Senate Rebukes Trump's Tariffs with 88-11 Vote, Four GOP Senators Join Democrats

Washington D.C. – The U.S. Senate delivered a significant, albeit symbolic, rebuke to then-President Donald Trump's trade policies on July 11, 2018, voting 88-11 to advance a resolution opposing his administration's tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. Four Republican senators notably sided with Democrats in the bipartisan effort to express congressional disapproval of the executive branch's tariff authority.

The resolution, introduced by Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), aimed to assert that Congress should play a more direct role in decisions regarding the imposition of tariffs. As stated in the original tweet by The Post Millennial, "Four Republican senators side with Dems in vote to oppose Trump's tariffs." This vote highlighted growing bipartisan concerns over the economic impact and constitutional implications of the tariffs.

The four Republican senators who joined the Democratic caucus in supporting the measure were Mike Lee of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Jerry Moran of Kansas. Their votes underscored internal party divisions regarding the President's aggressive trade stance, which had already sparked retaliatory measures from other nations.

While the resolution was non-binding and faced an unlikely path to becoming law, it sent a clear message to the White House regarding the depth of opposition to the trade policies. News outlets like CNN and Fox News reported at the time that the vote was largely symbolic but reflected significant bipartisan concern. The tariffs, implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, were designed to protect domestic industries but drew criticism for potentially increasing costs for American businesses and consumers.

The vote demonstrated a rare moment of bipartisan unity against a sitting president's economic agenda. Although it did not alter the tariff policy directly, it served as a public declaration of congressional sentiment and a warning shot regarding the perceived overreach of executive power in trade matters. The episode underscored the ongoing debate about presidential authority versus legislative oversight in U.S. trade policy.