Contributor: Lewis Leibowitz

No doubt, events will scramble the status quo. Meanwhile, the global systems that have prevented major wars for 80 years are sagging.

The ongoing Middle East conflict, the resurgence of broad-based tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the looming US midterm elections are not isolated developments. Rather, they form a kind of feedback loop in which each issue influences, and is influenced by, the others.

Tariff-related litigation in the US and around the world reflects the willingness of the president to act without consulting Congress or our trading partners. We're seeing the impulse to act without congressional approval in international relations too.

On Friday, the Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision on the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) tariffs imposed by president Trump beginning last April. As most of you already know, by a six-to-three majority, the Court ruled against the president.

Last week, news stories (first in the Financial Times) appeared that the Trump administration was working on adjustments to steel and aluminum derivative tariffs. Ostensibly, these tariffs are only imposed on the steel or aluminum “content” of derivative products. But Customs has not provided clear guidance on how to calculate content. Confusion and controversy are running rampant.

Tariffs affect different parts of the economy differently. Tariffs on steel imports have contributed to price increases from domestic mills, improving their bottom lines. But orders from customers are slowing down, hurting downstream industries’ profitability and job prospects.

Last week, the government of China reported a trade balance of $1.12 trillion in 2025, the largest merchandise trade surplus in history. And this surplus was despite massive tariffs imposed by the United States and other countries, partly in an effort to rein in China’s trade juggernaut.

Editor’s note This is an opinion column. The views in this article are those of an experienced trade attorney on issues of relevance to the steel market. They do not necessarily reflect those of SMU. We welcome you to share your thoughts as well at smu@crugroup.com. As we close out 2025, my best wishes to all […]

We can be grateful for some things. One is the regional agreement between the US, Canada, and Mexico that is currently undergoing review. A decision is expected by July 2026 on whether to extend the agreement, which is set to expire in 2036, for another 16 years (to 2052). Three days of hearings just concluded with comments of five minutes’ duration from more than 50 witnesses.

The whole world waits for the Supreme Court to rule on the validity of President Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs. Meanwhile, the ground is shifting. Just this past week, the president changed the direction of tariff policy. He belatedly concluded that taxes on imports of products that we don’t make in the United States are inflationary

On Oct.10, President Trump announced major increases in tariffs on Chinese goods. The trigger was a new regime of export controls on rare earth metals and products using those elements, including magnets, capital equipment, and catalysts for catalytic converters in cars and trucks.

There is no doubt that the current government shutdown reflects the vast divisions between the extremes of American politics, society, and even geography. Almost all Americans agree that government is necessary, but voters disagree...

Signs of weakness are already appearing in the tariff wall. The economy has slowed to the point that the Federal Reserve cut interest rates by 0.25%, or 25 basis points, last week. The cut came even as the rate of inflation continues to hover well above the Fed’s 2% target rate.

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.

The question of the new world order was on many minds last week when I spoke on another SMU Community Chat. The short answer is that nobody knows in detail what the effects of all the economic and geopolitical developments will be.

The tariffs amount to a wholesale transformation of US trade policy from one promoting increasing international interaction to one of restricting trade to serve national strategic goals.

Industries that use steel in manufacturing employ many more workers than steel production. Raising the cost of steel for these customers will not increase manufacturing employment. In fact, it will probably hit employment hard.

Most economists will tell you that universal tariffs will result in inflation and reduce demand, causing a recession or worse. (After all, this is what happened in the 1930s). It is a rare product that is so essential that demand will not go down if prices go up.

In short, when tariffs go up, jobs in consuming industries go down. There is conclusive evidence from past actions: safeguard tariffs in 2002 and Section 232 tariffs in 2018. It is happening again in 2025. The Trump administration wants foreign producers (and US retailers) to absorb tariff increases (except in antidumping cases, where foreign absorption of tariffs is illegal).

Briefing on the stay motion will be completed by June 9. If a stay pending appeal is granted, it will likely remain in effect until the Court of Appeals issues a decision, which could be months in the future. The case is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The UK deal may signal relaxation of the heaviest tariffs. The suspension of the reciprocal tariffs greater than 10% - remember, 57 countries were hit with that - ends on July 9. But it could be extended. If more deals like the one with the UK are struck, the suspensions may continue to permit more agreements - relieving global markets of considerable worry.

The tariffs are intended to produce more investment and jobs in US manufacturing. But first, there will be a cosmic change, potentially wiping out millions of jobs in the short run. While administration officials will no doubt cringe at the comparison, it reminds me of the effort to undercut fossil fuels production to address climate change. Led by Democrats, the effort was to destroy fossil fuels so that renewable energy sources would have more space to grow. The result: inflation and electoral defeat in 2024.

Tariffs are taxes that the government collects. Funds are disbursed by acts of Congress. If domestic companies, including manufacturers, are to benefit from “protective” tariffs, they must raise their prices as well. Maybe not by the entire amount of the tariffs, but by some. Inflation will come.

On February 10, President Trump announced a massive restructuring of tariffs on steel and aluminum. Those changes took effect on March 12, and they will impact US manufacturing. What will the impact be? Bye-bye exclusions Perhaps the most important change, which hits imports from all countries, is the loss of a product exclusion process to […]

Which is more important: producers or consumers? New (and arbitrary) steel and aluminum tariffs took effect last Wednesday. Based on the Section 232 trade restrictions initially imposed in 2018 – and kept by the Biden administration – they abrogate agreements between the US and Canada, Mexico, the UK, the EU, Argentina, Brazil, and Australia. They […]

While Congress has given the president enormous power over trade policy, the president wants to test the limits of that authority. If there are no guardrails, our economic and political liberty may be on the block. Stay tuned.

With a chronic trade deficit, the administration will continue to cite more tariffs as necessary. This is in error, as noted above. Yet the base of President Trump’s support does not see it that way. More tariffs are possible. But the only way to reduce the US trade deficit substantially is to close the gap between savings and investment in the United States.

The benefits from higher tariffs are speculative and unproven. The disruptions caused by tariffs and other trade restrictions are better documented and cannot be rationally denied. For the tariffs to be good policy, the Trump argument must therefore be sure that the benefits to the US exceed the cost of these disruptions. Otherwise, we have madness masquerading as policy.

The new president clearly likes tariffs, and he wants to use them to make the United States more competitive - especially in manufacturing and mining. I believe that this will not be effective. But tariffs are very likely to be announced among the early pronouncements.

As one of my university professors once said (and it’s stuck with me for half a century), “Change is the only permanency.” On Friday, President Biden acted to block the acquisition of United States Steel by Nippon Steel Corp. of Japan, without acknowledging the changes that have already occurred in the steel industry, and which are likely to increase. After more than a year of raging debate, it seems that nobody was convinced by arguments. Nippon’s worker-centered concessions, including safeguarding the jobs of U.S. Steel’s unionized workers and committing to more than $2 billion in investments for the aging plants at Gary, Ind., and the Mon Valley complex in Pennsylvania, were not mentioned in the president’s announcement on Friday.