President Donald Trump’s approach to tariffs and trade policy has once again taken center stage in Washington, with a flurry of executive actions, legislative maneuvering, and bold new proposals drawing sharp reactions from lawmakers, foreign leaders, and economic analysts alike. In a series of moves over the past week, Trump both removed a significant tariff on Brazilian agricultural products and doubled down on his sweeping tariff regime, promising Americans direct cash dividends from the revenue. Meanwhile, a debate over the limits of presidential authority and the proper role of Congress in trade policy has exposed shifting positions among Republican leaders, particularly Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.
On Thursday, November 20, 2025, President Trump announced via executive order that he was lifting a 40% tariff on certain Brazilian agricultural imports. According to TNND, Trump cited progress in negotiations with Brazil and the recommendations of various officials as reasons for the change. “After considering the information and recommendations these officials have provided to me and the status of negotiations with the Government of Brazil, among other things, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to modify the scope of products subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323,” Trump wrote, referencing the July 2025 order that had imposed the tariffs in the first place.
The Brazilian foreign ministry responded with cautious optimism, expressing satisfaction with the removal and signaling a willingness to continue talks. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, however, was less diplomatic about the rationale behind the original tariffs. In a September article for The New York Times, Lula wrote, “When the United States turns its back on a relationship of more than 200 years, such as the one it maintains with Brazil, everyone loses. There are no ideological differences that should prevent two governments from working together in areas where they have common goals.” Lula has repeatedly rejected Trump’s assertions that Brazil violated Americans’ free expression rights or interfered with the U.S. economy, calling the accusations “political” and “illogical.”
Despite this momentary thaw in trade tensions with Brazil, Trump’s broader tariff program remains expansive and controversial. In July, the president had justified the tariffs by accusing Brazil of compelling social media platforms to censor Americans and of persecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro, whom Trump described as a victim of political targeting. Lula, for his part, dismissed these claims as dishonest and insisted that the ruling on Bolsonaro was consistent with the Brazilian constitution. Still, Lula left the door open for further cooperation, stating, “President Trump, we remain open to negotiating anything that can bring mutual benefits. But Brazil’s democracy and sovereignty are not on the table.”
While Trump was touting the removal of tariffs for Brazil, he was also unveiling a new and ambitious plan to distribute "tariff dividends" directly to the American people. On Monday, November 18, 2025, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that the federal government was preparing to pay out $2,000 dividends to most Americans by mid-2026, just ahead of the midterm elections. As reported by Fox Business, Trump said, “We’re going to be issuing dividends later on, somewhere prior to, you know, probably the middle of next year, a little bit later than that. Thousands of dollars for individuals of moderate income, middle income.”
The plan, according to a post on Trump's Truth Social platform, would exclude high-income Americans and would be funded by revenue from tariffs. “We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion. Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone,” Trump wrote.
However, a new analysis from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) cast doubt on the fiscal feasibility of the proposal. The CRFB estimated that annual $2,000 dividends for most Americans would cost roughly $600 billion per year—far more than the $100 billion in tariff revenue raised so far in 2025, or the $300 billion projected annually (including tariffs currently under Supreme Court review). If paid annually, the dividends would increase deficits by $6 trillion over a decade and push the national debt to 134% of GDP by 2035, substantially higher than the 120% projected under current law. The report noted that, "Using income from tariffs to pay dividends would mean that income could not be used to reduce deficits or offset borrowing from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act."
Should the Supreme Court uphold lower court rulings that strike down some of Trump’s tariffs, the remaining revenue would only be enough to pay $2,000 dividends every seven years, according to the CRFB. The group concluded that if the administration wanted to keep the payments revenue-neutral, Americans could expect a $2,000 dividend every other year starting in 2027—at best.
Meanwhile, the debate over the legality and wisdom of Trump’s tariff program has reignited long-simmering tensions on Capitol Hill. On November 21, 2025, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson told RealClearPolitics that Trump was acting within the authority given to him by the people, and that Johnson would have intervened if he believed the president had overstepped. “The President is using the authority that the people gave him—I would argue a mandate they gave him—to fix the trade imbalance. I would have stepped in already if I felt like the executive had overstepped their authority. I don’t think that’s happened yet,” Johnson said.
Yet, as Reason magazine pointed out, Johnson’s current posture marks a striking shift from his stance just six years ago. In 2019, Johnson co-sponsored a bill to "restore Congressional authority" over tariffs, duties, and quotas—an effort to ensure that Congress and the president would "collaboratively address the substantial impact of trade policy on job creators, farmers, and consumers," as then-Rep. Warren Davidson put it. That bill, which never received a vote, was a response to Trump’s first round of tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese goods. Since then, Trump’s trade actions have only grown more sweeping, with the average U.S. tariff rate now at levels not seen in nearly a century.
The Senate has shown more appetite for reining in the White House. In late October, senators passed resolutions to terminate the “emergency” underpinning Trump’s tariffs. But under Johnson’s leadership, the House has gone in the opposite direction—changing rules to prevent bills that might strike down the tariffs from even reaching the floor, thus shielding Republican members from potentially awkward votes and giving Trump’s trade policies a smoother path.
All told, the current moment reflects a complex interplay of executive ambition, legislative maneuvering, and international diplomacy. Trump’s tariff policies—whether in the form of punitive duties, sudden removals, or promises of cash payouts—continue to provoke fierce debate over who gets to set America’s trade agenda, how the costs and benefits are distributed, and what the long-term consequences will be for the U.S. economy and its global relationships. As the 2026 midterms approach, these questions are likely to loom even larger, with both supporters and critics watching closely to see how far the administration will go—and who, if anyone, in Congress will push back.
