Final Thoughts

Ternium filed the petition on Oct. 31, 2025. The Mexican government took up the case this week. You can read the complete filing in the Diaro Oficial de la Federacion, Mexico’s rough equivalent of the Federal Register in the US.

I hesitate to make any broad statements about its potential impact on the market. But one important note on process: In the US, the government makes a trade case public pretty much as soon as a domestic mill or other interested party (the United Steelworkers union, for example) officially petitions for relief. In Mexico, in contrast, a petitioner can ask for relief. But the government doesn’t publicize the trade case until it’s decided the petition merits the time and resources of an investigation.

Also, in Mexico, the procedural deadlines start from publication in the Diaro Oficial. And not, as in the US, the date of the trade petition. That’s why the news today matters. This case is real now, not just a rumor. And the clock is officially ticking.

That said, the timing of this case is a little unusual, according to channel checks with folks more experienced in trade matters than me. Typically, the Mexican Ministry of Economy has 25 days to initiate an investigation, request further information, or reject the filing. The ministry is not required to publish notice it has initiated a trade case within 25 days, especially if it has requested more information. But it’s a little unusual for a case to be filed and not initiated for three and a half months. I can only speculate on why the timeline might have been somewhat drawn out this time.

By the numbers

But back to concrete facts. Here is another reason why this trade case matters: North American supply chains remain closely interlinked. And Mexico is an important export market for the US.

The US exported 4.36 million metric tons of steel to Mexico in 2024, the last full year for which data are available. That’s up 6.6% from 4.09 million metric tons in 2023, according to Commerce Department figures. As far as CR goes, the US exported 608,277 metric tons to Mexico in 2024, up 17.7% from 517,020 metric tons in 2024.

Does the case have broader trade implications. I don’t know. But we do know that certain US mills have found a good business in exporting to Mexico – especially since President Trump leaned hard on the tariff button last year.

Why? Because US-made steel can be turned into finished goods in Mexico and then shipped back to the US (as appliances, auto parts, heavy equipment, etc.) free of the steep duties those goods would otherwise face. Could some of that trade be jeopardized? It’s a question worth considering.

Fortress North America looking wobbly?

Then there are broader questions around a “Fortress North America” trade policy. Barry Zekelman, executive chairman and CEO of Zekelman Industries, said at the Tampa Steel Conference last week that he saw Fortress North America’s prospects “slipping.”

Zekelman was speaking mostly about the increasingly frosty relationship between the US and Canada. He questioned whether USMCA might be replaced by one bilateral deal between the US and Mexico and another between the US and Canada. And there was chatter along the sidelines of the event that Canada’s more confrontational approach with the US could lead to Mexico getting favorable treatment.

A trade case in Mexico against US CR strikes me as nowhere near as high profile as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech at Davos. So does it fly under the radar in Washington? Or could it become an unlikely political football? I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

Section 232 update

Meanwhile, we continue to get questions about what might happen with Section 232 tariffs. It looks like some of those stemmed from an interview US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer gave to CNBC on Tuesday. (The full interview is here.)

Could Greer be hinting at lower tariffs for countries that reach trade deals with the US? After all, he noted recent trade deals with Taiwan, Bangladesh, and Guatemala. What might happen ahead of any deal with, say, the EU?

But take a listen to the interview. Here is what Greer said when asked about tariffs: “We’ve heard stories of companies that have had to hire extra people for compliance. We’re not trying to have people do so much bean counting that they’re not running their company correctly.”

To my ear, that’s not anti-S232. Instead, it aligns with some of Zekelman’s criticisms of derivative tariffs. Zekelman said at Tampa Steel on Feb. 12 that changes to derivative were “imminent.” By Feb. 13, we had press reports, based on anonymous sources, indicating changes to derivative tariffs were in the works. As I see it, Greer confirmed on record what was reported on background last week.

And if you have any doubts, listen to what Greer said next: “The president’s tariffs on steel and aluminum have been very successful – shipping more steel than ever, opening up new steel lines, new aluminum smelters announced. So clearly those are going in the right direction. They’re going to stay in place.”

To my ear, that means just what is says. Underlying Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum will remain in place – even if changes to “derivative” tariffs are in the works.

IEEPA’s fate decided on Friday?

Since we’re talking tariffs, it’s worth noting one more thing: Greer reiterated what you’ve seen written by trade columnists Alan Price and Lewis Leibowitz in SMU. The Supreme Court could rule on a separate set of tariffs – the International Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariff – as soon as Friday, Feb. 20.

But even the Trump administration doesn’t know exactly when that ruling will come. “If and when it comes and we win, then we’ll just carry on our successful tariff and trade policy program,” Greer said. “If it goes the other way, then we’ll try to recreate that the best way possible so we can have continuity in what the president is doing.”

Let’s say the Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA. Wondering what the playbook for a post-IEEPA world might look like? I suggest reading this article by Price. If IEEPA goes away, expect to see more Section 232s – or some Sections we haven’t seen much of lately, like Section 122 or Section 338.

Your copy of the playbook for 2026

Speaking of playbooks, those of you who attended Tampa Steel probably picked up a copy of a glossy magazine we prepared for the event. The big idea for the magazine: provide a playbook for steel in 2026, as developed by leading executives and analysts. A copy of that playbook is now available in digital format. You can sign up to receive it here.

And in the meantime, thanks to all of you from all of us at SMU for your continued business. We truly appreciate it.