By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, opposes President Trump’s recent tariffs, arguing that past Republican support for protectionist trade policies contributed to the Great Depression. He supports bipartisan Senate legislation, the “Trade Review Act of 2025,” which would require congressional approval for new tariffs and limit the president’s unilateral tariff authority. Bacon will introduce a House companion bill, aiming to restore Congress’s constitutional role in setting trade policy. The bill faces an uphill battle in the House, but has garnered some support from Republican members.
Read the original article here
Republican Congressman Don Bacon issued a stark warning, asserting that tariffs have propelled the nation into “the worst depression we’ve ever had, so far.” This statement highlights a growing concern amongst some Republicans regarding the economic consequences of protectionist trade policies.
The gravity of the situation cannot be understated. The claim that this depression surpasses all previous ones, at least to date, underscores the potential for lasting and widespread economic damage. This concern is further amplified by the observation that some of the most significant market declines in history occurred under Republican presidencies, prompting calls for decisive action.
A significant point raised is the role Congress plays in this crisis. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate tariffs, but over time, this power has been increasingly delegated to the executive branch. This transfer of authority arguably contributed to the current predicament, as Congress seemingly relinquished its power to oversee and, if necessary, curtail potentially damaging trade policies.
A key aspect of the problem is the apparent lack of bipartisan action to address this crisis. Although some Democrats are actively pushing for change, meaningful action requires Republican support in Congress. A bill to reclaim Congressional authority over tariffs could serve as a critical step towards mitigating the economic damage, but its success hinges on Republicans’ willingness to collaborate with Democrats. The vulnerability of certain Republican representatives, like Bacon himself, due to their close election results, might encourage some to prioritize bipartisan solutions over strict party loyalty.
However, a significant hurdle remains: the perceived political loyalty within the Republican Party. The fear of alienating the base or incurring the wrath of a certain influential figure might prevent many Republicans from actively opposing the policies they now claim are disastrous. This inaction seemingly prioritizes party allegiance over the well-being of the nation.
The dire predictions of further economic decline have also spurred some to call for the impeachment of the president. The argument is that the president’s policies are directly responsible for the current economic crisis and that removing him from office is the only way to stop the freefall. This dramatic action is seen by some as a necessary step to prevent further economic damage and restore accountability within the government.
The debate also encompasses the broader context of economic history. While the current situation is presented as unprecedented in its severity, it’s crucial to consider the multifaceted nature of historical economic crises. The Great Depression, for instance, was a complex event with multiple contributing factors, not solely attributable to a single policy. Similarly, the current situation has other concurrent factors, including the impact of the global pandemic, which also contribute to the overall economic downturn. Yet, the tariffs are viewed by some as a critical factor that exacerbated the already existing vulnerability.
Several critics, some within the Republican Party, accuse members of Congress of complicity and inaction. The criticism centers around the party’s failure to exercise its constitutional authority and check executive overreach on trade policy. The claim is that a clear path exists to mitigate the damage, yet Republican lawmakers seem unwilling or unable to take necessary steps, prioritizing political considerations over economic stability. This inaction is characterized as a dangerous form of political cowardice that ultimately undermines the nation’s interests.
The urgency of the situation is heightened by dire predictions of further market declines. The prospect of a deeper economic crisis adds to the pressure on Congress to act decisively, but the partisan gridlock remains a formidable obstacle. The question remains: Will Republican lawmakers overcome this gridlock and actively work towards reversing the damage, or will they remain paralyzed by political considerations? The future of the American economy may well depend on the answer.