The United States House of Representatives voted Wednesday to oppose the tariffs levied against Canada by President Donald Trump, approving the measure by a narrow but bipartisan margin of 219-211.
Maine’s Rep. Jared Golden (D) of the Second Congressional District was the only Democratic lawmaker to join the majority of Republicans in rejecting the move and expressing support for the president’s policy.
“I’ve loudly supported tariffs as a tool to make America more self-sufficient,” Rep. Golden, who is not seeking reelection, said Thursday morning, according to the Portland Press Herald. “I don’t have plans to take that tool out of the toolbox.”
Six Republican lawmakers also broke ranks to vote alongside the rest of the Democrats to back the resolution pushing back on President Trump’s tariffs.
Should this measure be approved by the Senate, it will then be sent to the president’s desk, where it would require his backing in order to take effect.
Almost immediately after the resolution passed in the House, Trump rebuked the move in a Truth Social post.
“Any Republican, in the House or the Senate that votes against TARIFFS,” he said, “will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!”
“TARIFFS have given us Economic and National Security,” he wrote, in part, “and no Republican should be responsible for destroying this privilege.”
In a subsequent Truth Social post, the president again urged Republican lawmakers to keep his Canadian tariffs in place.
“Canada has taken advantage of the United States on Trade for many years,” he wrote. “They are among the worst in the World to deal with, especially as it relates to our Northern Border.”
“TARIFFS make a WIN for us, EASY,” he said. “Republicans must keep it that way!”
On February 1 of last year, Trump declared an emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), citing a lack of effort from the Canadian government to prevent illegal drugs, including fentanyl, from coming across the border.
The IEEPA was originally enacted in 1977 and gives the president broad authority to regulate economic transactions under a declared emergency.
This law also gives Congress the authority to terminate a president’s emergency declaration, but in light of a landmark Supreme Court ruling, they are only able to do so by adopting a joint resolution.
Until 2023, however, Congress had never attempted to terminate a president’s emergency declaration under the IEEPA.
“The sustained influx of illicit opioids and other drugs has profound consequences on our Nation, endangering lives and putting a severe strain on our healthcare system, public services, and communities,” said Trump in his 2025 executive order declaring an emergency under the IEEPA.
“This challenge threatens the fabric of our society,” he argued. “Canada has played a central role in these challenges, including by failing to devote sufficient attention and resources or meaningfully coordinate with United States law enforcement partners to effectively stem the tide of illicit drugs.”
“This national emergency requires decisive and immediate action, and I have decided to impose, consistent with law, ad valorem tariffs on articles that are products of Canada set forth in this order,” Trump declared.
An ad valorem tariff is one that is calculated based on the value of goods, as opposed to their size or weight.
The executive order goes on to lay out which products would be subject to a 10 percent tariff and which would be subject to a 25 percent tariff.
[RELATED: Supreme Court Signals Skepticism of Trump’s Tariff Authority in High-Stakes Trade Case]
A case challenging Trump’s tariffs levied against Canada and other countries under the IEEPA is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.
This past fall, the Justices heard two hours’ worth of oral arguments in the case, appearing skeptical of the Trump Administration’s interpretation of the IEEPA.
Although there has been speculation for some time now that a ruling could soon be coming from the Court in this case, the Justices have yet to release their decision.
The Justices will be returning to the bench on February 20 after taking several weeks off, meaning that it is highly unlikely that an opinion will be released until then at the earliest.
Although the Court may wait until as late as June to issue a ruling, they are likely to do so sooner as the case was fast-tracked by the Justices and heard on an accelerated schedule.
