Lawmakers from both parties began exploratory talks this week on whether to codify President Donald Trump's international trade deals, a move that could give the pacts permanence beyond his presidency but may hit political roadblocks over tariff provisions.

The discussions, confirmed by Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), come amid concerns that Trump's executive agreements-reached with Japan, the EU, China, the UK and others-lack the staying power of legislatively-approved trade deals.

"Ultimately, the president, I assume, will want his policies to last beyond his term of office," said Smith, chair of the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee. He and others are reviewing which parts of the agreements could be viable for congressional passage.

Although the administration has moved forward with implementing over a dozen deals, many lawmakers are uneasy with the lack of congressional input. Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) said bluntly, "Trade deals are supposed to go through Congress."

The problem? Tariffs. Several of Trump's deals include so-called "reciprocal tariff rates," prompting pushback from both parties. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) warned he couldn't support any trade pact that lacks labor and environmental protections modeled after the USMCA.

"When we did that in USMCA we proclaimed, ‘here are the new gold standards.' Why not include those?" Beyer asked. He also criticized tariff clauses that contradict the core purpose of trade liberalization.

Even some Republicans remain cautious. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) has criticized tariffs' impact on American consumers and resisted House leadership efforts to maintain a freeze on tariff votes-set to expire this month.

The Trump administration's trade agenda, while popular in some ag sectors for expanding market access-including new pacts with Indonesia, Malaysia and Cambodia-is causing friction due to the non-traditional format of executive agreements, which bypass Congress and the usual Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) process.

"These are conversations that we want to have," Adrian Smith said. "Engagement can be very important."

Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) echoed the need for scrutiny: "I want to go over these deals with a fine-tooth comb." Others, including Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.), emphasized Congress should act as a "co-equal" branch in setting trade policy.

Historically, presidents have sought TPA before negotiations, which outlines U.S. objectives and limits Congress to an up-or-down vote. But Trump's approach has upended that model, and lawmakers now face the choice of legitimizing the new deals-or letting them potentially unravel after 2028.

Following last summer's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included some trade measures, House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) said his next priority is codifying trade policy. But whether enough votes exist remains unclear.

As trade remains critical to U.S. agricultural exports and global competitiveness, the debate now turns on whether bipartisan support can be found-or whether tariff politics will derail Trump's legacy trade agenda.