BAD DEAL Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill eliminates a specific, potentially outdated presidential authority to impose retaliatory tariffs based on trade discrimination and requires the refund of all duties previously collected under this authority.
What it actually does
This bill repeals Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which grants the President authority to impose additional duties on goods from countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. It nullifies any existing Presidential proclamations made under this section and mandates the retroactive refund of all duties previously collected under this authority. Additionally, it makes a conforming amendment to Section 337(m) of the same Act.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that Section 338 is an antiquated and potentially harmful tool that can lead to escalating trade disputes, harm consumers through higher tariffs, and complicate international trade relations. They contend that its repeal promotes more stable and equitable trade practices, aligning U.S. policy with modern multilateral frameworks, and that refunding duties rectifies past economic burdens.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that Section 338 provides a crucial tool for the President to respond to unfair trade practices by foreign countries, thereby protecting American industries and workers. Its repeal could weaken the U.S. negotiating position and leave the country vulnerable to trade discrimination without an effective retaliatory measure. Concerns may also be raised about the fiscal impact of mandated refunds on the U.S. Treasury.
The bill is extremely short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension by any informed reader.
Section 2(a)
Repeal of Trade Discrimination Authority and Nullification of Proclamations
This provision completely eliminates Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which currently allows the President to impose special duties on goods from countries found to be discriminating against U.S. commerce. It also explicitly states that any existing Presidential orders or proclamations that were issued, in whole or in part, under this authority will immediately lose all legal force or effect.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that repealing this section removes an outdated and potentially counterproductive trade weapon, fostering more stable international trade relations and reducing the likelihood of escalating trade wars. They contend it aligns U.S. trade policy with modern multilateral frameworks and promotes a more predictable global trading environment.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this repeal disarms the President of a necessary tool to combat unfair trade practices by foreign nations, potentially leaving U.S. industries and workers vulnerable to discrimination without an effective means of direct retaliation.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for stable international trade relations and reduced trade barriers against the perceived need for unilateral tools to address trade discrimination.
Section 2(b)
Retroactive Application and Duty Refunds
This section mandates that the President take all necessary steps to provide for the refund of any tariffs or other duties that were imposed and collected under the authority of Section 338. This applies to duties collected before, on, or after the bill's enactment date, ensuring that the repeal has a comprehensive retroactive financial effect.
Section 2(c)
Conforming Amendment to Section 337(m)
This provision makes a technical change to Section 337(m) of the Tariff Act of 1930. It removes the outdated reference to "sections 338 and" and replaces it with "section", ensuring that Section 337(m) correctly reflects the repeal of Section 338 and maintains consistency within the statute.
Amends Section 337(m) of the Tariff Act of 1930 by striking "sections 338 and" and inserting "section", a technical correction to remove an obsolete reference.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for making necessary technical cleanups and ensuring statutory consistency after a related section of law has been repealed or amended.
Case for: Ensures legal consistency and clarity within the Tariff Act of 1930 by removing a reference to a section of law that is being repealed, thereby preventing potential confusion in legal interpretation and application.
Case against: There is no substantive case against this provision, as it is a non-controversial technical correction that improves the coherence of the statute.
Estimated impact: The direct impact of this provision is minimal, primarily affecting legal interpretation and the administrative application of trade law rather than having a direct economic or social effect.