But what happened this week is not a cinematic “tariffs deleted” moment. It’s closer to a loud door slam in a long hallway: the U.S. House of Representatives voted to end tariffs on Canada that Donald Trump had tied to a national emergency declaration. That vote was real, it was bipartisan at the edges, and it was politically embarrassing for the White House. It was also—at least for now—not the final switch that makes tariffs vanish overnight.
What you’re seeing is a power struggle dressed up as a trade story:
Congress trying to reclaim the steering wheel on trade and emergency powers
a president using tariffs as leverage (and as a signal)
businesses stuck recalculating costs while politicians argue about authority
The moment the hashtag is pointing at
On February 11, 2026, the House passed a resolution 219–211 to terminate the emergency basis used for these Canada tariffs—with six Republicans joining nearly all Democrats.
That margin matters. Not because it’s huge (it isn’t), but because it’s personal. In modern Washington, members of a president’s party don’t love handing him a public “no,” especially on a signature economic tool like tariffs. This vote said: we’re willing to be seen disagreeing.
One of the cleanest summaries came from the House side: the argument wasn’t “Canada is the enemy.” It was “this is not what emergency powers are for.”
Where the tariffs came from (the part people skip)
The legal hook is the key detail most posts don’t explain.
A related measure in Congress describes the underlying emergency declaration as one that added a 25% tariff on most imports from Canada, with a 10% additional tariff on Canadian energy/energy resources—tied to a national emergency declared on February 1, 2025.
In public messaging, the White House linked the tariffs to fentanyl smuggling claims—a justification that critics and reporting say is disputed.
And then—because tariff policy rarely stays still—the reporting indicates the tariffs were later increased (Reuters cites 35% in 2025).
So when people say “overturned,” what they really mean is: the House voted to terminate the emergency framework that the tariffs were hanging on. That’s a big shot across the bow. It’s not the end of the war.
Why the House vote doesn’t automatically “end” tariffs
Here’s the part that feels boring but decides the outcome:
The resolution has to survive the rest of the lawmaking process (including the Senate path).
And if it reaches the president’s desk, a veto is widely expected.
Overriding a veto requires two-thirds majorities—a mountain compared to a 219–211 edge.
That’s why even supporters of the House action describe it as largely symbolic in immediate effect—symbolic, but not meaningless. Symbolic votes are how Washington tests the room: How many people are willing to be counted?
The real story is “who controls the lever”
This fight isn’t only about the price of imported inputs or retaliation threats. It’s about a deeper question:
Can a president use emergency powers as a routine switch to impose broad tariffs?
If Congress lets that become normal, trade policy slowly slides from “legislation” into “executive posture.” Lawmakers end up arguing after the fact, trying to claw back authority with resolutions that may never clear a veto. The House vote is Congress saying: we see what this is turning into, and we don’t like the precedent.
You can feel the pressure in the procedural fights around it. Reuters also reported the House voted 217–214 to block a plan that would have restricted tariff challenges through July 31—another sign that lawmakers are battling not just the policy, but the ability to contest the policy.
The parallel track: courts, legality, and the “not final yet” zone
While Congress argues in public, the legal system is running its own quieter version of the same question: what authority, exactly, allows these tariffs?
Recent legal analysis points to litigation in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the use of emergency-based authority for tariffs, and discusses how courts have evaluated whether statutes like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) can support sweeping tariff actions.
That’s part of why the hashtag gets confusing: people see “court challenges” + “House overturns” and compress it into a single, satisfying headline. In reality, it’s two fronts moving at once—Congress on legitimacy, courts on legality.
What this feels like on the ground (the human part)
If you’re running a business that touches cross-border supply chains, the headline isn’t “tariffs overturned.” It’s:
Do I price as if the tariff stays?
Do I renegotiate contracts now or wait?
Do I shift suppliers, even if it’s expensive, just to reduce political risk?
Tariffs don’t just tax goods. They tax planning.
And this is why the House vote matters even if it doesn’t immediately delete the tariff line item. It tells markets, partners, and agencies: the president’s control of this tool is being contested in daylight.
So… were they “overturned”?
A more accurate translation of the hashtag is:
“The House voted to terminate the emergency basis for Trump’s Canada tariffs, in a rare bipartisan rebuke—but the outcome still depends on the rest of the process, and a veto fight is likely.”