At least two Republicans are firm nos on the vote: Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Kevin Kiley (R-CA). 

“My main issue here is, this isn’t the purpose of a rule,” Kiley said. “The rule is meant to bring a bill to the floor, set the parameters for debate. It’s not meant to smuggle in unrelated provisions that expand the power of leadership at the expense of our members. That’s the reason I oppose it. I don’t understand why this keeps coming up.”

The ban is an extension of the previous language that blocked tariff repeal resolutions from getting a vote, which expired at the end of January. But Democrats and some Republicans have numerous bills disapproving of Trump’s tariffs ready to go once the prohibition is lifted, hence why GOP leadership is rushing this week to reinstate the ban.

Just two votes alone could sink the rule, given Johnson’s razor-thin majority. The speaker has faced six rule failures since he’s taken up the leadership role, and he’s faced the threat of a seventh numerous times in the last year. He’s managed to pass the measures every time by flipping members on the House floor during the vote.

Johnson said during the GOP’s weekly press conference on Tuesday that he expects the rule to pass. The floor vote on the rule is expected Tuesday evening, as leadership continues to try and sway members to support the rule.

Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) has said she is opposed, but she is known to flip her vote after having conversations with leadership. Eyes are also on a handful of others to see how they will vote, including Reps. Don Bacon (R-NE), Jeff Hurd (R-CO), and Mike Turner (R-OH), who have raised concerns about the tariffs.

Kiley told reporters nothing can get him to flip his vote to a “yes,” except removing the tariff language from the vote.

“It doesn’t really make sense to put something on the floor that’s not going to pass,” Kiley said.

Republican leadership and much of the conference are supporting the tariff resolution ban, stating that they don’t want to interfere with an ongoing Supreme Court case that is challenging the legality of the tariffs.

“I think the sentiment is that we allow a little bit more runway for this to be worked out between the executive branch and the judicial branch,” Johnson said.

GOP centrists have raised concerns that the Trump administration is overstepping its authority by enacting tariffs, an economic power long held by Congress. But the House has ceded much of its legislative branch power to the executive branch, which has become a sore point for some constitutionalist members. 

“It will be the fourth time this rule vote putting a gag on tariff debates has been done,” Bacon told Punchbowl News. “I don’t think tariffs are good for the economy, manufacturing jobs, and AG industry. American consumers pay the tariffs and thus it is a big tax. I support giving these authorities back to Congress.”

Bacon told the Washington Examiner he prefers “votes on policy to be just that … not rules votes.” But when asked if he would vote against the rule, he said, “I’ll speak with my vote.” 

Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA), a centrist who represents a purple district, said Congress has been turning over tariff power to the executive branch for “a long time.” 

“I think in some cases, there’s actually good justification for that, because as we see, Congress is very dysfunctional nowadays,” he said, noting that it would be difficult for Congress to respond quickly to rapidly changing trade practices coming out of countries such as China.

“But, I think we do need to continue that discussion to figure out what the right balance is,” Mackenzie said.

Meanwhile, Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) said a ruling from the Supreme Court is likely to come by June, so there is an “argument to be made to maintain the status quo until then.”

“I believe in free trade,” McCormick said. “I think the tariffs are a mistake, but given the fact the Supreme Court’s about to weigh in, maybe we ought to just keep our powder dry and see what they say, and then respond to that.”

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), who was undecided about how he would vote, said in a post to X Tuesday afternoon he remains a “tariff skeptic” but it would be “unwise” to vote on legislation until the Supreme Court makes a decision.

“I support the President and I support the rule,” he wrote.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), former chairman of the Rules Committee, said he “generally” is not a fan of “self-executing rules,” but he doesn’t have a problem with the tariff ban because it’s short-term and it will keep the House from “jumping prematurely into an issue.”

“I think the speaker’s just trying to give us some stability,” Cole said. “There’s no sense in us acting until we know what the Supreme Court is going to do. Then probably a legislative response probably will be appropriate, but we need to give the court time to do their deliberation.”

Democrats are largely opposed to the rule, with a source familiar to the Washington Examiner confirming that Democrats will try to offer an amendment to keep the procedural vote the same but strip out the tariff language. It’s unlikely Republicans will join Democrats on that motion, as procedural votes typically fall along party lines.

REPUBLICANS LOOK TO USHER THROUGH VOTER ID LEGISLATION FOR THIRD TIME WITH SAVE AMERICA ACT

Rules Committee ranking member Jim McGovern (D-MA) blasted the tariff language on Tuesday.

“I’ve talked to a lot of Republicans who are horrified by these tariffs and who are shocked that the speaker snuck this into a rule,” McGovern said. “I’m not sure the rule can pass. I hope it doesn’t. All these Republicans who are telling their constituents that they have concerns about the tariffs, they better vote no on this rule, because otherwise they’re full of s***.”

Lauren Green contributed to this report.