The recent bipartisan attempt to dismantle Trump’s global tariffs met an awkward demise in the Senate, largely due to the conspicuous absence of two key senators.
Senatorial attendance issues played a significant role. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) was notably absent, as was Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who had previously supported a related bill aimed at reversing tariffs on Canada earlier this month.
As detailed by , Senator Rand Paul (often labeled a RINO from Kentucky) introduced a resolution that sought to abolish all of Trump’s tariffs, with a particular focus on those imposed on China, America’s foremost economic rival.
The vote resulted in a deadlock at 49-49, thus failing by a single vote. Among the three Republicans who opted to join the effort against Trump’s tariffs were:
Rand Paul of Kentucky
Susan Collins of Maine
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Had Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) shown up to vote, the outcome could have swung in favor of the resolution.
Paul’s proposal bears similarity to a tariff bill passed earlier this month, albeit with broader implications. That earlier bill, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), focused solely on eliminating national emergency tariffs against Canada.
Even if Paul’s resolution had passed, it likely would have faced an uphill battle in the House of Representatives. Moreover, Republicans have recently enacted measures that complicate the process for lawmakers to address issues related to Trump’s tariff powers, as noted by NBC news.
In a statement released on Tuesday, the White House indicated that Trump would veto the resolution should it make it to his desk.
Paul had anticipated the resolution’s success in the Senate this week and directed his frustrations toward House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) for obstructing the measure in the House.
Paul characterized Johnson’s actions as “chicanery” and “dishonesty,” condemning the inclusion of a rule in House regulations that would effectively prevent the anti-tariff resolution from being debated.
“I would call it chicanery. I would call it dishonesty. I mean, it’s just a terrible idea that he’s actually overturning the law with a rule,” Paul stated.
