Contributor: Lewis Leibowitz

Earlier this month, retired General David Petraeus, whose resume is as impressive as any I’ve seen, held a fireside chat at the National Press Club with Century Aluminum CEO Jesse Gary and Mark Duffy, the president and CEO of the American Primary Aluminum Association. During that widely reported chat, retired Gen. Petraeus stated that the US was not militarily ready for a conflict. Because the event concentrated on aluminum, and primary aluminum at that, his remarks hit harder than I think the full facts warrant.

Steel markets in the United States now feature supply shortages. Spot tons are well-nigh unavailable, and even contract tons are scarce. Based on the available statistics, the US market for flat-rolled products is seriously constrained. The US economy is still the strongest in the world, and manufacturing output remains vigorous. But the available supply is tight. The reason is fairly obvious. US domestic supply has increased a bit. Meanwhile, imports have fallen significantly.

In 2015, finished steel imports were 29% of apparent domestic consumption of steel, as estimated by AISI. In 2025, the import share had fallen to 18%. Steel lobbyists think that is progress, but the reality is more complex.

A policy that protects steel production while making downstream American manufacturing less competitive internationally merely moves the injury along the domestic supply chain.

Rather than recruiting other countries to help, the US appears intent on threatening to punish countries, including its closest friends. In my experience, this strategy has never proved productive. 

S232 tariffs of 50% provide a signal to domestic producers. Domestic prices have risen by approximately 50%. Similarly, the tariffs have simply moved the competitive threshold for imports 50% higher.

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. My colleague and friend Alan Price wrote last week about […]

Downstream consumers of steel account for many times the employment in steel production. Yet the tariff manufacturers in the federal government have paid scant attention to the needs of most manufacturers.

As all these initiatives unfold, one is left with the feeling that disruption of the global order is their primary purpose. As the old order is destroyed, it is time to think carefully about what will take its place.

The Trump tariffs have driven the mundane world of traditional “trade remedies” off the front pages. But antidumping and countervailing duty measures are still with us, and new cases are on the upswing lately.

If an industry suffers from high labor and energy costs, inefficient facilities, or lower productivity, tariffs do not solve those problems. They only mask them, transferring costs from inefficient producers to consumers.

Lewis Leibowitz: Recent rulings suggest courts are reinforcing legal limits on tariff authority.

It's cliche to say it. But spring traditionally brings new hope and green shoots—whether that's looking forward to vacations or increased business activity. While I viscerally share these positive feelings, I can’t help but thinking of three areas where I'm not feeling very hopeful. Namely, the US electrical grid, the national debt, and the Iran war.

USMCA provides strong support for North American competitiveness. US manufacturing has lost considerable capabilities over the last few decades. “Cheating” by other countries is not the only reason. Nor is it even the most important reason

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.