Updated December 6, 2022
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)
The U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to impose tariffs
ensure that the executive branch advances these
and regulate trade with foreign nations. Periodically,
objectives through various notification and consultation
Congress has legislated authorities and procedures to signal
requirements with Congress;
to trading partners that trade agreements negotiated by the
define the terms, conditions, and procedures under
President will be implemented or voted upon. Commonly
which the President may enter into trade agreements and
known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), these statutes
determine which implementing bills may be approved
usually empower the President to negotiate agreements and
under expedited authority; and
adjust tariff rates. Since the 1970s, they have also included
reaffirm the constitutional authority of Congress over
expedited congressional procedures to consider legislation
trade policy by placing limitations on the use of TPA.
necessary to implement agreements that involve both tariff
Key Elements of TPA
and nontariff barriers, provided the President meets certain
Proclamation Authority on Tariffs. TPA has maintained
negotiating objectives as well as notification and
RTAA authority (e.g., Section 103(a) of TPA-2015) for the
consultation requirements. (Figure 1). Historically, it has
President to negotiate agreements addressing tariff barriers
been common practice, though not formally required, to
and proclaim changes to U.S. tariffs within specified limits
have the President request that Congress reauthorize TPA.
without further congressional action. For more information,
Ongoing or prospective trade negotiations have often
see CRS In Focus IF11400.
prompted such requests.
Trade Agreements Authority. TPA provides authority to
The most recent TPA was enacted in 2015 (TPA-2015, P.L.
the President to negotiate agreements addressing both tariff
114-26) and expired in July 2021. Congress has
and nontariff barriers. However, an agreement that requires
implemented the majority of U.S. free trade agreements
changes to U.S. law would require congressional action to
(FTAs) under TPA statutes. Most recently, Congress used
implement the agreement.
TPA-2015 to approve and implement the U.S.-Mexico-
Canada Agreement (USMCA), which entered into force in
Expedited Procedures. An implementing bill is subject to
2020 and replaced the North American Free Trade
mandatory introduction; automatic discharge from the
Agreement (NAFTA). The Biden Administration has not
committees of jurisdiction; time-limited floor debate; and
asked Congress for a new TPA to date. Such a request
an “up or down” simple majority vote with no amendments.
could spur renewed debate in Congress over whether past
trade negotiating objectives, consultation requirements, and
Negotiating Objectives. Expedited procedures are only
legislative processes reflect changing congressional
available for agreements that “make progress” in achieving
priorities and the evolving global trade environment.
U.S. objectives as defined under TPA.
Rationale and Background
Notification, Consultation, and Reporting. Expedited
Until the early twentieth century, tariffs were the primary
procedures are available only when the President fulfills
source of revenue for the federal government and Congress
certain notification, reporting, and consultation
spent a significant amount of time setting tariff rates. This
requirements before, during, and after negotiations.
pattern changed with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act
Limitations to TPA. Congress adopted TPA on pragmatic
(RTAA) of 1934. To promote U.S. exports during the Great
grounds to ensure that Congress votes in a timely way on
Depression and to signal to potential trading partners that
the specific text of the agreement negotiated by the
the United States would implement agreements as
President. To guard its constitutional prerogatives,
negotiated, Congress delegated authority to the President to
Congress has included a number of limits on TPA,
negotiate trade agreements addressing tariff barriers and
including: time limits on use of TPA; the option for
proclaim changes to U.S. tariffs within specified limits
Congress to disapprove an extension of those limits; and
without further congressional action.
two separate mechanisms to deny expedited consideration
By the 1960s, nontariff barriers (e.g., health standards,
of an implementing bill for inadequate consultation or
custom procedures) increasingly became the central topic of
progress towards achieving negotiating objectives. Each
trade negotiations. Rather than authorize the President to
Chamber also retains the right to exercise its constitutional
proclaim nontariff-related changes to U.S. law, Congress
rulemaking authority to change TPA rules.
enacted the first modern TPA in the Trade Act of 1974,
Hearings and “Mock Markups.” Congress has reviewed
which established “fast track” procedures to implement any
FTAs prior to the introduction of an implementing bill. The
necessary changes to U.S. law negotiated as part of a trade
committees of jurisdiction typically hold hearings on the
agreement. In creating TPA, Congress sought to:
proposed agreement. They often hold informal “mock”
define trade agreement policy priorities by specifying
markups on a draft implementing bill. Mock markups
U.S. negotiating objectives;
provide for public review of the deal and allow the
President to receive nonbinding feedback from Congress.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)
Stakeholder Views
Congress may consider TPA renewal, and the continuing
Supporters of TPA argue that it is necessary to ensure that
rationale for TPA, as well as whether new trade initiatives
Congress does not amend the terms of FTAs negotiated by
align with congressional goals, particularly with respect to
the Administration. Amending the terms of an agreement,
the balance of authority between the congressional and
supporters argue, could undermine U.S. negotiating
executive branches. Key issues may include:
credibility and potentially unravel a final agreement. Yet,
Types of Agreements. Congress may seek to influence
Congress has directed the Administration to renegotiate
the size and scope of future trade agreements under
certain chapters in USMCA and previous FTAs prior to
TPA, or direct the President to pursue certain
consideration. Given the ability of each chamber to make—
negotiations under TPA-like authorities, as per S. 4450.
and change—its rules at any time, it is not clear that a
It also may scrutinize presidential use of tariff
statutory process could guarantee an FTA’s consideration,
proclamation authority or negotiation of trade-related
but to date, Congress has ultimately approved every
agreements that do not require changes to U.S. law.
agreement submitted under TPA.
Some observers argue that trade agreements have become
Negotiating Objectives. Congress may examine
increasingly comprehensive and complex, going beyond the
whether and how to revise U.S. trade negotiating
types of trade-related economic activity that U.S. trade
objectives and priorities, based on the language of recent
policy historically has covered. They argue implementing
FTAs like USMCA and on emerging issues such as
legislation should be subject to normal legislative
digital trade barriers; state-led subsidies; and labor and
procedures, including full debate and amendment.
environmental issues, including climate change.
Historically, U.S. negotiators, sometimes at the behest of
Congress, have avoided substantive U.S. policy changes
Consultation and Notification. USMCA underwent
and have instead encouraged partners to adopt U.S.
substantive revisions after the original release of its text.
standards. Some maintain, nevertheless, that enshrining
Congress did not receive the new text prior to
current U.S. policy in trade agreements may make those
introduction and did not hold a mock markup. Congress
policies harder to change in the future.
may seek to clarify what circumstances might require
the resubmission of a new text and specify the
TPA’s expiration renewed some debate over the role of
applicable notification period. Congress may also debate
Congress in new trade initiatives. Any trade agreement that
institutionalizing the “mock markup” practice in TPA.
Congress does not implement through legislation would
After IPEF’s launch, many Members expressed
necessarily be limited in scope. For example, the 2020
concerns over lack of consultation with Congress and
U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement was implemented as
the need for a greater congressional role.
an executive agreement and did not require statutory
changes. The Biden Administration has not pursued any
Implementing Legislation. Concerns have also arisen
comprehensive FTAs to date. Its trade initiatives, such as
over the interpretation of “strictly necessary or
the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity
appropriate” changes to U.S. law to describe the scope
(IPEF), will likely take the form of executive agreements,
of implementing legislation; the imposition of possible
which has raised concerns over the input and role of
deadlines for submitting an implementing bill once an
Congress, and prompted the Senate Finance Committee to
FTA is signed; or whether implementing legislation may
assert that Congress must still approve the final agreements.
be introduced in a subsequent Congress.
Issues for Congress
For more information, see CRS Report R43491, Trade
While historically Congress often acts upon a request from
Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions.
the President for TPA, Congress is not required to do so.
Figure 1. Congressional Requirements and Timeline for FTAs Under TPA-2015
Source: CRS, based on P.L. 114-26.
Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, Specialist in International
Trade and Finance
Christopher A. Casey, Analyst in International Trade and
Finance
IF10038
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10038 · VERSION 33 · UPDATED