WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bipartisan resolution rebuking tariffs imposed on Canada by Donald Trump, marking a rare public split between the former president and members of his own party over trade policy.

The measure, supported by Democrats and six Republicans, seeks to terminate the national emergency declaration Mr. Trump used to justify the tariffs. Though largely symbolic — any binding reversal would require presidential approval or a two-thirds veto override — the vote underscored mounting unease in Congress over the economic and diplomatic fallout from the escalating U.S.-Canada trade dispute.

The resolution passed amid warnings from Mr. Trump that Republican lawmakers who opposed him could face political consequences, a signal that trade policy remains tightly intertwined with party loyalty in the current political climate.

A Vote With Symbolic Weight

The resolution does not automatically dismantle the tariffs. Under congressional procedure, even if the Senate were to follow suit, the president retains the authority to veto the measure. Overriding such a veto would require significant bipartisan support — a threshold that appears unlikely.

Still, the vote carried symbolic weight. Congressional leaders framed it as a statement about the limits of executive power in trade matters and about the importance of stability in relations with one of the United States’ largest trading partners.

“This is about congressional authority and economic predictability,” said one Republican lawmaker who supported the measure. “Our constituents are feeling the ripple effects.”

The Canada Factor

Canada is the United States’ largest goods trading partner, with cross-border supply chains deeply integrated in sectors ranging from automotive manufacturing to agriculture and energy. Tariffs on Canadian imports, even when targeted, reverberate across industries on both sides of the border.

Canadian officials have responded with calibrated countermeasures and diplomatic engagement, emphasizing the economic interdependence between the two nations. Business groups in both countries have warned that prolonged tariff escalation could disrupt supply chains and increase costs for consumers.

The dispute is part of a broader reorientation of U.S. trade policy that began during Mr. Trump’s first term and has continued to influence debates in Washington. Supporters argue that tariffs can serve as leverage in negotiations and protect domestic industries. Critics contend that they raise prices and strain alliances without delivering lasting gains.

Intraparty Strains

The House vote highlighted subtle but notable strains within the Republican Party. While most Republican lawmakers aligned with Mr. Trump’s position, the six who joined Democrats signaled concern about the economic impact in their districts.

Some represent border states or regions with significant manufacturing bases dependent on Canadian inputs. Others have historically advocated for free trade principles and congressional oversight.

Mr. Trump responded sharply in remarks to supporters, suggesting that party unity should extend to trade policy and warning that dissent could carry political risks. His comments reflect the enduring influence he holds over Republican primary voters, even outside formal office.

Political analysts say such tensions are not unusual when trade intersects with local economic interests. “Trade policy can fracture party coalitions because the effects are uneven,” said a political economist at Georgetown University. “What benefits one industry may harm another.”

The National Emergency Question

Central to the dispute is the use of a national emergency declaration to impose tariffs. Critics in Congress argue that emergency powers were designed for extraordinary circumstances, not as a general trade instrument.

Supporters counter that the executive branch must retain flexibility to respond swiftly to economic and national security concerns.

Legal scholars note that courts have historically granted wide deference to the executive in trade matters, though congressional pushback can signal discomfort with the scope of that authority.

The debate echoes earlier clashes over tariffs on steel and aluminum during Mr. Trump’s presidency, when Congress similarly grappled with its limited ability to restrain executive trade actions.

Economic Ripples

Industry groups have reported mixed effects from the current tariff regime. Some domestic producers have welcomed the measures as protective, while retailers and manufacturers reliant on imported components cite higher input costs.

Agricultural exporters, in particular, remain sensitive to retaliatory tariffs from Canada, a key market for U.S. farm goods.

Markets reacted modestly to the House vote, suggesting that investors view the resolution as unlikely to alter policy in the short term. Still, prolonged uncertainty can affect planning and investment decisions.

A Broader Trade Narrative

The U.S.-Canada dispute unfolds within a global environment marked by supply chain realignments and geopolitical competition. Policymakers across party lines increasingly emphasize economic resilience and domestic production capacity.

Yet how to balance those goals with stable alliances remains contested.

“Trade is no longer just about economics,” said a former trade negotiator. “It’s about security, political signaling, and domestic identity.”

For Mr. Trump, tariffs have long been central to his political message — a tangible demonstration of assertive economic nationalism. For his critics, they symbolize unpredictability and alliance strain.

What Comes Next

The Senate has not yet indicated whether it will take up the House resolution. Even if it does, the practical impact remains uncertain without executive cooperation.

In the meantime, negotiations between U.S. and Canadian officials continue, with industry stakeholders pressing for clarity.

The episode illustrates the complexity of modern trade politics: symbolic votes, executive authority, economic consequences, and intraparty dynamics intertwined.

While the House resolution may not immediately alter tariff policy, it reflects a broader conversation about congressional oversight, economic interdependence, and the political costs of sustained trade confrontation.

In Washington, where alliances can be both economic and partisan, the Canada dispute has become more than a bilateral issue. It is a test of institutional boundaries — and of how far lawmakers are willing to go in challenging a president whose political influence remains formidable.