Ongoing reports and analysis

One year ago, it seemed as if the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) had hit its nadir with its globally mocked formula attempting to justify the Trump administration’s arbitrary and ultimately short-lived “Liberation Day” tariffs.

One year later, the USTR is outdoing itself.

One year ago, it seemed as if the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) had hit its nadir with its globally mocked formula attempting to justify the Trump administration’s arbitrary and ultimately short-lived “Liberation Day” tariffs.

One year later, the USTR is outdoing itself.

In response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s demand for something that will justify import duties on most countries in the world—after the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year struck down his first stab at global tariffs—the administration’s trade office has put together a doozy. 

Plan B for Trump’s war on trade relies on Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, but the trade team has not managed to translate a 50-year-old statute meant to address specific and narrow instances of trade discrimination into a coherent or defensible template for raising trade barriers on most major economies. That may not spell a defeat in courts, as befell Trump’s prior tariff initiatives, but it has led to an avalanche of pushback against the administration’s approach.

It is easy to forget that Trump’s war on trade continues, since his war on Iran does as well, and both have the effect of raising prices for consumers and slowing economic growth. But the Trump administration’s trade agenda churns ahead, with public hearings this week and next on the new key element of his protectionist agenda. Which means that the weeks and months ahead will be critical for the future of the Trump administration’s trade policy.

Section 301 is the next big battlefield, because the temporary Band-Aid to keep tariffs in place—Section 122 of that same 1974 act—expires in July. That is why the two big administration efforts to advance trade actions under Section 301 are so important. 

Section 301 has been used many times before to redress trade wrongs, unlike the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is what Trump tried to use last year before the Supreme Court nixed it. It is a tailored provision in U.S. trade law that allows the U.S. government to identify specific policies and practices in a trade partner that are unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory and that harm U.S. commerce. 

China often fits that bill, and in fact, Section 301 tariffs on China from the first Trump administration remain in place. Even today, many trade........

© Foreign Policy