Even unsuccessful legislative moves could pressure Trump to strike a deal.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Within hours of his party winning majorities in both chambers of the U.S. Congress this week, a leading Democrat made it clear that his colleagues intend to use control of the Senate Finance Committee in the next Congress to pursue affordability for Americans and accountability.
That could be good news for Canadians looking for an end to the trade war with the U.S.
Early Wednesday, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., issued a statement about the committee’s plan, noting that Republicans had executed and defended “the most craven parts of Trump’s agenda: ripping health insurance away from millions, driving up costs with tariffs, covering up Epstein’s financial records, and letting Trump treat the Treasury Department like his personal piggy bank. The American people who are struggling to afford gas, health care, and groceries overwhelmingly voted for change.”
Opposition from the Democrats on U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda will boost morale in Canada, but even with the blue wave of success, Democrats still lack veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate. The president, meanwhile, has threatened to veto Democratic legislation.
“They’ll send over things that are insane, and I’ll veto them,” Trump said on Wednesday.
Two Senate race counts remain underway, with Democrats possibly clinching a maximum of 56 seats, 11 short of the 67 needed to override a presidential veto. In the House of Representatives, meanwhile, several races remain undeclared, but with the count now at 247 to 153, the Democrats cannot reach the 290-seat threshold for overcoming vetoes.
Still, some analysts say there may be room for legislative possibilities and even Canada-specific legislation.
Congress could potentially roll back specific tariffs or scrutinize how the administration exercises its delegated trade authority, said Wolfgang Alschner, a professor at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.
Inu Manak, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, also anticipates a potential bill to remove U.S. tariffs on Canada.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if we see some sort of bill that comes through, which is a clean repeal of the tariffs on Canada on Section 338,” she said, noting that Canada-specific relief was a promising starting point because it could attract bipartisan support.
If Trump vetoed a repeal bill, overriding him would require enough Republican support in both chambers.
“The 232s I think are going to be more tricky,” Manak said, “simply because … with the national security element that is embedded within that statute, it’s often harder for Congress to step in and question the president on that.”
Beyond legislation, Manak said congressional scrutiny of the Commerce Department and Sec. Howard Lutnick could slow the expansion of tariffs and perhaps create room for trading partners to negotiate lower rates.
Andy Rudalevige, a politics professor at Bowdoin College, also sees a possible opening for bipartisan legislation during the lame-duck session as outgoing Republicans might blame Trump for their losses or want to limit the powers a future Democratic president could inherit.
“There might be some people who are on their way out who wouldn’t mind … tossing some stink bombs towards the White House on their way out the door,” Rudalevige said.
“You could certainly think that there’s almost a caucus of defeated Republicans who might blame the president for their defeat, who could be brought to … support some kind of bipartisan legislation.”
During the lame-duck session, Rudalevige sees the Senate as a better prospect for bipartisan action than the House, where he questioned whether Speaker Mike Johnson would bring legislation to the floor.
“(The) House, I think, will be harder … I think the Senate’s a better bet, but then that’s not going to get it into law,” he said.
But even if a legislative attempt fails, Manak says there is still political value in getting legislators on the record.
“Even if it doesn’t get through, just getting them to vote on it will force them to either align with Trump, or not, and I think that would be quite substantial in sort of reshaping the politics around … the executive’s power in trade.”
Saikrishna Prakash, a constitutional law expert and professor at the University of Virginia, also sees value in that.
“It’s possible they could pass legislation, and then (Trump) could veto it, and then they would have signaled, at least the ones who voted for it, that they disagree with the president,” he said.
“There’s the substance of overturning the tariffs, and there’s the utility of signaling that you think he’s gone too far, and he wouldn’t like that.”
The mere prospect of congressional action, Alschner said, could pressure the Trump administration to make a deal before the new Congress takes office.
“They know that Congress is going to … act at some point on this and make their life harder. So that could create incentives to preempt that,” he said.
That prospect of Republican defections, Manak agreed, could push Trump to take preemptive action — possibly before the next Congress — and avoid being seen as bowing to congressional pressure.
“I think that there is certainly a chance that President Trump will maybe try to resolve some of the issues with Canada before that because that might look better for him than getting forced to do it through Congress,” she said.
“That public repudiation of his policy is something he probably wants to avoid.”
Trump also pointed to the possibility of bargaining with Democrats after an initial confrontation over vetoes.
“ And after a couple of months of vetoes,” Trump said, “(the Democrats will) call and they’ll say, ‘how do we get this stuff done?’ And we’ll work together.”