By Supporters ’ Own Standards, the Steel Tariffs Haven’t Been “Effective”

Scott LincicomeIn an interview with MSNBC last Thursday, new Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondospoke highly of the " national security " tariffs that President Trump placed on steel and aluminum imports in 2018 under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. According to Secretary Raimondo, " [t]he data show that those tariffs have been effective. " As my colleague Simon Lesternoted at the time, it ' s not entirely clear whether Raimondo ' s opinion was specific to China or the Section 232 tariffs more broadly, and she amplified the confusion by immediately following her remark with a note that the Biden administration is still reviewing the tariffs before deciding what to do with them. Nevertheless, there ' s little to suggest that the tariffs have been " effective " - even by tariffsupporters ' own benchmarks.In anew paper, my colleague Inu Manak and I address the numerous legal problems raised by Section 232 - problems no one really noticed until Trump started abusing it with his metals tariffs and other actions - and explain why the law should be repealed or, at least, significantly reformed. I also detailed the main economic arguments against the Section 232 tariffs in a recentpolicy analysis on manufacturing and national security, showing how the tariffs served as " a powerful example of the perils of American security nationalism " :Numerous studies have documented the tariffs ’ high economic costs for U.S. consumers (particularly manufacturing firms). In particu...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs