Analysis
July 13, 2026
Brazilian pig iron, tariff stacking at center of Section 301 fight
Written by Laura Miller
Testimony at last week’s Section 301 hearing had Brazilian pig iron in the spotlight. Domestic steelmakers and Brazilian suppliers warned that proposed forced labor tariffs would hit a critical US input for which there is no domestic substitute.
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) has proposed additional forced labor tariffs of 10-12.5% on all goods for 60 economies, with exceptions, including items covered by Section 232 tariffs. There is currently no special carve-out for DRI, HBI, and iron pellets in the proposed forced labor tariffs, as there is in Brazil’s separate Section 301 determination.
Fight for pig iron exemption
Steel Dynamics Inc. (SDI) and the Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) told USTR that pig iron is essential to electric-arc furnace (EAF) production, which now accounts for more than 70% of US steel output.
Barry Schneider, president and COO of SDI, said plainly that “pig iron is not available in the merchant market from domestic sources in the United States” and that tariffs would raise costs and weaken US competitiveness.
Brazil supplies more than 60% of US pig iron imports. With Russian supply cut off by sanctions and Ukraine’s exports disrupted by war, witnesses said no other country can replace Brazil’s volumes.
Brazilian producers were also present, arguing that pig iron is a strategic US input. Domestic merchant production covers only about 5% of US consumption, they said, and Brazil has shipped more than 71 million metric tons (mt) to the US since 1997. Shipments surged after Russia invaded Ukraine, rising from 1.76 million mt in 2021 to 3.37 million mt in 2025. “Pig iron imports have not harmed any player in the American steel industry,” commented SMA EVP Brandon Farris.
“Applying tariffs to raw materials that have no commercially available domestic substitute would penalize the very companies that have invested tens of billions of dollars in American manufacturing because of this administration’s trade policies,” Farris testified. “The steel industry is experiencing a historic renaissance… To ensure that continues, we respectfully urge this panel to exempt pig iron and other critical steelmaking inputs from any final action resulting from this investigation.”
Industry groups also warned that tariffs would not create new US production. SMA highlighted that the two remaining US integrated producers do not sell pig iron in the merchant market and lack the capacity to do so.
Stacking 232/301 tariffs
Other testimony focused on Section 232 interactions. Pipe and rebar producers urged USTR to allow 301 tariffs to stack on top of existing 232 duties for products where imports continue to surge, arguing that exempting 232-covered goods creates a loophole.
“Large-diameter welded pipe is subject to the steel Section 232 tariffs… however, this means that as currently proposed, large-diameter pipe would not be subject to the forced labor Section 301 action,” testified Laura El-Sabaawi of the American Line Pipe Producers Association (ALPPA).
Despite anti-dumping and countervailing duties, large OD welded pipe from Korea continues to disrupt the US market, El-Sabaawi said. “Section 301 tariffs should be applied on top of [232 measures], at least for certain countries and products, to increase the efficacy of the measures,” the association argued.
Meanwhile, the Rebar Trade Action Council (RTAC) also pushed for the stacking of tariffs, “if the Section 301 tariffs are to have a meaningful and comprehensive impact.”
The Section 301 Committee will weigh these arguments as it prepares recommendations for the USTR.
