Trade Cases
Report Questions Trump’s Authority to Withdraw U.S. from NAFTA
Written by Tim Triplett
March 13, 2019
The president’s authority to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA under U.S. law is unclear, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service, but it does appear that the president would need congressional approval to terminate the U.S. law implementing NAFTA. The report’s conclusions could embolden lawmakers pushing back against President Trump’s threats to withdraw from NAFTA unless Congress approves the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement designed to replace it.
The report states that the U.S. approved NAFTA as a congressional-executive agreement by a majority vote of each house of Congress rather than as a treaty ratified by the president after Senate approval by a two-thirds majority vote. NAFTA was not a self-executing agreement; instead, Congress approved and implemented the agreement through the NAFTA Implementation Act, which provided domestic legal authorities with the power to enforce and comply with the agreement’s provisions.
President Trump has repeatedly suggested that he may unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA in an effort to prompt Congress to approve the USMCA. However, the report calls into question what the effect of any such action would be.
According to CRS, it does not appear that any U.S. statute expressly gives the president authority to terminate NAFTA on his own. The most recent congressional grant of trade promotion authority does not speak to this issue, the report states, and in fact the nature of this law could prompt a court to find that congressional action is needed before the U.S. may withdraw from an agreement negotiated under TPA, including NAFTA. In addition, neither Section 125 nor Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 appears to authorize the president to terminate U.S. international obligations under NAFTA. These sections may provide the president with broad authority to suspend individual trade concessions granted to NAFTA countries and thereby establish barriers to trade with Canada and Mexico, the report notes, but the president’s use of such authority would likely be subject to review on various grounds by domestic or international tribunals.
Further, the report states, given that Supreme Court precedent generally requires the repeal of laws to conform to the same bicameral process used to enact them, it would appear that the president lacks authority to terminate the domestic effect of the NAFTA Implementation Act without going through the full legislative process for repeal.
Source: the Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report.
Tim Triplett
Read more from Tim TriplettLatest in Trade Cases
Price on Trade: IEEPA tariffs head to the Supreme Court, DOJ ramps up trade enforcement
International trade law and policy remain a hot topic in Washington and beyond this week. We are paying special attention to the ongoing litigation of the president’s tariff policies and the administration’s efforts to heighten trade enforcement.
Mexico considers stiff tariffs for steel, autos, and other imports
Mexico is considering imposing steep tariffs on imports of steel, automobiles, and over 1,400 other products. Its target? Countries with which it does not have free trade agreements, mainly China, India, Thailand, and other South Asian nations.
Leibowitz: With ‘reciprocal’ tariffs struck down again in court, what happens next?
President Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Policy Act (IEEPA) were struck down again, this time on Aug. 29 by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The legal and policy mess continues, with the next stop being the US Supreme Court.
Market unfazed by US circuit court’s IEEPA decision
Repealing any reciprocal tariffs placed by President Donald Trump on US imports of direct reduced iron (DRI), iron ore, hot-briquetted iron (HBI), and pig iron would have only a nominal impact on the US steel market, market participants said.
ITC votes to keep HR duties after sunset review
The US government determined this week that hot-rolled steel imports from a handful of countries continue to threaten the domestic steel industry.