)

A bill.

So, anyone remember who has to sign a bill for it to become law? Anyone at school the day they taught that? Maybe there was a cute cartoon and a song on TV explaining this.

[–] iamjackflack@lemm.ee 40 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Not that it’s going to get enough support due to republicans falling in line, but you do realize that even if the president doesn’t sign or abstains it can still by passed by the house and congress right? It doesn’t stop at the president.

But you may be right, we already are totally doomed as it is.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

If it passes at all, we need to pay attention to how many votes there are for it. It takes a 2/3 threshold in both houses to override a veto. If the passing margin is anywhere near that, there will be enormous popular pressure to get the last few votes for an override after the President vetoes it....

.... which will screw over those last few on the fence, because the J6 nutters will know who they are, and they already attacked Congress once. I hope their home state can give them good law enforcement protection, because the Federal Government won't.

[–] SomeKindaName@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Are you saying violence is an effective way to influence our government? Sounds like it may work better than voting.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Normally violence wouldn't be an effective way to influence government, but our President has just broadcasted that violence that supports him gets a free pass, at least while he can hand out pardons as if they were candy (or perhaps Fentanyl).

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago

That reminds me, I have to sharpen my guillotine.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago

One of Trump's favorite shitty moves is directing the Secret Service not to protect you.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Sadly, I would bet that they did not know that.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago

If it's truly bipartisan, they might be able to get enough votes to override.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

If they're willing to take democratic signatures then Trump can't stop it.