Politics

House faces showdown vote over Trump’s tariffs on Canada

Published

4 months ago

February 13, 2026

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Wednesday to slap back President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada, a rare if largely symbolic rebuke of the White House agenda as Republicans joined Democrats over the objections of GOP leadership.

The tally, 219-211, was among the first times the House, controlled by Republicans, has confronted the president over a signature policy, and drew instant recrimination from Trump himself. The resolution seeks to end the national emergency Trump declared to impose the tariffs, though actually undoing the policy would require support from the president, which is highly unlikely. It next goes to the Senate.

Trump believes in the power of tariffs to force U.S. trade partners to the negotiating table. But lawmakers are facing unrest back home from businesses caught in the trade wars and constituents navigating pocketbook issues and high prices.

“Today’s vote is simple, very simple: Will you vote to lower the cost of living for the American family or will you keep prices high out of loyalty to one person — Donald J. Trump?” said Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who authored the resolution.

Within minutes, as the gavel struck, Trump fired off a stern warning to those in the Republican Party who would dare to cross him.

“Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!” the president posted on social media.

The high-stakes moment provides a snapshot of the House’s unease with the president’s direction, especially ahead of the midterm elections as economic issues resonate among voters. The Senate has already voted to reject Trump’s tariffs on Canada and other countries in a show of displeasure. But both chambers would have to approve the tariff rollbacks, and send the resolution to Trump for the president’s signature — or veto.

Six House Republicans voted for the resolution, and one Democrat voted against it.

From Canada, Ontario, Premier Doug Ford on social media called the vote “an important victory with more work ahead.” He thanked lawmakers from both parties “who stood up in support of free trade and economic growth between our two great countries. Let’s end the tariffs and together build a more prosperous and secure future.”

Trump recently threatened to impose a 100% tariff on goods imported from Canada over that country’s proposed China trade dealintensifying a feud with the longtime U.S. ally and Prime Minister Mark Carney.

GOP defections forced the vote

House Speaker Mike Johnson tried to prevent this showdown.

Johnson insisted lawmakers wait for a pending Supreme Court ruling in a lawsuit about the tariffs. He engineered a complicated rules change to prevent floor action. But Johnson’s strategy collapsed late Tuesday, as Republicans peeled off during a procedural vote to ensure the Democratic measure was able to advance.

“The president’s trade policies have been of great benefit,” Johnson, R-La., had said. “And I think the sentiment is that we allow a little more runway for this to be worked out between the executive branch and the judicial branch.”

Late Tuesday evening, Johnson could be seen speaking to holdout Republican lawmakers as the GOP leadership team struggled to shore up support during a lengthy procedural vote, but the numbers lined up against him.

“We’re disappointed,” Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council, told reporters at the White House on Wednesday morning. “The president will make sure they don’t repeal his tariffs.”

Terminating Trump’s emergency

The resolution put forward by Meeks would terminate the national emergency that Trump declared a year ago as one of his executive orders.

The administration claimed illicit drug flow from Canada constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat that allows the president to slap tariffs on imported goods outside the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.

The Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, said the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. is a dire national emergency and the policy must be left in place.

“Let’s be clear again about what this resolution is and what it’s not. It’s not a debate about tariffs. You can talk about those, but that’s not really what it is,” Mast said. “This is Democrats trying to ignore that there is a fentanyl crisis.”

Experts say fentanyl produced by cartels in Mexico is largely smuggled into the U.S. from land crossings in California and Arizona. Fentanyl is also made in Canada and smuggled into the U.S., but to a much lesser extent.

Torn between Trump and tariffs

Ahead of voting, some rank-and-file Republican lawmakers expressed unease over the choices ahead as Democrats — and a few renegade Republicans — impressed on their colleagues the need to flex their power as the legislative branch rather than ceding so much power to the president to take authority over trade and tariff policy.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said he was unpersuaded by Johnson’s call to wait until the Supreme Court makes its decision about the legality of Trump’s tariffs. He voted for passage.

“Why doesn’t the Congress stand on its own two feet and say that we’re an independent branch?” Bacon said. “We should defend our authorities. I hope the Supreme Court does, but if we don’t do it, shame on us.”

Bacon, who is retiring rather than facing reelection, also argued that tariffs are bad economic policy.

Other Republicans had to swiftly make up their minds after Johnson’s gambit — which would have paused the calendar days to prevent the measure from coming forward — was turned back.

“At the end of the day, we’re going to have to support our president,” said Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said he doesn’t want to tie the president’s hands on trade and would support the tariffs on Canada “at this time.”

Associated Press writers Rob Gillies in Toronto and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

Politics

Congressional Black Caucus blasts Slotkin over her calls for new leadership in the House

Published

6 minutes ago

June 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The CBC emphatically declared its support Friday for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries…
Read More

Politics

The weekend of Andy Burnham’s life

Published

11 minutes ago

June 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Andy Burnham is set to become Labour leader on Friday, July 17 and British Prime Minister on Monday, July 20. In between, on Sunday, July 19, England could win the World Cup (no, really).

For Burnham, a lifelong soccer fan, it would be quite the weekend.

Some commentators — including IPSOS pollster Keiran Pedley — have even suggested that, in such circumstances, Burnham should call a snap election to ride a wave of national euphoria and secure his own political mandate.

Given Labour’s commanding majority in Parliament, that is unlikely to happen. But the suggestion hints at soccer’s extraordinary power to shape the national mood — something politicians, and especially new prime ministers, ignore at their peril.

Coming up next week on POLITICO’s Westminster Insider podcast, host Patrick Baker asks how soccer shapes our politics, and examines what politicians should — and should not — do in order to use soccer to their advantage.

Sometimes it is about timing. Former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson, buoyed by memories of watching England win in 1966, called an election four years later during the Mexico World Cup of 1970. He was banking on England’s dominance boosting the public mood and, in turn, his election chances. But England crashed out of the tournament to West Germany days before the poll and Wilson lost the election.

Other times it is about authenticity. While there’s never been any doubt that Keir Starmer is a genuine Arsenal fan or that Andy Burnham is a devoted Everton supporter, the enthusiasm of some politicians for their club teams has appeared less convincing. Aston Villa fan David Cameron famously said he supported West Ham in a speech during the 2015 election campaign, which he won despite the flub.

For politicians seeking to speak for the whole U.K., remembering Scotland (on the brink of crashing out of the World Cup), Wales and Northern Ireland (neither made it to the tournament) matters too.

And in a sport capable of both uniting and dividing, ministers and prime ministers alike have often discovered that criticizing players, managers or fans can carry political risks of its own.

Politics and soccer: How to play the game. Listen to Westminster Insider next Friday, July 3.

Politics

It’s getting real in a New Jersey parking lot

Published

1 hour ago

June 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

EAST RUTHERFORD, New Jersey — Before the World Cup began, New York and New Jersey unveiled competing transportation plans.

After several matches, $20 shuttle buses subsidized by New York keep selling out, but $98 New Jersey Transit train trips don’t.

Now New Jersey Transit is poised to lose millions during the tournament, blaming the revenue shortfall on lower-than-expected demand caused in part by the cheaper options. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has suggested maybe that is because of the sticker shock fans face to get on New Jersey trains and buses — an observation sure to rub salt in Jersey’s wounds.

The tensions are just the latest manifestation of a dysfunctional relationship between the two jurisdictions that comprise what FIFA calls “New York New Jersey,” where England and Panama will face off today in their final group-stage match.

After the tournament’s first game New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium — between Brazil and Morocco on June 13 — lines swelled in the parking lot for New York-run buses back to Manhattan. Worried about a crowd stuck at MetLife, the New Jersey State Police asked New Jersey’s state-run transit agency to carry some of the waiting fans instead.

New Jersey Transit had room for 40,000 people but only about 22,000 customers that night. It had spent months on a plan that was moving people quickly and did not want to suddenly upend it with an unexpected surge in passengers on its trains and buses. The agency fears a repeat of the 2014 Super Bowl, in which overcrowding left fans in the same stadium’s parking lot for hours and stained the agency’s reputation for years.

Kris Kolluri, the head of New Jersey Transit, said the bistate host committee, the New Jersey governor’s office and the State Police all decided that the transit agency would move thousands of people after 90 minutes, if needed. By then, however, the lines had calmed on their own.

The asphalt standoff stemmed in part from the cross-Hudson divide over pricing.

The border states separated by the Hudson River are symbiotic — New York companies depend on workers commuting from New Jersey suburbs — and also apt to squabble over everything from how to deal with the mob and fight wildfires to what state Ellis Island is in.

Perhaps over no issue do they bicker more than transportation. Unlike other regions that have a unified transit system, the New York City metropolitan area has three public transit agencies. The states have fought over tolls (a New Jersey governor once threatened a “nuclear option” when New York created new ones), how to split the check for big infrastructure projects and how to staff their bistate Port Authority.

“Transportation is too important for any mayor or governor to give up power to any other mayor or governor,” said Mitchell Moss, a longtime New York City urban planning adviser who is also a professor at New York University.

Things went more smoothly at MetLife following a French win over Senegal and despite a deluge before and after another Senegal loss at MetLife to Norway. After the Norway win, the first New Jersey Transit train got to Penn Station in 35 minutes. The average shuttle bus back to Manhattan took 45 minutes or less.

But there continued to be a behind-the-scenes back and forth over whether New Jersey Transit should lower its prices to get more people aboard.

For fans from the world who don’t immediately come to the region and begin following local politicians, transit planners or local gadflies on X, much of the back and forth is invisible. Yet consequences of two states that don’t see eye to eye are affecting how they come and go from the eight matches, including the July 19 final.

As soon as New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s administration in April unveiled plans to charge fans $150 for a roundtrip ticket to the World Cup, Hochul worried it would throw “cold water” on the tournament and helped create a competing $20 shuttle bus.

Sherrill cut the price to $98, but that’s still higher than any other public transit system, and now New Jersey Transit trains are only two-thirds full. Her administration quietly blames the low-cost shuttle buses for siphoning away customers.

Allies of both governors have framed the opposite approaches as affordability-minded: Hochul wants a low price to signal that New York is welcoming the world. Sherrill wants the high price to cover the cost of providing a special service, and to prevent her voters from subsidizing trips for out-of-town fans to an event few locals can afford to attend.

In the real world, the cheaper bus tickets are selling out, while New York officials remain concerned New Jersey Transit’s high prices mean it isn’t carrying its load. New Jersey Transit, on the other hand, is proud of a smooth-running operation, which Sherrill has described as “the best option” for getting to matches.

Bistate tensions over transportation planning predate Sherrill and Hochul, but aren’t inevitable. Both Democrats only a few months ago worked together to restart construction on a new train tunnel between the states that President Donald Trump cut off funding for. But ongoing fighting could represent challenges for other bistate ventures, like a long-awaited overhaul of New York’s Penn Station on which the states will be asked to cooperate.