Congress Must Assert Itself on Tariffs

By Rand Paul 

Thursday, April 10, 2025 

 

‘Taxation without representation is tyranny.” The Massachusetts legislator James Otis is credited with popularizing the rallying cry of patriots in the days, weeks, and years leading up to the American Revolution. Our Founding Fathers believed so strongly in the principle of no taxation without representation that they embedded it in our Constitution, which does not allow any one man or woman to raise taxes. 

 

Yet despite that constitutional prohibition, the president has ordered Americans to pay higher taxes, in the form of tariffs, without the consent of Congress. 

 

Our Founders would be appalled at a tax levied without a vote of their representatives. 

 

Americans who fought at the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the militiamen who stood in resistance to the British Crown, were the heirs and defenders of what used to be called the rights of Englishmen. Central to those rights — a principle considered essential to a free people — was the idea that no one should have taxes imposed on them without their consent. 

 

Even at the time of our Founding, this principle was considered an ancient right. It is enshrined in Magna Carta that taxation should be imposed after obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom. Even in the 13th century, the people were chafing at the idea that one man, the king, would be allowed to determine the taxes for the land. 

 

In the century before our Revolution, the English fought a civil war, disputing the power of King Charles I to raise taxes without the consent of Parliament. And to this very day in America, a debate rages over whether one man, the president, can levy taxes without the consent of Congress. 

 

Rule by one person is contrary to everything our country was founded upon. In fact, the Founders were so mortified about the taxation power that the Constitution grants that power to the people’s representatives in Congress and requires revenue bills to originate in the House of Representatives. 

 

The House is often very protective of its role in originating revenue-producing legislation. In March, the House refused to take up a Senate-passed measure to repeal a Biden-era IRS regulation and made the Senate pass the legislation again after the House originated its own bill to do exactly the same thing. As much as I applaud the repeal of a Biden-era regulation, the House leadership should jealously guard its constitutional prerogative and insist that the tariffs, which are thousands of orders of magnitude more significant than a single bureaucratic rule, be debated and voted on in their chamber before they are imposed. 

 

The basis for the origination clause is not an American invention. Since at least the 14th century, money bills originated with the House of Commons, the lower chamber of Parliament. If King Henry V could recognize the principle that revenue bills are to originate in the legislative chamber closest to the people, surely our current leadership should be able to. 

 

This argument is not a partisan one, or even a personal one. I voted for and support President Trump, but I do not support the rule of one person. If the principles of 1776 still mean something, all voters, regardless of party, should unite against emergency rule. There is no emergency exception to the Constitution. The Constitution would have no meaning at all if our form of government and our rights could simply be suspended by executive pronouncement. The constitutional constraints on state power and guarantees of our liberties are operative at all times, but especially when the government declares an emergency. 

 

One person can make a mistake, which is why our Founders delegated the power to raise taxes to a majority of the entire Congress. The president lacks the power to unilaterally impose a tax on goods coming into the country. 

 

Tariffs raise the prices of goods and services. Even those who obstinately deny that basic fact will soon realize that the tariffs are a tax on the American people, whether while paying for groceries or looking at their investment portfolio. 

 

These pervasive taxes are by no means benign. According to the Wall Street Journal, President Trump’s tariffs destroyed $6.6 trillion of market value in two days. Yes, the markets have recovered somewhat following the announcement that Trump would suspend most of the tariffs he imposed. But much damage has already been done. And the lingering uncertainty created by presidential tariff fiat will cause more. Americans will find that they can no longer make ends meet. Others will be forced to work longer before they can retire. 

 

Republicans won the 2024 elections in large part because the inflation caused by President Biden’s reckless spending made everyday household staples, like eggs, too expensive. Now, every conceivable product, from cars to homes to chicken to beer, could end up becoming more expensive. Unless we quickly reverse course — a mere presidential “pause” won’t do — and rediscover our belief in free trade, Republicans should expect a disaster in the 2026 midterm elections. 

 

Republicans would be wise to rediscover their principles and oppose new and high taxes. My fellow Republicans can do that by supporting my bill, the No Taxation Without Representation Act, which would require Congress to approve any presidential proposal to impose tariffs before they are put into effect. 

 

I love my country and the principles upon which it was founded 250 years ago. As Americans begin to commemorate the 250th anniversary of our Revolution, it is fitting to remember that our Founding Fathers rejected the amalgamation of power into one person. Today’s patriots should restore constitutional government in which power is divided among separate branches of government and taxes are debated and voted on by the people’s elected representatives before they are imposed.