Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
FAQ: Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs
FAQ: Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs
Apr 26, 2025 12:49 AM

President Donald Trump is scheduled to announce new steel and aluminum tariffs from the White House at 3:30 p.m. local time.

What is President Trump going to announce?

Trade officials have said the president will impose across-the-board tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on aluminum, which will go into effect between 15 and 30 days from now. He would temporarily exempt Canada and Mexico, according to Trump adviser Peter Navarro, although President Trump has tied this to a renegotiation of NAFTA. As of this writing, the full details remain in flux.

Who would affected by “across-the-board” tariffs?

The top 10 steel exporters to the U.S. are, in order: Canada, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Japan, Taiwan, Germany, and India. Eleventh-ranked China accounts for about two to three percent of U.S. steel imports.

How will this affect U.S. workers and consumers?

Tariffs raise the cost of imported goods, often with the intention of preserving jobs U.S. industries. This means higher costs for everyone purchasing anything made with steel or aluminum, from canned food and drinks to automobiles. “Tariffs are taxes that make U.S. businesses petitive and U.S. consumers poorer,” according to a letter that more than 100 congressional Republicans sent to President Trump.

This has unintended consequences, since businesses that purchase steel employ 16-times as many Americans (6.5 million) as steel producers (400,000). The Mercatus Center’s Veronique de Rugy has predicted the tariffs will result in “thousands” of net job losses.

Among the largest consumers of steel and aluminum are defense industries like the aerospace sector and shipbuilders – industries vital to national security.

Has this been tried before?

Hasn’t everything? In 2002, George W. Bush slapped tariffs on imported steel after a string of U.S. steel bankruptcies. However, he revoked them 18 months into their three-year term, after a government report found that tariffs cost Americans “an estimated annual GDP loss of $30.4 million.” About one-third of U.S. industries struggled to obtain the steel they needed, especially the “steel fabrication, motor vehicle, motor vehicle parts, furniture,” and canning industries. Americans paid an estimated $400,000 for each steel job saved, according to the Peterson Institute for Economic Affairs.

Is this the beginning of a trade war?

It could be. The EU has announced it will retaliate by raising tariffs against €2.8 billion ($3.5 billion) worth of U.S. goods. The four-page list of targeted industries, drawn up before the president’s announcement, is designed to exert maximum pressure on Congressional leaders, taxing Harley Davidson motorcycles produced in Paul Ryan’s Wisconsin and bourbon from Mitch McConnell’s Kentucky. Other made-in-America products on the list include steel, clothing, make up, yachts, kidney beans, rice, cranberries, orange juice, sweet corn, peanut butter, and tobacco products.

How can the president do this without congressional approval?

President Trump has invoked Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Passed in 1962, at the height of the Cold War, the seldom-used measure allows the president to impose tariffs if he deems it necessary for national security. President Trump has said preserving the U.S. steel industry is a vital national security concern. Congress has steadily ceded more of its power to the executive branch over the last century.

Do current steel imports threaten national security?

It’s hard to see how. The U.S. steel industry supplied 73 percent of the domestic market last year. The two trading partners with the most strained relations – China and Russia – represent 11 percent of all steel imports.

How are U.S. allies responding?

America’s transatlantic allies aren’t buying the president’s rationale. “We cannot see how the EU, friends, allies in NATO, can be a threat to security in the U.S.,” said EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom. German Economy Minister Brigitte Zypries agreed, “It is not credible that European or German steel imports should endanger the national security of the U.S.”

Some have responded in warlike terms. Malmstrom promised the EU will take “afirm and proportionate response,” and Zypries said “Europe will reply proportionately” – the kind of language political leaders use after terrorist attacks. That may explain why Ludwig von Mises wrote, “Economic nationalism is patible with durable peace.”

Others warned of a deepening rift. UK Prime Minister Theresa May expressed “deep concern” over the tariffs in a phone call with Trump on Sunday, adding that “multilateral action was the only way to resolve the problem” of Chinese steel overcapacity.

Inverting President Trump’s tweet, European Council President Donald Tusk replied, “Trade wars are bad and easy to lose,” and IMF managing director Christine Lagarde warned that “nobody wins” a trade war.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker pointedly denounced the entire trade war process last Friday in Hamburg:

Now we will also impose import tariffs. This is basically a stupid process – the fact that we have to do this – but we have to do it. … We can also do stupid. We also have to be this stupid.

How will this affect our Asian allies?

The U.S. has a longstanding obligation to support Taiwan in any potential war with China, yet Taiwan exports more steel to the U.S. than the mainland. Ironically, an across-the-board tariff could hurt Taipei more than Beijing. Meanwhile, South KoreanPresident Moon Jae-in has said he may export more steel to Russia, instead. That certainly has national security implications.

Why should Christians care?

Raising the price of canned food and drinks disproportionately hurts the poor. Straining relations with U.S. allies and potentially hurting defense industries makes the nation less safe. And, if job loss estimates prove accurate, the resultant unemployment will reduce family well-being, harm munities, and deplete the funds available for charity or church work.

Vadon. CC BY-SA 4.0.)

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Lord Acton and the Power of the Historian
Looking through my back stacks of periodicals the other day I ran across a review in Books & Culture by David Bebbington, “Macaulay in the Dock,” of a recent biography of Thomas Babington Macaulay. The essay takes its point of departure in Lord Acton’s characterization of Macaulay as “one of the greatest of all writers and masters, although I think him utterly base, contemptible and odious.” As Bebbington writes, “Acton, a towering intellectual of the later 19th century, was at...
Constitutional Cases and the Four Cardinal Virtues
Should virtue be a consideration in judicial decisionmaking? Indiana Law Professor R. George Wright makes an intriguing argument for why the four cardinal virtues could be useful in interpreting constitutional cases: Judges typically decide constitutional cases by referring to one or more legal precedents, rules, tests, principles, doctrines, or policies. This Article mends supplementing this standard approach with fully legitimate and appropriate attention to what many cultures have long recognized as the four basic cardinal virtues of practical wisdom or...
How to Steal a Bike in New York City
Edmund Burke didn’t really say it, but it still rings true: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. In a test of this maxim, filmmaker Casey Neistat tries to steal his own bike in several locations around New York City and finds that most people do nothing about it—even when it’s done right in front of a police station. I recently spent a couple of days conducting a bike theft experiment, which...
Integral Human Development
The Journal of Markets & Morality is planning a theme issue for the Spring of 2013: “Integral Human Development,” i.e. the synthesis of human freedom and responsibility necessary for the material and spiritual enrichment of human life. According to Pope Benedict XVI, Integral human development presupposes the responsible freedom of the individual and of peoples: no structure can guarantee this development over and above human responsibility. (Caritas in Veritate 17) There is a delicate balance between the material and the...
Let’s Change Hearts and Minds (and Laws, Too)
Few clichés are so widespread within the evangelical subculture, says Matthew Lee Anderson, as the notion that our witness must be one of “changing hearts and minds.” In careful hands, the idea is at best ambiguous. At worst it reinforces the sort of interior-oriented individualism that allows for and perpetuates a blissful naivete about how institutions and structures shape our dispositions and thoughts. In less than careful hands, the phrase drives a wedge between law and culture by attempting to...
Is Work a Curse?
Is work a curse, a result of mankind’s fall from grace? Not according to the Book of Genesis. As Hugh Whelchel, Executive Director of the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics, explains, what Adam was called to do in the garden is what we are still called to do in our work today: Humanity was created by God to cultivate and keep God’s creation, which included developing it and protecting it. You see, we were created to be stewards of...
Obamacare’s Religious Rubes
The White House has a plan to mobilize prayer vigils in front of the Supreme Court in defense of Obamacare. It was reported that the administration met with leaders at non-profit organizations and religious officials who support the new health care law. The court takes up the constitutional test of the health care mandate in a couple of weeks. The mandate has now been challenged in 26 states. Cue the same stale big government religious prophets who confuse statism and...
Reagan, Whittaker Chambers, and the Threat to Freedom
Over at the Liberty Law Blog, there is an excellent post titled “Ronald Reagan, Whittaker Chambers, and the Dialogue of Liberty” by Alan Snyder. Snyder delves into the influence Chambers had on Reagan and how their worldviews differed as well. Many conservatives and scholars felt Chambers’ prediction that the West was on the losing side of history in the battle against Marxism collapsed after the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union. For many, the ideas of Chambers...
Italy’s Tax Man Takes Aim at the Vatican
Kishore Jayabalan, the Acton Institute’s Rome office director, was interviewed by the Zenit news agency in an article titled, “Is Taxing the Church a Real Solution for Italy?” In the article, Jayabalan discusses the history of the Italian state and its imposition of property taxes on the Roman Catholic Church’s land holdings, residences and non-profit businesses. Sometimes in the past, particularly under Napoleonic rule and before the Lateran Pacts, the institution of property tax was often a subject of state...
How to Love Liberty More Than a Libertarian Economist
I have a deep and abiding love for liberty—which is why I find myself so often in disagreement with libertarians. Libertarians love liberty too, of course, but they tend to love liberty a bit differently. I love liberty in an earthy, elemental way. I love liberty because I need it—like I need air and food—for human flourishing. In contrast, the libertarians I’ve encountered tend to love liberty primarily as an abstraction. Indeed, the most ideologically consistent libertarians I know seem...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved