'National Security' Tariffs: Who Is Really Hurt

The following article was written by trade attorney Lewis E. Leibowitz.

Whenever you hear someone say that a policy move is vital and trivial at the same time, watch your wallet. The Sunday talk shows today featured spokesmen and commentators debating the impact of steel and aluminum tariffs. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and National Trade Office Director Peter Navarro made the Sunday rounds today. They trivialized Wall Street losses, trade retaliation, diplomatic crises and hurting downstream metal using manufacturers. They argued that the steel and aluminum tariffs were critically important and at the same time arguing that downstream users would experience virtually no consequences. They talked about how much more a soup can would cost, how a car would cost “only” $175 more because of steel tariffs and so forth. These arguments were the same ones advanced in 2002 by Leo Gerard, then (and now) the President of the USW. He was wrong then and the White House is wrong now. A study I helped design and the Trade Partnership conducted found in 2003 that 200,000 jobs were lost in steel consuming industries, more jobs than then existed in steel production.