Senate Joint Resolution 7 is a nonbinding California legislative resolution that urges President Donald J. Trump to rescind the tariffs he imposed beginning in 2025 and to refund Americans for costs passed through to consumers.
The resolution also asks the United States Congress to adopt a joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared on April 2, 2025 (the statutory basis used to justify the tariffs), and to oppose future emergency declarations under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that would permit unilateral tariff increases.
The measure frames the tariffs as exceeding presidential authority, harmful to consumers and California exporters, and disruptive to global markets. It cites economic estimates of household losses, impacts on housing and agricultural exports, supply‑chain disruptions at West Coast ports, and a February 20, 2026 Supreme Court opinion finding that the emergency authority had been exceeded.
The resolution is an expression of the California Legislature’s position; it creates no new state law or federal obligation but formalizes the state’s call for federal action on trade policy and refunds for consumers.
At a Glance
What It Does
SJR 7 urges (nonbinding) the President to rescind tariffs imposed since January 2025 and to refund consumers for costs passed on by those tariffs. It asks Congress to pass a joint resolution ending the April 2, 2025 national emergency invoked under the IEEPA and to oppose similar future emergency tariff declarations.
Who It Affects
The resolution speaks to federal actors (the President, Congress) but is aimed at Californians harmed by tariffs: consumers facing higher prices, exporters (particularly agriculture), small businesses reliant on imports, and California ports handling cross‑Pacific trade. It also signals state political pressure to federal policymakers and trade stakeholders.
Why It Matters
Though symbolic, the resolution compiles legislative findings—economic estimates, supply‑chain data, and a recent Supreme Court opinion—that frame California’s position and could be used by advocates to press for federal action or litigation. It clarifies specific demands (rescission, refunds, termination of the IEEPA emergency) rather than a general plea for trade policy change.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SJR 7 is a formal statement from the California Legislature directed at federal decisionmakers. It does not change California law or impose duties on state agencies; instead, it assembles factual findings and policy arguments to urge specific federal remedies: immediate rescission of the tariffs imposed since January 2025 and reimbursement for costs passed on to consumers.
The resolution emphasizes the disproportionate burden on low‑ and middle‑income households and on California exporters and construction costs, grounding its appeal in state economic effects.
The text walks through why the Legislature considers the tariffs both legally and economically problematic. It cites Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to underline Congress’s exclusive commerce power, summarizes Project 2025 and the role of advisors advocating higher tariffs, and recounts the April 2, 2025 national emergency invoked under the IEEPA that enabled a 10 percent base tariff (and higher rates on 57 countries).
The resolution also incorporates empirical findings cited by the Legislature—household cost estimates, port volume declines, and projected export losses for California agriculture—to build a factual record supporting its requests to the President and Congress.SJR 7 references a February 20, 2026 U.S. Supreme Court decision finding that the President exceeded constitutional authority in using emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs. Against that backdrop, the resolution asks Congress to adopt a joint resolution that would terminate the national emergency and to oppose future IEEPA uses that would allow unilateral tariff hikes.
Finally, the resolution directs the Secretary of the Senate to send copies to federal leaders and California’s congressional delegation, making the Legislature’s position a formal part of the public record that advocates and federal officials can cite.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution urges the President to rescind tariffs imposed since January 2025 and to refund Americans for costs passed through to consumers.
It asks Congress to enact a joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared April 2, 2025, which was the statutory basis for IEEPA‑based tariffs.
SJR 7 specifically cites that the President imposed a 10% base tariff on all imports and higher tariffs on imports from 57 countries under the April 2, 2025 emergency.
The text references a February 20, 2026 U.S. Supreme Court decision (6–3) holding that the President exceeded constitutional authority in imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers.
The Legislature records economic estimates in the bill: roughly $231 billion in tariff costs paid nationwide between Feb 2025–Jan 2026 (about $1,751 per household) and an estimated $1,900–$2,000 loss per California household.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Constitutional and economic findings framing the request
This section assembles the Legislature’s legal, historical, and empirical reasons for opposing the tariffs. It invokes Article I, Section 8 to stress Congress’s commerce power, references historical presidential statements in favor of free trade, summarizes Project 2025 and its advocacy for tariffs, and catalogs economic data (household cost estimates, port volume declines, export risk to California agriculture, and housing cost impacts). Practically, these findings create the factual record the resolution relies on to justify urging federal action and to persuade external audiences.
Direct request that the President rescind tariffs and refund consumers
This operative clause formally urges the President to rescind the tariffs imposed since January 2025 and to refund the American people for costs passed through to them. Because a state legislature cannot bind federal action, this is a formal appeal and political pressure tool rather than a legal command; it signals California’s expectation that the Executive undo and compensate for the tariffs’ economic effects.
Request that Congress terminate the emergency and block future IEEPA tariff uses
The resolution asks Congress to enact a joint resolution terminating the April 2, 2025 national emergency that enabled the tariffs and to oppose future emergency declarations under the IEEPA that could permit unilateral tariff increases. The clause is specific about mechanism (joint resolution to terminate a national emergency) and reflects the Legislature’s view that such emergencies should not be used to substitute for Congress’s trade‑making authority.
Directs distribution of the resolution to federal leaders and California’s congressional delegation
This concluding provision requires the Secretary of the Senate to send copies of the resolution to the President, Vice President, leadership of both houses of Congress, each California member of Congress, and the author. That transmission step converts the Legislature’s findings and requests into an official communication intended for federal policymakers and public record.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Trade across all five countries.
Explore Trade in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California consumers (especially low‑ and middle‑income households): The resolution seeks refunds and identifies estimated per‑household losses, reflecting an intent to recover tariff pass‑through costs that disproportionately affect these households.
- California exporters and agribusiness (almonds, dairy, pistachios, wine): By urging rescission, the bill aims to reduce retaliatory tariffs and export losses the Legislature quantifies, which could protect market access and farm revenues.
- Small businesses dependent on imported inputs and port logistics: The resolution highlights reduced shipping volumes and higher input costs, so rescinding tariffs would relieve small firms squeezed by higher prices and supply‑chain disruptions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal Treasury / U.S. taxpayers if refunds are implemented: The resolution’s call for refunds would, if acted on, likely impose a fiscal cost at the federal level to reimburse consumers and businesses for tariff pass‑through.
- Domestic producers that received protection from tariffs: Companies and industries that benefited from higher import tariffs (by facing less foreign competition) would lose that price protection if tariffs are rescinded.
- The federal executive branch’s policy flexibility: Ending use of IEEPA for broad tariff programs constrains future presidents’ ability to respond unilaterally to perceived trade issues, shifting tools back to Congress and making swift executive action harder.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between restoring congressional primacy over trade and immediately stabilizing prices for consumers versus the political and economic consequences of reversing tariffs: rescinding protects consumers and exporters but removes protection for domestic producers and could cause short‑term market volatility and fiscal costs if refunds are paid—leaving no simple path that satisfies all affected interests.
The resolution is explicitly nonbinding and operates as political communication rather than enforceable law; its practical effect depends entirely on federal uptake. That raises an implementation puzzle: the bill demands refunds but does not propose a mechanism, appropriation, or timetable for compensation—matters squarely within federal budgetary and administrative authority.
If Congress and the President were to pursue refunds, they would need to answer who qualifies, how pass‑through amounts are calculated, whether firms or consumers receive payments, and what statute authorizes retroactive reimbursement.
There is also a separation‑of‑powers and international trade tension. The resolution frames the central problem as executive overreach under the IEEPA and asks Congress to terminate the declared emergency.
But terminating a national emergency is itself a political act that could have ripple effects beyond tariffs (sanctions, other emergency controls). Moreover, removing the tariffs risks near‑term market volatility and redistributes economic effects across sectors—helping consumers and import‑reliant businesses while reducing protection for industries that may have relied on tariff shields.
Finally, the resolution relies on contested facts and models (household cost estimates, projected export losses); policymakers may dispute those figures, and litigation or international retaliation could complicate a clean reversal.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.