Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
FAQ: Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs
FAQ: Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs
Jan 15, 2026 5:06 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
Publicly Funded Films: A Cautionary Tale
The most basic lesson of all of the various efforts, by both state and federal governments, to provide incentives for films to be made is that with government es government oversight. Once you go down the road of filing for tax credits or government subsidy in various forms, and you depend on them to get your project made, you open yourself up to a host of regulatory, bureaucratic, and censorship issues. It shouldn’t be a surprise, for instance, that states...
The Ecumenical Movement and the Nuclear Question
It’s worth noting that the original context of engagement of the ecumenical movement by figures like Paul Ramsey and Ernest Lefever (two voices that figure prominently in my book, Ecumenical Babel) had much to do with foreign policy and the Cold War, and specifically the question of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Last week marked the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and today is the anniversary of the Nagasaki detonation. As ENI reports (full story after the break), the...
Abela: Will Teaching Business Ethics Make Business More Ethical?
On the National Catholic Register, Andrew Abela confesses to a “nagging suspicion that teaching business ethics in a university is not delivering on what is expected of it.” The question is both concrete and academic: Abela is the chairman of the Department of Business and Economics at The Catholic University of America and an associate professor of marketing. He was awarded the Acton Institute’s Novak Award in 2009. Here, he explains the problem with “amoral” business attitudes: … we often...
Audio: Rev. Sirico on ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Service to the Poor’
On the new Reclaiming the Culture radio show, host Dolores Meehan recently interviewed Acton President Rev. Robert A. Sirico on the subject of “The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Service to the Poor.” Here’s how Meehan describes the show’s mission: Bay Area Catholics are some of the strongest Catholics in the country. Reclaiming the Culture grew out of the desire to show that the Catholic Church in the Bay Area has the resources to confront the prevailing secular culture. Our...
Family vs. the State in Indian and Chinese Entrepreneurship
This August 3 Wall Street Journal article is based on a Legatum Institute paring Indian and Chinese entrepreneurship and raises important issues about the roles of the state and the family in promoting entrepreneurship. mon elements between Indian and Chinese wealth-creators are their optimistic view of the pared to Americans (“Why I’m Not Hiring”) and Europeans (“Everything’s Fine With Greece, Just Ignore Some Facts”) presumably, and their lack of concern about the impact of the global financial crises on their...
Acton on Tap – August 12: American Exceptionalism
Join us on Thursday, August 12, at Derby Station in Grand Rapids as we continue our Acton on Tap series, a casual and fun night out to discuss important and timely ideas with friends. The event is scheduled for 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm and discussion starts at 6:30. American Exceptionalism is a newsworthy topic as some on both the political left and right lament that America’s greatness is slipping away. But what does American Exceptionalism mean and how did...
Do We Need Pro-Family Tax Policies?
Last month, in “Europe’s Choice: Populate or Perish,” Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg observed: At a deeper level … Europe’s declining birth-rate may also reflect a change in intellectual horizons. A cultural outlook focused upon the present and disinterested in the future is more likely to view children as a burden rather than a gift to be cared for in quite un-self-interested ways. Individuals and societies that have lost a sense of connection to their past and have no particular...
Re: Broken Windows – University Funding Edition
As Kishore Jayabalan noted yesterday, the fallacy of “broken windows” is, unfortunately, ubiquitous in discussions of public finance and macroeconomics. Though we are told that government spending and public works have a stimulating effect on economic activity, rarely are the costs of such projects discussed. Such is the case with several stimulus projects in my own hometown of Atlanta, GA. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reportson a list that Sen. John McCain and Sen. Tim Coburn drew up,criticizing wasteful stimulus projects throughout...
The Economist, Catholicism, and Europe
When es to the sophistication of its coverage of religious affairs, the Economist is better than most other British publications (admittedly not a high standard) which generally insist on trying to read religion through an ideologically-secularist lens. Normally the Economist tries to present religion as a slightly plex matter than “stick-in-the-mud-conservatives”-versus-“open-minded-enlightened-progressivists”, though it usually slips in one of the usual secularist bromides, as if to reassure its audiences that it’s keeping a critical distance. A good example of this is...
Carbon Regulation: Ecological Utopia or Economic Nightmare?
In this week’s Acton Commentary, I discuss whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s planned regulation of carbon emissions can be justified from a Christian perspective. The EPA has found that carbon emissions endanger “public health and welfare,” and it is on track to begin regulating vehicle and power plant emissions. Environmentalists claim that policies targeting carbon emissions, such as EPA regulation or a cap-and-trade program, will stimulate the economy by creating green jobs. Unfortunately, this is not the case – the...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved