The Senate delivered a sharp rebuke to former President Trump’s proposed aluminum tariffs on Canadian goods yesterday, as fifteen Republican senators crossed party lines to block the measure. This 65-29 vote marks one of the most significant challenges to Trump’s economic policy approach since he left office.
“We’ve had enough of economic brinkmanship with our closest allies,” Senator Lisa Murkowski told me during a brief hallway exchange after the vote. “The American consumer ultimately pays these costs, and the data simply doesn’t support these particular tariffs.”
I’ve spent the past week tracking this legislation through the marble corridors of the Capitol, where an unlikely coalition emerged between border-state Republicans and Democrats concerned about rising consumer prices. The vote reflects growing tensions between Trump’s protectionist vision and traditional Republican free-trade orthodoxy that had been suppressed during his administration.
Standing outside the chamber yesterday, Senator John Cornyn of Texas didn’t mince words: “Canada purchases nearly $400 billion in American goods annually. This isn’t just about aluminum—it’s about a strategic relationship that supports millions of American jobs.”
The rejected tariff proposal would have imposed a 25% duty on Canadian aluminum imports, which Trump had characterized as necessary for “national security.” But according to analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, such tariffs would have increased costs for American manufacturers by approximately $2.8 billion annually, particularly impacting the automotive and beverage industries.
Having witnessed previous rounds of tariff wars while reporting from manufacturing communities across the Midwest, I’ve seen firsthand how these policies create ripple effects beyond the targeted sectors. In Janesville, Wisconsin, aluminum fabricator Travis Mitchell told me last month, “Every time Washington plays trade chicken, we lose orders and have to consider layoffs.”
The Canadian government had already prepared retaliatory measures targeting American agricultural exports had the tariffs been approved. These would have disproportionately affected farmers in Republican-leaning states, creating what Canadian Minister of International Trade Mary Ng called “a lose-lose scenario with no winners.”
What makes yesterday’s vote particularly significant is the willingness of Republican senators to publicly break with Trump on economic policy. Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, who voted against the tariffs, explained: “Our farmers can’t afford another trade war. We export over $28 billion in agricultural products to Canada annually. Those markets took years to develop and can disappear overnight.”
Data from the U.S. Trade Representative shows that Canada remains America’s largest export market and the top market for most states. The interconnected supply chains between the two countries support approximately 9 million U.S. jobs according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Speaking with workers at an aluminum processing facility outside Pittsburgh last week, I found deep concern about how tariffs affect competitiveness. Shift supervisor Darren Collins said, “We need fair trade for sure, but these blanket tariffs just drive up our manufacturing costs while our global competitors gain advantage.”
The Treasury Department’s own economic impact analysis—which wasn’t publicly released but was described to me by two senior Senate staffers—projected minimal benefit to U.S. aluminum producers compared to the broader economic costs.
“This vote wasn’t about being pro or anti-Trump,” Senator Mitt Romney told reporters. “It was about basic economics and our relationship with our most important trading partner.”
The legislation now moves to President Biden’s desk, where he is expected to sign it. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre indicated yesterday that the administration “supports a measured approach to trade that strengthens American industries without unnecessarily burdening consumers or straining relationships with our closest allies.”
This Congressional intervention suggests lawmakers may be increasingly willing to reassert authority over trade policy, an area where presidential power has expanded considerably in recent decades. As I’ve documented while covering trade negotiations from Brussels to Beijing, the global economic landscape has grown too complex for unilateral actions without substantial economic consequences.
For now, the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Kirsten Hillman, expressed relief: “This vote reflects the deep understanding many Americans have about the importance of our trading relationship. When we work together, both economies thrive.”
