119-SJRES-88 Investigative Journalist Impact Analysis

Summary

• What the resolution does: Ends the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257 (published at 90 Fed. Reg. 15041) that underpins the administration’s across‑the‑board “reciprocal” tariffs; under the National Emergencies Act, powers exercised “by reason of” that emergency cease on termination. [2]govinfo (GPO) — Federal Register: Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025 (90 FR…[1]Legal Information Institute (Cornell) — 50 U.S.C. § 1622 – National emergencies…
• Status/timing: The Senate passed S.J.Res. 88 on October 30, 2025 (51–47) and messaged it to the House, where it is held at the desk as of October 31. [6]Senate Democratic Caucus — Wrap Up for Thursday, October 30, 2025 (Senate passe…[7]Congress.gov (Library of Congress) — Congressional Record (Oct. 30, 2025): Term…[8]Congress.gov (Library of Congress) — S.J.Res. 88 — 119th Congress: Overview and…
• Baseline policy being unwound: A 10% universal tariff plus higher country‑specific “reciprocal” rates announced April 2, 2025 via IEEPA—a use of emergency powers currently under Supreme Court review after lower courts found most such tariffs unlawful. [9]The White House — White House fact sheet (Apr. 2, 2025): National emergency and…[10]Reuters — Reuters: Most Trump tariffs are not legal, U.S. appeals court rules (…[11]EY — EY Tax Alert: U.S. Supreme Court will hear tariff case in early November 2…
• Topline impacts if enacted: Near‑term easing of inflation and input costs; reduced projected federal revenue; relief for consumers—especially lower‑income households; loss of temporary protection for import‑competing industries; and de‑escalation risks/opportunities with trading partners. [3]Reuters — Reuters: CBO sees output falling and inflation higher from 2025 tarif…[4]NBER — NBER Working Paper 25672: The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Price…[12]Yale University — Yale Budget Lab: Distributional effects of 2025 tariffs (thro…

Economic Effects

Evidence emphasizes price pass‑through to U.S. buyers, modest aggregate output drag from broad tariffs, and mixed/limited manufacturing job gains.

• Price level: Studies of the 2018–2019 tariff cycle find near‑complete pass‑through of U.S. tariffs to import prices paid by U.S. firms/consumers; removing broad IEEPA tariffs would, by symmetry, reduce these duty‑inclusive prices. [4]NBER — NBER Working Paper 25672: The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Price…
• Inflation/GDP: CBO estimated the 2025 tariff package would raise inflation ~0.4 percentage points in 2025–2026 and lower real output modestly; terminating the emergency would remove that specific drag (while also forgoing tariff revenue). [3]Reuters — Reuters: CBO sees output falling and inflation higher from 2025 tarif…
• Revenues/deficit: CBO projected ~$2.8 trillion in 10‑year deficit reduction if tariffs persisted; repeal would reverse that revenue effect unless offset, though macro impacts could partly cushion revenue via higher real activity. [3]Reuters — Reuters: CBO sees output falling and inflation higher from 2025 tarif…
• Manufacturing and input costs: Fed research links higher tariffs to higher producer prices and relative declines in manufacturing employment in more‑exposed industries due to costlier imported inputs and retaliation—suggesting input cost relief and competitiveness gains from repeal. [5]Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System — Federal Reserve FEDS 2019-08…
• Market uncertainty: Courts have ruled most IEEPA‑based tariffs unlawful (stayed pending Supreme Court review); legislative termination would reduce legal/policy uncertainty that has weighed on planning and valuations. [10]Reuters — Reuters: Most Trump tariffs are not legal, U.S. appeals court rules (…
• Scope caveat: Repeal of the IEEPA emergency would not touch tariffs imposed under other statutes (e.g., Section 232 steel/aluminum), which the administration has also been using. [11]EY — EY Tax Alert: U.S. Supreme Court will hear tariff case in early November 2…[13]govinfo (GPO) — Federal Register: Executive Order 14346 (Sept. 5, 2025) referen…

Social Effects

Distributional evidence points to disproportionate burdens from tariffs on lower‑income consumers and some regional/sectoral exposures.

• Regressive incidence: Analyses show tariffs act as a regressive tax in the short run; repeal disproportionately benefits lower‑income households that spend larger shares on traded goods. [12]Yale University — Yale Budget Lab: Distributional effects of 2025 tariffs (thro…[14]Reuters — Reuters: WTO says tariffs tend to hit the poor harder
• Poverty: Modeling by the Yale Budget Lab indicates 2025 tariffs raise measured poverty by roughly 650,000–875,000 people; removing the emergency would pull in the opposite direction, all else equal. [15]Yale University — Yale Budget Lab: The Effect of Tariffs on Poverty
• De minimis/low‑value imports: Curtailing exemptions increased prices on cheap direct‑to‑consumer imports relied on lower‑income ZIP codes; repeal (and any restoration of prior rules) would mitigate those cost pressures. [16]News result · turn 8 #12
• Regional exposure: Manufacturing‑heavy regions (Midwest/Southeast) faced higher input‑cost risks under broad tariffs; removal alleviates those pressures but re‑exposes import‑competing plants to global prices. [17]News result · turn 9 #13

Environmental Effects

No direct environmental provisions are at issue; effects are second‑order via trade, prices, and technology diffusion.

• Clean‑tech diffusion: Trade liberalization in environmental goods is associated (in model‑based evidence) with modest global emissions reductions via cheaper efficiency/renewable inputs; removing broad, non‑targeted tariffs would lower costs of such goods at the margin. [18]World Trade Organization — WTO Working Paper ERSD-2023-05: Environmental goods…
• Net emissions ambiguity: Broader trade growth can raise transport/production emissions, while cleaner‑tech access can reduce intensity; recent cross‑country work finds climate laws, not general trade shifts, drive net trade‑related emissions trends. [19]Springer — Environmental and Resource Economics (2023): Climate legislation and…
• Retaliation and logistics: Recent tariff‑related frictions (e.g., reciprocal port fees) increase shipping costs and route inefficiencies; de‑escalation could lessen such disruptions, with uncertain emissions effects. [20]Reuters — Reuters: U.S. and China impose reciprocal port fees (Oct. 14, 2025)

Temporal Analysis

Distinguishing immediate relief from longer‑run strategic adjustments and legal contingencies.

1. Immediate (enactment): Under 50 U.S.C. §1622, authorities exercised “by reason of” the emergency cease; Customs would stop collecting the IEEPA‑based duties, and import prices adjust quickly as duties are removed. Refund/claims processing would follow existing litigation/CBP procedures. [1]Legal Information Institute (Cornell) — 50 U.S.C. § 1622 – National emergencies…[21]Davis Wright Tremaine LLP — Davis Wright Tremaine: Federal Circuit decision—IEE…
2. Near term (weeks–months): Firms unwind surcharge pass‑throughs and reprice contracts; inventory cycles normalize; some import volumes rebound from tariff‑suppressed baselines. Courts/Supreme Court proceedings could become moot as to IEEPA tariffs. [11]EY — EY Tax Alert: U.S. Supreme Court will hear tariff case in early November 2…
3. Medium term (6–18 months): Competitive pressures re‑emerge in protected sectors; administration can still deploy targeted tools (e.g., Section 232/301, antidumping/countervailing duties), which would shape residual protection and sector outcomes. [13]govinfo (GPO) — Federal Register: Executive Order 14346 (Sept. 5, 2025) referen…[11]EY — EY Tax Alert: U.S. Supreme Court will hear tariff case in early November 2…

Unintended Consequences

• Budget trade‑off: Ending the emergency eliminates a large revenue stream CBO scored for deficit reduction; absent offsets, near‑term deficits are higher than under a “tariffs‑persist” baseline. [3]Reuters — Reuters: CBO sees output falling and inflation higher from 2025 tarif…
• Policy substitution risk: The executive could pivot to other legal bases (e.g., Section 232 expansions) or narrower actions that re‑introduce uncertainty and costs, muting benefits from repeal. [13]govinfo (GPO) — Federal Register: Executive Order 14346 (Sept. 5, 2025) referen…
• Retaliation unwind not automatic: Some partners tied counter‑measures to broader disputes (e.g., port fees); de‑escalation may lag, blunting quick gains in logistics costs. [20]Reuters — Reuters: U.S. and China impose reciprocal port fees (Oct. 14, 2025)
• Litigation complexity: Termination interacts with ongoing refund claims and precedent over IEEPA scope; agencies and courts would need to resolve retroactivity and remedy questions. [21]Davis Wright Tremaine LLP — Davis Wright Tremaine: Federal Circuit decision—IEE…

Assessment

Overall stance (analytical): Favorable (conditional). The weight of empirical evidence indicates broad, emergency‑based tariffs raised U.S. prices, reduced real income, and delivered limited net manufacturing employment gains; terminating the emergency removes that specific source of distortion and legal uncertainty. Benefits are largest for consumers—especially lower‑income households—while fiscal revenues fall versus a tariffs‑persist baseline. Net outcomes depend on whether alternative authorities are used to re‑impose protection and on the Supreme Court ruling. [4]NBER — NBER Working Paper 25672: The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Price…[5]Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System — Federal Reserve FEDS 2019-08…[12]Yale University — Yale Budget Lab: Distributional effects of 2025 tariffs (thro…[3]Reuters — Reuters: CBO sees output falling and inflation higher from 2025 tarif…

Sourcing (principal references)

Selected authorities and analyses underpinning this assessment.

• Text/status: Congress.gov pages for S.J.Res. 88, actions and Congressional Record; Senate floor wrap‑up. [8]Congress.gov (Library of Congress) — S.J.Res. 88 — 119th Congress: Overview and…[7]Congress.gov (Library of Congress) — Congressional Record (Oct. 30, 2025): Term…[6]Senate Democratic Caucus — Wrap Up for Thursday, October 30, 2025 (Senate passe…
• Legal basis: Executive Order 14257 (90 Fed. Reg. 15041) and NEA termination rule at 50 U.S.C. §1622. [2]govinfo (GPO) — Federal Register: Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025 (90 FR…[1]Legal Information Institute (Cornell) — 50 U.S.C. § 1622 – National emergencies…
• Courts: Reuters/AP coverage and practitioner summaries on CIT/Federal Circuit rulings and Supreme Court scheduling. [10]Reuters — Reuters: Most Trump tariffs are not legal, U.S. appeals court rules (…[11]EY — EY Tax Alert: U.S. Supreme Court will hear tariff case in early November 2…[21]Davis Wright Tremaine LLP — Davis Wright Tremaine: Federal Circuit decision—IEE…
• Macro/price effects: NBER and Federal Reserve research on tariff pass‑through and manufacturing outcomes; CBO scoring on inflation/GDP/deficit. [4]NBER — NBER Working Paper 25672: The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Price…[5]Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System — Federal Reserve FEDS 2019-08…[3]Reuters — Reuters: CBO sees output falling and inflation higher from 2025 tarif…
• Distributional/poverty: Yale Budget Lab distributional/poverty analyses and WTO report on tariff regressivity. [12]Yale University — Yale Budget Lab: Distributional effects of 2025 tariffs (thro…[15]Yale University — Yale Budget Lab: The Effect of Tariffs on Poverty[14]Reuters — Reuters: WTO says tariffs tend to hit the poor harder
• Environmental channels: WTO working paper on environmental goods liberalization and peer‑reviewed work on trade‑related emissions. [18]World Trade Organization — WTO Working Paper ERSD-2023-05: Environmental goods…[19]Springer — Environmental and Resource Economics (2023): Climate legislation and…