Watch: Democrat Congressman Erupts After Hearing About Trump’s Tariff Pause Mid-Hearing

President Donald Trump’s trade decisions dominated headlines, and Rep. Steven Horsford wasn’t about to sit on the sidelines.

The Nevada Democrat made waves during a fiery exchange with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing. His frustration boiled over when he discovered that Trump was initiating a 90-day pause on tariffs for nearly every nation except China — a move he learned about during the session, not beforehand.

Trump had officially shared the news on social media earlier that day:

The timing of the announcement added fuel to the fire, giving Horsford the stage he clearly wanted to express outrage on camera.

“How long is the pause? How many days? How many weeks?” he demanded, visibly angry.

Greer began to reply, “I understand it’s 90 days, I haven’t spoken to the president—”

But Horsford wasn’t having it.

“So, the trade representative hasn’t spoken to the president of the United States about a global reordering of trade and yet he announced it on a tweet? W-T-F? Who’s in charge?” he fired back, then added, “It looks like your boss just pulled the rug out from under you and paused the tariffs, the taxes on the American people.”

Let’s break that down.

For starters, it didn’t happen on a tweet — and also, Twitter is now X. But more importantly, the post wasn’t on X at all; it was on Truth Social. Not that this detail was at the core of Horsford’s meltdown, but it underscores how loosely the facts were being handled in his six-minute tirade.

More to the point: Horsford appeared incensed that Greer hadn’t preemptively shared information the president himself hadn’t yet made public. One would hope a sitting congressman understands how executive communication works — especially one with multiple terms under his belt. You don’t expect a trade rep to leak upcoming presidential moves to Congress before they’re official. That’s not how the chain of command operates — or survives.

Yet Horsford continued to insist that Greer was out of the loop.

“There’s no strategy. You just found out three seconds ago, sitting here, we saw you,” he claimed.

Greer remained composed, reminding Horsford who actually runs trade policy: “I don’t disclose my conversations with the president, sir.”

Horsford pressed on: “These were specific questions we asked you all along. What’s the strategy?”

He went on to argue the tariffs had real consequences for Americans and small businesses — citing a meeting he had earlier with entrepreneurs concerned about costs on aluminum and steel.

“This is amateur hour, and it needs to stop,” he declared. “What does this even mean for your negotiating strategy? How are you in charge of negotiation if the president is tweeting about this from wherever the hell he is?”

Greer responded coolly: “The president was elected, and he runs the trade policy, and I advise him and execute his trade policy.”

Pretty clear — but Horsford wasn’t finished.

In what was clearly meant to be a made-for-TV moment, the congressman kept going until committee chair Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) cut him off.

“Your time has expired and I’m more than happy to talk to you–” Smith began.

“I asked if you would yield,” Horsford interjected.

“And I said no,” Smith replied.

You can catch Horsford’s six-minute blowup here:

To circle back to his central question — “W-T-F? Who’s in charge?” — the answer is still Donald Trump, elected in part because voters favored his hardline stance on trade, particularly regarding China.

Let’s not overthink this: Horsford lost it because the trade rep for an elected president didn’t air out confidential policy talks on camera. That’s the complaint. And apparently, that’s the rallying cry Democrats think will resonate going into 2026 and beyond.

Is trade policy complex? Absolutely. But if this is how the opposition plans to engage — through on-camera theatrics and demands for behind-the-scenes intel — they might want to rethink the strategy. Otherwise, they’re setting themselves up for exactly the kind of electoral reality they claim to oppose.