Contributor: Alan Price

It’s the scariest time of year in Washington, D.C. … election season. The city is a veritable haunted house of prognostication and speculation as everyone tries to discern which way the howling wind will blow. We’ll let the fortune tellers and prediction markets guess the outcomes of the midterms. What we do know is this: the steel industry has experienced its share of tricks and treats over the past few months. Below are a few notable steel tricks and treats this Halloween season.

During the first three quarters of 2026, finished steel imports from South Korea increased 50.8% compared with the same period in 2025. Imports from Vietnam increased 23.4%, imports from Turkey increased 49.5%, and imports from India increased 29.5%. Those are not marginal increases. They are substantial import surges, especially in a US market where apparent domestic consumption has bounced around but has not grown since 2017. More importantly, these import surges are arriving at lower average unit values (AUVs).

Members of the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity (GFSEC) met in Wisconsin last week and unveiled an updated plan to combat market-distorting excess capacity. The Milwaukee Framework adds color to the 2017 “Berlin Principles.” It is also a positive step in the ongoing battle against global steel market distortions. However, the Framework is only a guidepost. It must be implemented correctly to make an impact as new problems loom.

The phrase “Fortress North America” seems to resurface anytime US, Canada, and Mexico trade negotiations roll around. The idea of an economic Fortress North America burst onto the scene in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the lead up to NAFTA. In theory...

The SMU Steel Summit kicks off on Monday in Atlanta, and we could spend the entire time just discussing trade developments since the last Summit.

The busy summer for US trade, which we wrote about previously, is heating up with new Section 301 forced labor duties of 10-12.5% imposed on 60 countries and new Section 338 duties of 50% announced on certain Canadian imports.

Notably, pig iron is not excluded from the proposed Brazil measures. This would represent a change from the Brazil EEPA tariffs, which excluded pig iron.

As the US enters negotiations and possible annual reviews of the USMCA, policymakers should preserve the S232 tariffs, which have clearly been necessary to protect the US steel industry.

The next few months are poised to be momentous for US trade and tariff policy. Of note, the United States, Mexico, and Canada are beginning the six-year review of the US-Canada-Mexico Agreement (USMCA).

Unsurprisingly, the Trump-Xi Beijing summit ended without a major announcement on trade. Behind the celebratory mood and photo-ops are years of economic harm from China’s predatory trade practices that cannot be overcome in a single meeting.

Core to the negotiations will be the need for a fundamental rebalancing of the relationship between the United States, Mexico, and Canada - especially when it comes to the steel and autos supply chain.

With global capacity projected to increase by 138 million mt by 2028, the gap between capacity and demand will continue to grow over the next three years. And that assumes the conflict in Iran does not stifle global demand.

With the Iran war approaching its third week, the future course and scope of the conflict remain uncertain. Even so, while the human costs are the most immediate and tragic, the global economic implications have already proven to be significant.

The wait for an answer is finally over (sort of). In a six-to-three decision, the Supreme Court invalidated the Administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs.

If forced to choose between Canada and Mexico, many manufacturers are likely to prioritize Mexico as the more important manufacturing hub.

As we move into 2026, it’s time to look forward. While the “Donroe Doctrine,” Venezuela, and Greenland absorb significant press attention, important trade developments will also continue to make headlines this year. The unprecedented changes we saw in 2025 will continue in 2026, particularly in the areas of IEEPA and tariffs, USMCA, and the WTO.

In our opinion, it is striking that for all the bold talk about establishing a "common external tariff" — or "Fortress North America" — the solutions being proposed fail to live up to their promises. As we have commented recently, USMCA certainly needs a rethink. But we have serious concerns about Canadian and Mexican proposals that suggest common trade policies that are, as we see it, more illusory than effective.

Wiley attorneys Alan Price and Ted Brackmeyer argue that significant changes to the USMCA and continued Section 232 tariffs on Canada and Mexico are needed to support American steelmaking.

It was only a matter of time before a shutdown happened. And, no, we aren’t talking about the federal government’s lapse in appropriations. On Oct. 9, Beijing announced a series of restrictions that will effectively shut down exports of rare earth elements, magnets, and certain downstream products vital to advanced manufacturing.

Any steel imports into the EU that exceed the new, lower quota level would be subject to a 50% tariff, which represents a major increase from the EU’s current 25% out-of-quota tariff. This move would largely align the EU’s steel tariff rate with Canada and the United States.

How can the U.S. government block U.S. Steel’s Granite City rolling mill closure without harming other American steelmakers? Reducing imports should be the first step. Foreign producers continue to aggressively target the U.S. market, especially now as they find themselves displaced by Chinese exports.

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.

As everyone surely knows by now, the SMU Steel Summit starts on Monday in Atlanta, Ga. So, this is a great opportunity to reflect on how much has changed since the 2024 Summit. Certainly, no one could have imagined the wholesale and transformative changes to U.S. and global trade policy.

The administration continues to negotiate deals with US trading partners, and the reciprocal tariff program appears poised for further modification. This week, we focus on other important developments that may have received less media attention.

As the president’s August 1 tariff deadline approaches, the “Let’s Make a Deal” game show returns to primetime (the Monty Hall version, of course). As the administration begins rolling out trade deals, we are starting to see what’s behind door number one and who is getting a “zonk.”

Trade issues do not seem poised to leave the headlines anytime soon. And as recent developments show, the administration’s tariff policy remains ever-changing.

The document makes clear that Nippon Steel, through Nippon Steel America, will have “100% ownership of [the] common stock.” So if you want to own an interest in U.S. Steel’s future success, you will need to buy shares in Nippon Steel on the Nikkei stock exchange. It certainly will not be in your domestic S&P 500 ETF.

International trade attorneys discuss court decisions this week that left many importers, manufacturers, and even casual observers wondering: What’s next?

International trade remains at the forefront of President Trump’s agenda, especially as new negotiations and investigations continue to be announced.

President Trump cast a wide net with the proposed, reciprocal tariffs. The negotiating stage will be critical to determining the success of his strategy. And for those suffering tariff whiplash, don’t expect the pace of change to slow down just because the reciprocal tariffs are entering a negotiating phase.