Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes on Imported Goods Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/151
Last Updated: March 31, 2025

Sponsored by

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

ID: S001181

Follow the money

The bill

Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes on Imported Goods Act of 2025

S. 151, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.

The sponsor

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$72,850 raised

21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Trade" section, p. 843-845 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes on Imported Goods Act of 2025" is a cleverly crafted title designed to deceive the gullible masses. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to limit the President's authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The sponsors, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Kaine, are trying to restrict the President's ability to impose duties and tariff-rate quotas on imported goods. But don't be fooled – this is not about protecting Americans from tax hikes; it's about shielding special interest groups and corporations from accountability.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 203 of IEEPA by inserting a new subsection (c), which excludes the authority to impose duties and tariff-rate quotas on imported goods. This change is a cleverly worded attempt to handcuff the President's ability to respond to economic emergencies or unfair trade practices. The language is deliberately vague, allowing for creative interpretations that will undoubtedly benefit the bill's true beneficiaries – corporate lobbyists and their congressional puppets.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved in this legislative charade:

* Corporate interests: Companies with significant imports will rejoice at the prospect of reduced tariffs and quotas. * Lobbyists: The real architects behind this bill, who have cleverly manipulated the language to serve their clients' interests. * Congressional sponsors: Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Kaine, who are either naive or complicit in this farce.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease – the corrupting influence of corporate money on our legislative process. By limiting the President's authority under IEEPA, Congress is effectively surrendering its constitutional duty to regulate commerce and protect American interests. The consequences will be:

* Increased trade deficits * Job losses in industries affected by unfair trade practices * Weakened national security due to reduced economic leverage

In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in legislative deception. It's a cleverly crafted attempt to serve corporate interests while masquerading as a protectionist measure. The sponsors and lobbyists behind this bill should be ashamed of themselves – but they won't be, because they're too busy counting their campaign contributions and laughing all the way to the bank.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with symptoms of corruption, cowardice, and greed. Prognosis: Poor, unless the American people wake up and demand better from their elected officials.

Related Topics

Trade & International Commerce
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$72,850
13 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$250
Committees
$0
Individuals
$72,600

No PAC contributions found

1
TILT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE LLC
1 transaction
$250

No committee contributions found

1
HAWASH, NOUR
4 transactions
$19,800
2
HAWASH, SAFA
2 transactions
$6,600
3
KANDIL, MARIAM
2 transactions
$6,600
4
SHAH, JAWAD
2 transactions
$6,600
5
SIMMONS, IAN
2 transactions
$6,600
6
SOLTAN, BOSHRA
2 transactions
$6,600
7
JONDY, JENAN
1 transaction
$3,300
8
KANDIL, OSAMA
1 transaction
$3,300
9
WU, ALBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
10
MORIN, THOMAS
1 transaction
$3,300
11
CROWLEY, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$3,300
12
HUNT, SWANEE
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 28 nodes and 21 connections (45 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $72,850

Top Donors - Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

Showing top 13 donors by contribution amount

1 Org12 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 17 helped.

  • +Oil & Gasconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(c)(1) excludes the President's authority to impose duties or tariff-rate quotas on imported goods under IEEPA, which would benefit oil and gas importers by preventing tariffs on foreign crude oil, natural gas, or refined products.

  • +Coal Miningconfidence 0.85

    Section 2(c)(1) removes the President's power to impose duties or tariff-rate quotas on imported articles, which would benefit coal importers by preventing tariffs on foreign coal entering the U.S.

  • +Renewable Energyconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(c)(1) blocks the President from imposing duties or tariff-rate quotas on imported goods, which could benefit renewable energy importers (e.g., solar panels, wind turbine components) by avoiding tariffs on foreign-made equipment.

  • +Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(c)(1) removes the President's authority to impose duties or tariff-rate quotas on imported goods, which could benefit electric utilities that import fuel (coal, natural gas, oil) or equipment by avoiding tariffs on such imports.

  • +Big-Box Retailconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(c)(1) excludes the President's authority to impose duties or tariff-rate quotas on imported goods, which would benefit big-box retailers that rely on imported merchandise (e.g., electronics, apparel, home goods) by preventing tariffs on such imports.

  • +Nuclear Powerconfidence 0.75

    Section 2(c)(1) prevents the President from imposing duties or tariff-rate quotas on imported articles, which could benefit nuclear power importers (e.g., uranium, fuel assemblies, reactor components) by avoiding tariffs on foreign nuclear materials.

+ 11 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Trade

Strong
Vector: 64%
Pages: 843-845AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s goal of curbing unilateral presidential tariff authority to increase predictability and reduce consumer costs aligns with Project 2025’s emphasis on trade liberalization, congressional oversight of trade policy, and limiting executive overreach in tariff matters."

Key themes:tariff reformtrade predictabilitycongressional oversighttrade liberalizationlimiting executive unilateral power

— 810 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise It is important not to oversell trade’s inflation benefits as a cure-all, but at the margin, it can help. The next Administration should keep this in mind as it tries to cope with this politically volatile issue. Trade and Foreign Policy. We have seen how trade liberalization would boost the domestic economy and make American businesses more competitive, but conservative trade policies also benefit America’s foreign policy interests. Policy- makers should therefore: l Negotiate multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. l Reform the World Trade Organization or build a successor organization with membership limited to liberal democracies. l Repeal the Jones Act to replace Russian energy imports with domestic production. l Develop a multifaceted, long-term China policy that takes seriously America’s biggest foreign policy threat and deals with it on several fronts. National Security. The most persuasive arguments against a market-oriented trade policy come from another national objective: national security. Protection- ism and similar progressive policies tend to weaken American security, but trade creates peace. The more countries trade, the less likely they are to fight one another and the more robust their supply networks will be. Going to war with customers is bad for business. Without a strong economic interest in continued U.S. investment and exports, for example, China’s behavior would likely become increasingly less predictable and more dangerous. Anyone who thinks Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping and the government in Beijing are bad actors now—which they are—should consider what would happen if the Chinese convinced liberal countries like the United States to decouple from them, leaving them free to pursue whatever policies they wish without the significant counterweight that America can provide. That is one reason for Xi Jinping’s emphasis on centralization and self-suffi- ciency. He does not like international pressure about his government’s human rights violations and bad-faith trading policies, and decoupling from trading part- ners like America is one way to avoid that pressure. A less constrained China would be poorer but much more unstable and dangerous to its neighbors and to America than it would be if it still had to engage regularly with the rest of the world. Trade Promotion Authority. Trade agreements can take years to negotiate. One way to accelerate the process is for Congress to grant the President Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). It was first granted under the 1974 Trade Act, which — 811 — Trade contains the Sections 201 and 301 tariff delegations. TPA, then called fast-track, has aided several trade agreements, including NAFTA and the USMCA, which took effect in 2020. TPA has lapsed before during slow periods in trade policy, most recently in July 2021, and remains lapsed today. The President should work with Congress to renew TPA to rationalize negoti- ations for upcoming trade agreements with the United Kingdom, the European Union, and others. Both supporters and critics have questions regarding TPA’s implications for the constitutional separation of powers, and policymakers should take those questions seriously. As things currently stand, Congress has some oversight powers over the President’s negotiations under TPA, but they are limited. Congress can increase its oversight by passing new legislation superseding relevant provisions of the 1974 Trade Act. However, that is a double-edged sword. A Congress that largely favors free trade could exercise oversight to keep the President on the straight and narrow in trade negotiations. A progressive Congress would instead insist that the President negotiate for as many trade-unrelated provisions as possible to benefit labor and green constituencies while pushing progressive policies on the U.S. and its trading partners. On balance, a single voice at the negotiating table that is subject to congressional oversight is the best posture for American workers and consumers. A fractious Congress has yet to demonstrate the capacity to negotiate with other nations, but it can help to hold the Administration accountable. Trade Agreements with the United Kingdom, European Union, and Others. Even with a renewed TPA, trade agreement negotiations will likely take years. The Trump and Biden Administrations were not inclined to start the process, so that job may well fall to the next Administration. In that sense, the delays may end up being worth it. If there is one lodestar to follow, it is to restrict these agreements to trade issues only. Ever since NAFTA, trade-unrelated provisions have taken on a greater role in trade agreements. These create sticking points and are routinely hijacked by rent-seeking special interests and progressive ideologues who demand subsidies, carve-outs, and economically distorting labor and environmental standards that have nothing to do with trade. If governments are to negotiate these issues, they should do so in separate agreements so they do not torpedo efforts to liberalize and engage with allies. Trade agreements should lighten burdens, not create new ones by attempting to address non-trade issues. Policy leaders in the United States and the United Kingdom, including experts from The Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Insti- tute, have prepared a model trade agreement along these lines.73 Along with TPA renewal, this would greatly reduce negotiating costs. This template is also readily adaptable for agreements with Europe and any other allies that are willing to

Trade

Strong
Vector: 64%
Pages: 843-845AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s restriction on presidential unilateral tariff authority under IEEPA aligns with Project 2025’s emphasis on congressional oversight of trade policy, limiting executive overreach, and promoting predictable, free‑trade‑focused agreements. Both seek to reduce arbitrary trade actions and increase legislative involvement in trade decisions."

Key themes:congressional oversightlimiting executive trade authoritypromoting free trade predictabilityreducing unilateral tariff actions

— 811 — Trade contains the Sections 201 and 301 tariff delegations. TPA, then called fast-track, has aided several trade agreements, including NAFTA and the USMCA, which took effect in 2020. TPA has lapsed before during slow periods in trade policy, most recently in July 2021, and remains lapsed today. The President should work with Congress to renew TPA to rationalize negoti- ations for upcoming trade agreements with the United Kingdom, the European Union, and others. Both supporters and critics have questions regarding TPA’s implications for the constitutional separation of powers, and policymakers should take those questions seriously. As things currently stand, Congress has some oversight powers over the President’s negotiations under TPA, but they are limited. Congress can increase its oversight by passing new legislation superseding relevant provisions of the 1974 Trade Act. However, that is a double-edged sword. A Congress that largely favors free trade could exercise oversight to keep the President on the straight and narrow in trade negotiations. A progressive Congress would instead insist that the President negotiate for as many trade-unrelated provisions as possible to benefit labor and green constituencies while pushing progressive policies on the U.S. and its trading partners. On balance, a single voice at the negotiating table that is subject to congressional oversight is the best posture for American workers and consumers. A fractious Congress has yet to demonstrate the capacity to negotiate with other nations, but it can help to hold the Administration accountable. Trade Agreements with the United Kingdom, European Union, and Others. Even with a renewed TPA, trade agreement negotiations will likely take years. The Trump and Biden Administrations were not inclined to start the process, so that job may well fall to the next Administration. In that sense, the delays may end up being worth it. If there is one lodestar to follow, it is to restrict these agreements to trade issues only. Ever since NAFTA, trade-unrelated provisions have taken on a greater role in trade agreements. These create sticking points and are routinely hijacked by rent-seeking special interests and progressive ideologues who demand subsidies, carve-outs, and economically distorting labor and environmental standards that have nothing to do with trade. If governments are to negotiate these issues, they should do so in separate agreements so they do not torpedo efforts to liberalize and engage with allies. Trade agreements should lighten burdens, not create new ones by attempting to address non-trade issues. Policy leaders in the United States and the United Kingdom, including experts from The Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Insti- tute, have prepared a model trade agreement along these lines.73 Along with TPA renewal, this would greatly reduce negotiating costs. This template is also readily adaptable for agreements with Europe and any other allies that are willing to — 812 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise liberalize their economies and build a stronger alliance with America. The draft U.S.–U.K. agreement includes an accession chapter to allow others to join on the same terms. Restoring or Replacing the WTO Dispute Resolution Process. The World Trade Organization as we know it may be mortally wounded. This deprives the U.S. of the WTO’s dispute resolution process, under which the U.S. it won 85 percent of the cases it brought. The WTO’s slow death began under the Obama Administra- tion, which refused to allow appointees to the WTO’s appellate board, which as a consequence is now nonfunctional. Both the Trump and Biden Administrations have continued the Obama Administration’s approach. That means that every case in the dispute resolution process will sputter to a halt as parties file appeals that cannot be heard. If the WTO is no longer fit for that purpose, it may be better to look in a different direction. More than 20 years ago, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow proposed that America and other free economies should form a Global Free Trade Alliance that is open to all countries that adhere to a truly free market system with appropriate safeguards such as property rights, lack of corruption, and enforcement of contracts.74 Alongside a general agreement on low to zero tariffs, the alliance would move to reduce the effect of nontariff barriers (such as the previously noted baby formula ingredient and labeling barriers) by basing trade around the principle of mutual recognition. Such an alliance could be started by a trade agreement between the United States and, for example, the United Kingdom with an accession chapter allowing others to join if they meet the criteria. It would be essential for a Global Free Trade Alliance to avoid the WTO’s most serious problem: the exemptions from its rules that are granted to developing countries. When China joined the WTO in 2001, it was granted developing-na- tion status, which it continues to use to dodge rules that should apply to it. Other countries have used that status to delay needed reforms. Rule exemptions give some countries a perverse incentive to remain poor and autocratic. A Global Free Trade Alliance would allow the U.S. to enjoy the benefits of a rules- based international trading system without the WTO’s shortcomings. Negotiation costs would be lower because the countries would already be allied on many issues. In addition, there would be no separate tiers with different rules, and this would give developing countries an incentive to liberalize. In addition to being good for its own sake, liberalization would give them entry into a prestigious club that tilted toward America’s orbit and away from China’s. Closing the Export–Import Bank. The Export–Import Bank (EXIM) is an unusually clear example of how vulnerable trade protectionism is to being hijacked by special interests.75 In most years, about half of EXIM’s business benefits a single company, Boeing. Their relationship is so cozy that EXIM’s nickname around Washington is “the Bank of Boeing.”

Trade

Strong
Vector: 64%
Pages: 843-845AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill limits presidential authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on trade liberalization, reducing protectionist measures, and promoting predictable, market‑oriented trade policies to boost competitiveness and foreign‑policy interests."

Key themes:trade liberalizationtariff reductionlimiting protectionist executive powerpredictable trade policysupport for free trade

— 810 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise It is important not to oversell trade’s inflation benefits as a cure-all, but at the margin, it can help. The next Administration should keep this in mind as it tries to cope with this politically volatile issue. Trade and Foreign Policy. We have seen how trade liberalization would boost the domestic economy and make American businesses more competitive, but conservative trade policies also benefit America’s foreign policy interests. Policy- makers should therefore: l Negotiate multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. l Reform the World Trade Organization or build a successor organization with membership limited to liberal democracies. l Repeal the Jones Act to replace Russian energy imports with domestic production. l Develop a multifaceted, long-term China policy that takes seriously America’s biggest foreign policy threat and deals with it on several fronts. National Security. The most persuasive arguments against a market-oriented trade policy come from another national objective: national security. Protection- ism and similar progressive policies tend to weaken American security, but trade creates peace. The more countries trade, the less likely they are to fight one another and the more robust their supply networks will be. Going to war with customers is bad for business. Without a strong economic interest in continued U.S. investment and exports, for example, China’s behavior would likely become increasingly less predictable and more dangerous. Anyone who thinks Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping and the government in Beijing are bad actors now—which they are—should consider what would happen if the Chinese convinced liberal countries like the United States to decouple from them, leaving them free to pursue whatever policies they wish without the significant counterweight that America can provide. That is one reason for Xi Jinping’s emphasis on centralization and self-suffi- ciency. He does not like international pressure about his government’s human rights violations and bad-faith trading policies, and decoupling from trading part- ners like America is one way to avoid that pressure. A less constrained China would be poorer but much more unstable and dangerous to its neighbors and to America than it would be if it still had to engage regularly with the rest of the world. Trade Promotion Authority. Trade agreements can take years to negotiate. One way to accelerate the process is for Congress to grant the President Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). It was first granted under the 1974 Trade Act, which

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills