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.
At holiday time, it’s customary to think about what’s happened during the year gone by and what to hope for (or brace for) in the next.
The world has had a few shocks recently. The CEO of a major health insurance company was gunned down in Manhattan. The 50-year Assad dynasty in Syria was pushed out less than two weeks after rebels started an offensive. And President-elect Trump is promising tariffs on everything a month before he takes office. But one shock has been taking place for a lot longer than the last few weeks. The 70-year consensus on trade hasn’t just been challenged. It’s been repudiated.
Transition to a new administration is always uncertain. This one is more uncertain than most.
Are you still recovering from the election? If so, please get plenty of rest. Next year will require you to be awake and alert. Things are likely to change. We can’t be sure exactly how they will change yet.
China is one of the elephants in the room as the transition to Trump 2.0 continues. While the people and policies are still being formulated, it’s possible to detect a strategy for the new Trump administration. I think there are two imperative issues that the new administration needs to balance. The Trump strategy will, I believe, follow the following points. First, trade is one of the issues that got President Trump elected in 2016 and 2024—it nearly got him elected in 2020, save for the pandemic. If President Trump had won in 2020, I might be writing chronicles about the end of his eight years in the White House now instead of projecting what the next Trump administration would accomplish or break. Oh, well—that’s life. Trade will necessarily be a key feature of relations with China for the next four years.
I joined in a Steel Market Update community chat last week. Predictably, many of the questions concerned the likely results of a Trump or Harris victory in the election. Like most people, I don’t know who will win. But by next week I probably will know. Here is my take, with an emphasis on steel policy. There are a surprising number of similarities between the Democratic and Republican candidates’ positions on steel policy. In part, that is because both candidates are going after the same voters—steel workers, whether unionized or not.
China’s burgeoning exports are causing major angst all over the world. In the US, the increases are spawning calls for more restrictions on China, some of which might work a bit, but will likely cause more harm than good for the world at large.
On Thursday, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the US Maritime Alliance (USMX), representing carriers and port operators on the East and Gulf Coasts, announced a three-and-a-half-month extension of the recently expired collective bargaining agreement. The extension kicks the can down the road until Jan. 15, 2025, after the 2024 election and the certification of the results on Jan. 6.
By most accounts, the issues that are most important for voters in this election are the economy, immigration, and abortion. International trade policy plays a key role in at least two of those three (the economy and immigration). Both presidential candidates recognize that trade and tariffs are an important focus. And “America first” is a rallying point for both candidates.
US presidential campaigns frequently sport an “air of unreality.” No more so than the 2024 campaign, where superlatives fly around like mosquitos. Steel trade has been a feature of political discourse for at least half a century now. Just last week, it proceeded to a new level of “unreality.” Four senators - Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) - wrote a “bipartisan” letter attacking Mexican exports of steel to the United States. They framed it as a “surge” in US steel imports from Mexico. To address this “surge,” the Senators urge the imposition of 25% tariffs on all steel imports from Mexico.
Domestic steel producers and the United Steelworkers (USW) union filed a barrage of trade cases last week. This is hardly news. Ever since the Commerce Department ruled that Vietnam is still treated as a nonmarket economy (NME) for antidumping purposes, many in the business expected new cases on the product that Vietnam excels at—“corrosion-resistant steel.” Nor is it a surprise that these cases roped in nine countries in addition to Vietnam: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, South Africa, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. All these countries rank in the top ten exporters of corrosion-resistant steel to the United States. These petitions are a broadside against coated flat-rolled steel imports.
The utility industry has sounded the alarm over potential increases in Section 301 tariffs affecting solar photovoltaic cells, batteries and transformers. The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) and the White House have unveiled proposals to increase the current 7.5% tariffs to 25% after the end of this month. An announcement is pending.
In Britain, the handwriting is on the wall. Are we reading the same writing in the US? Based on the pressures of addressing climate change and carbon emissions, British steel companies are facing a stark choice: Push for government subsidies to convert production from blast furnaces to electric furnaces - or go out of business in Britain.
A long-awaited reconsideration of the status of Vietnam as a “non-market economy” was completed by the Commerce Department earlier this month. Hundreds of companies, associations, and politicians weighed in on the question. On Aug. 2, Commerce released its conclusions in a 248-page memorandum, deciding that Vietnam remains a non-market economy (NME) under the US antidumping law. But what are the implications for Vietnam and for other countries with the same status?
Steel is, mostly for historical reasons, a bellwether of international policy. No longer an industry of primary importance, its advocates still proclaim that it is. And steel still continues to punch above its weight in Washington, DC. Below are a few recent examples.
At the end of every Supreme Court term there are a few big cases. This year, there are more. The last day for releasing opinions comes July 1. On Friday, the Court issued a long-awaited and long-expected decision about interpreting statutes that give powers to administrative agencies, including (among many others) the Commerce Department, the […]
Former President Trump’s visit to Capitol Hill last week made a lot of news. One proposal directly involves international trade and tariffs. While the specifics are hazy, President Trump allegedly talked about replacing the federal income tax on individuals with tariff increases. Let’s check that out.
The free market operates best when it is freest. But all governments intervene in markets in response to conditions that threaten peaceful progress. President Biden decided last week that market intervention was justified. He approved a report from the US Trade Representative (USTR) that recommended continuing the “Section 301” tariffs on Chinese imports into the United States.
The election campaign is white-hot right now, and the Biden administration is touting its protectionist message. Just this past week, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) touted this message. In a release entitled “What They are Saying,” USTR quoted many of the usual protectionist groups praising government action against Chinese steel exports and shipbuilding. Consuming industries in the United States, which employ many times the American workers as the industries seeking trade protection, were not mentioned.
Last week gave us a glimpse into the effect of the 2024 election campaign on trade policy. In a major announcement, the Biden administration pressed the US Trade Representative (USTR) to triple certain Section 301 tariffs on steel and aluminum. It’s a lot to unpack. You can find the full text of the announcement here. […]
The Biden Commerce Department just issued a broad rewrite of regulations dealing with a host of antidumping and countervailing duty issues. This week, I write about one of those issues, where it looks like Commerce made a wrong turn.
I can’t really define “Bidenomics” because it is so filled with contradictions. It seems to aim to increase manufacturing output in the United States. But not all increases are created equal.
Happy St. Patrick’s Day. “To govern is to choose.” Those words, reportedly first uttered by the late French Premier Pierre Mendes-France in the 1950s, resonate vividly in our time. It means that choices have consequences and that priorities must be set based on goals. Interested parties, in and out of government, raise their voices in […]
In 2023, Mexico emerged as the largest trading partner with the United States—larger than Canada, and even China. The growth in trade with Mexico has been truly historic—Mexico has never captured the title of the largest exporter to the US. At $475 billion for the year, the value of US imports from Mexico exceeded that […]