Contributor: Alan Price

The administration’s trade rollercoaster is moving at record speeds, running along the rails of innovation and expansion. But it can be confusing and difficult to keep up with. US manufacturers that follow these developments closely could benefit from the ride. Companies that miss new updates, or fail to accurately interpret their duty liability, could be left feeling queasy. Some rollercoasters are not for the faint of heart, and this one is a bit like Space Mountain. We are all riding without much ability to see the next turn or drop.

Do we want the benefits of the Section 232 tariffs to flow to the bottom lines of foreign steel and aluminum producers or to the US government and, ultimately, domestic manufacturers and their workers? In our view, the answer is simple. Section 232 exceptions do nothing more than lead to underserved profits for foreign manufacturers who are harming the US industrial base. That revenue could be used to pursue the Trump administration’s other policy priorities - such as deficit reduction or expanded tax cuts.

The day-to-day bustle of these announcements should not obscure what they signal for other potential tariff measures in the near term and a revamped trade and economic policy in the long term. 

Day One of the second Trump administration did not bring tariffs, but it did signal that tariffs, and other major trade actions, are not far off.

This may be the most consequential six months for trade policy in recent memory. The wait to see what form Trump's actions take is almost over.

We focused on trade actions the second Trump administration might take in a prior column. Since then, we have learned more about the individuals who will be leading these efforts. Recent nominations reinforce the president-elect’s statements that tariffs will feature prominently in the second administration and that trade actions will be unveiled at lightning speed.

The OECD Steel Committee convened its 96th session last week in Paris, along with the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity. The event brought together 250 government and industry delegates from 40 of the largest steel-producing countries. The Committee’s discussions and presentations were clear: Steel markets worldwide are in dire straits.

After a frenzied election cycle, Donald Trump will return to the White House with an amplified trade agenda.

Earlier this month, Nippon Steel announced that it is applying for subsidies under the Japanese government’s Green Transformation Promotion Act to expand the company’s electric furnace steelmaking capabilities and to convert from blast furnace to electric furnace operations. As we have said before, transitioning from blast furnace- to electric furnace-based steelmaking is a good thing […]

The Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity (GFSEC) reaffirmed on Oct. 8 what domestic steel producers have long known—the threat of excess steel capacity never disappeared and is evolving. China’s steelmakers are boosting capacity and exports, echoing the 2016 global steel crisis. There is no doubt that China is successfully weaponizing excess capacity across many industries, and the fatal damage to domestic production and national security undermines the interests of all market-oriented countries. The question now is: How will GFSEC countries respond?

The only way to achieve net zero goals worldwide is to significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the global steel industry. And emissions standards can play a key role in encouraging (or discouraging) steel decarbonization. In that spirit, earlier this year, the Biden administration established a climate and trade task force, aimed at a promoting “a global trading system that slashes pollution, creates a fair and level playing field, protects against carbon dumping, {and} supports good manufacturing jobs and economic opportunity.” These are ambitious and laudable goals. Across sectors, the United States has a significant carbon advantage over many of its economic competitors. This is certainly true in the steel industry, where American manufacturers are among the lowest emitting in the world. In other words, when it comes to steel, climate-focused trade policy can go hand-in-hand with US competitiveness.

The chair of China’s Baowu Steel Group recently predicted a “harsh winter” for the Chinese industry as it faces a structural economic slowdown and a property market crisis. As steel industries elsewhere know all too well, China’s “harsh winters” have an unfortunate tendency to blow back on them. 

The US Commerce Department on Friday released its determination confirming that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam continues to function as a non-market economy (NME). The department’s decision represents a significant victory for domestic manufacturing. It is also critical to leveling the playing field for US industries and will support greater opportunities for growth and fair trade in the United States. The government of Vietnam had requested that Commerce reconsider its NME designation. It argued that Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo had pledged to support the changing of its status to a market economy.

The United Kingdom and other countries are using the “green” label to subsidize bailouts of obsolete, inefficient, and excess capacity that should exit the market. US steelmakers have invested billions of dollars in technologies that curb greenhouse gas output. These investments have been market-based and led by EAF producers such as Nucor, Steel Dynamics, and CMC.

North America has one of the most robust steel scrap markets in the world. The continent has a long history of steel production, significant imports of steel and steel-containing products, and mature steel consumption. Due to this, the reservoir of scrap available to be recycled each year in the US and other North American markets is substantial and growing.

The chairman of a large American steel company called for Mexico to be dropped from USMCA at a steel industry conference last week. This follows earlier calls from members of Congress to reinstate Section 232 duties on Mexico. How did we get to this point?

When it comes to steel decarbonization, we do not need to compromise our climate ambition to make the types of demanding steel products needed for our 21st-century economy. Nevertheless, many of the world’s highest-emitting steel producers and their allies would have you believe that one cannot be done without the other. They are wrong. They […]

In conjunction with President Biden’s visit to Vietnam in September 2023, Vietnam’s government petitioned the US Department of Commerce (DOC) for “market economy” treatment. This would be a major trade concession, as DOC has recognized for years that Vietnam’s economy does not operate according to market principles. However, graduating Vietnam to market economy status would […]

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) appropriated more than $4 billion to the General Services Administration (GSA) and Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) for “Buy Clean” programs. The statute makes clear that GSA and FHWA purchases under these programs are limited to those with “substantially lower” emissions. There is no ambiguity in that requirement. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has defined “substantially lower” to mean products with the lowest 20% of embodied emissions when compared to similar materials.

Steelmaking currently accounts for approximately 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The only way to achieve net zero goals is to significantly reduce steel emissions worldwide. And there is no way to do that without recycling.

The Department of Commerce (DOC) has issued new rules to combat evolving "unfair" trade practice — including the unfair trade of steel products. They go into effect on Wednesday, April 24.