Fact check: Is the senate breaking the law because there letting trump set the tariffs

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the Senate is not breaking the law by allowing Trump to set tariffs. The evidence shows that a bipartisan measure to undo Trump's global tariffs failed in the Senate, indicating that the Senate's inaction is within its legal authority ^[1]. The President has established legal authority to modify tariffs under existing laws, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) ^[2].

However, there is ongoing legal debate about the extent of presidential tariff authority. A federal appeals court is currently weighing the Trump administration's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner, with the case potentially heading to the Supreme Court ^[3]. This suggests that while the Senate may not be breaking the law, the legal boundaries of presidential tariff authority remain contested.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement omits several crucial pieces of context:

• Congressional efforts to reclaim authority: Some senators, including Senator Maria Cantwell, are actively calling for Congress to retake authority on trade policy as new Trump tariffs take effect ^[4]. Multiple Senate Republicans are voicing support for congressional oversight on tariffs and joining bills that would require congressional approval for new tariffs ^[5].
• Legislative responses: Representatives are introducing legislation to assess the true costs of Trump's tariffs on everyday goods ^[6], indicating that Congress is attempting to hold the administration accountable for its trade policies.
• Public opinion: A majority of Americans disapprove of the Trump administration's tariff policies according to Pew Research Center findings ^[7], suggesting there is public concern about these policies beyond just legal questions.
• Economic concerns: Senators like Cantwell and colleagues are demanding reversal of what they call "chaotic and destructive tariffs that could devastate U.S. small businesses" ^[8].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement contains several problematic elements:

• Grammatical errors and informal language ("there letting" instead of "they're letting") may undermine the credibility of the inquiry
• Oversimplification: The statement frames this as a simple legal violation when the reality involves complex constitutional questions about the separation of powers between Congress and the President on trade policy
• Missing nuance: The statement fails to acknowledge that some senators are actively working to reassert congressional authority over tariffs ^{[4] [5]}, suggesting the Senate is not uniformly passive on this issue
• Assumption of illegality: The statement assumes the Senate is "breaking the law" without acknowledging that the Senate's constitutional role allows for both action and inaction on policy matters

The evidence suggests this is more accurately described as a constitutional debate about the proper balance of power between branches of government rather than a clear case of lawbreaking by the Senate.