Escalating U.S. Tariffs: Affected Trade

Concerns over trading partner trade practicesINSIGHTi Escalating U.S. Tariffs: Affected Trade Updated June 5, 2019 The trade practices of U.S. trading partners and the U.S. trade deficit have been are a focus of the Trump Administration. For a timeline of recent actions, see CRS Insight IN10943, Escalating Tariffs: Timeline. Citing these concerns and others Administration. Citing these and other concerns, the President has imposed tariffstariff increases under three U.S. laws:    (1) Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974U.S. laws and authorities (Figure 1) that allow the Administration to unilaterally impose trade restrictions: (1) Section 201 on U.S. imports of washing machines and solar products; (2) Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 on U.S. imports of steel and aluminum, and potentially autos and uranium, and (3) Section 301 on U.S. imports from China. Annual U.S. imports of goods subject to the additional tariffs, which range from 10% to 50%, totaled $282 billion in 2017 (Table 1). All formally proposed tariffs are now in effect, but the President has informally raised the prospect of tariffs on an additional $267 billion of U.S. annual imports from China, and, pending a Section 232 investigation, approximately $361 billion of U.S. auto and parts imports. While the tariffs may benefit import-competing U.S. producers, they are also likely to increase costs for downstream users of imported products and consumers. The Administration could be using the tariffs in part to pressure affected countries into broader trade negotiations, such as the U.S.-EU trade liberalization talks, but it is unclear what specific outcomes the Administration is seeking.

Figure 1. Trump Administration Tariffs and Affected Imports

Source: aluminum, and potentially motor vehicles and parts, uranium, and titanium sponge; and (3) Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on U.S. imports from China. Most recently, in response to concerns over immigration, the President has also proposed an additional 5% tariff on imports from Mexico under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), set to take effect June 10, 2019, and increase by 5% monthly up to 25%. For a timeline of recent actions, see CRS Insight IN10943, Escalating Tariffs: Timeline. The Administration has stated that it is using existing and proposed tariffs for a range of purposes, including as leverage for broader trade negotiations with affected trading partners, such as Japan and the European Union (EU), and, as noted, to influence Mexico’s immigration policies. The multiple tariff increases applied to date, ranging from 10% to 45%, affect approximately 10% ($267.5 billion) of U.S. annual imports (Figure 1). While the Administration has taken some steps to reduce the scale of imports affected by the tariffs (i.e., by exempting Canada and Mexico from the steel and aluminum duties and creating processes by which certain products may be excluded), the general trend is an escalation of tariff actions. The Administration recently increased tariffs from 10% to 25% on approximately $200 billion of U.S. imports from China. It also proposed a 25% tariff on nearly all remaining imports from China, in addition to the newly proposed 5% to 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico. In addition, President Trump declared U.S. motor vehicle imports a national security threat, particularly from the EU and Japan, granting him authority to impose tariff increases on such imports. In total, these actions would potentially affect over $1 trillion of U.S. imports, or 40% of the annual total. While tariffs may benefit a limited number of import-competing firms, they also increase costs for downstream users of imported products (e.g., Ford estimates the metal tariffs cost the firm nearly $1 billion) and consumers (e.g., research by economists from the New York Federal Reserve estimates the tariffs in effect in 2018 cost the average household $414, which could grow to $831 with the recent 15% Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov IN10971 CRS INSIGHT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional Research Service 2 increase on Chinese imports), and may have broader negative effects on the U.S. economy, as well as several policy implications. Figure 1.Trump Administration Tariffs and Affected Trade Source: CRS calculations with data from U.S. Census Bureau sourced through Global Trade Atlas. CRS calculations with data from U.S. Census Bureau sourced through Global Trade Atlas. Notes: Based on 2017 import values. Increased U.S. import tariffs may reduce demand for imports lowering annual import values. The figure above includes all U.S. imports from China under HTS 85176200 ($22.9 billion in 2017). A portion of the products currently included in this category are excluded from the tariffs, but there is currently no statistical reporting number (HTS 10 digit code) for these excluded items such that CRS is unable to determine the portion of trade under this category that will be excluded. USITC is creating a new statistical reporting number, HTS 8517620090, to capture these excluded items.

Retaliation may amplify the potential negative effects of the U.S. tariff measures. Retaliatory tariffs in effect cover almost $126 billion of U.S. annual exports, based on 2017annual 2018 import values. Excludes exempted countries. Motor vehicle and parts import figure includes only U.S. imports from the European Union and Japan, which were the focus of the President’s proclamation declaring motor vehicle imports a national security threat. Tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) are a form of import restriction in which one tariff applies up to a specific quantity or value of imports and a higher tariff applies above that threshold. As tariffs act as a tax on foreign-produced goods, they distort price signals, potentially leading to less efficient consumption and production patterns, which may ultimately reduce U.S. and global economic growth rates. As of May 29, 2019, the United States collected $25.5 billion from the additional taxes paid by U.S. importers, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Increasing tariffs also create a general environment of economic uncertainty, potentially dampening business investment and creating a further drag on growth. Economic estimates of the tariff effects vary, depending on modeling assumptions and the specific set of tariffs considered. Most studies, however, predict declines in GDP growth: the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the tariffs in effect as of December 4, 2018 would lower U.S. GDP on average through 2029 by roughly 0.1 percentage point below a baseline without the tariffs; more recently, the OECD estimated that proposed increases on tariffs from China could further reduce U.S. growth by nearly 0.9 percentage points, including negative effects on investment. Retaliation amplifies the potential effects of the U.S. tariff measures. Retaliatory tariffs in effect cover approximately $91.8 billion of U.S. annual exports, based on 2018 export data (Table 2). Economically, retaliatory 1). Retaliatory tariffs broaden the scope of U.S. industries potentially harmed, targeting those reliant on export markets and sensitive to price fluctuations, such as agricultural commodities. Some U.S. manufacturers have announced plans to shift production to other countries in order to avoid the tariffs on U.S. exports. Lost market access resulting from the retaliatory tariffs may compound concerns raised by many U.S. exporters that the United States increasingly faces higher tariffs than some competitors in foreign markets as other countries proceed withconclude trade liberalization agreements, such as the recently signed -enacted EU-Japan FTA and the TPP-11 agreement, which include major U.S. trade partners, such as Canada, the EU, Japan, and Congressional Research Service 3 Mexico. Adverse effects could grow if a tit-for-tat process of retaliation continues and the scale of trade affected increases. China’affected increases. For example, the President stated that $267 billion of additional U.S. imports from China could face increased tariffs. China's potential retaliation against another round of U.S. tariffs is limited by the fact that it has already imposed tariff increases on nearly all its U.S. imports, but it could further increase tariffs on the products it has already targeted or begin imposing nontariff measures such as informal pressure to limit U.S. multinational salesimpose various punitive non-tariff measures on U.S. firms operating in China. Table 1. Retaliatory Actions in Effect Retaliatory Trade Action Section 232 Section 301 U.S. Exports (millions, 2018) Additional Tariff Effective Date EU $2,893 10-25% June 25, 2018 China $2,522 15-25% Apr. 2, 2018 Turkey $1,771 5-60% June 21, 2018 Russia $430 25-40% Aug. 6, 2018 Total $7,616 China—Stage 1 $12,896 25% July 6, 2018 China—Stage 2 $11,595 25% Aug. 23, 2018 $59,698 5-10%/ 5-25% Sept. 24, 2018/ June 1, 2019 China—Stage 3 Total Overall Total in Effect $84,189 $91,805 Source: CRS calculations based on import data of U.S. trade partner countries sourced from Global Trade Atlas and tariff details from WTO or government notifications. Notes: Canada and Mexico withdrew their retaliation after the Trump Administration exempted both countries from the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. Russia published its list of retaliatory tariff rates and products on July 6, 2018. The tariffs appear to have gone into effect within 30 days of publication. Many Members of Congress, U.S. businesses, interest groups, and trade partners, including major allies, have weighed in on the President’s actions. While some U.S. stakeholders support the President’s use of unilateral trade actions, many have raised concerns, including the chairman of the Senate Finance committee, who stated that the President’s recently proposed tariffs on Mexico are a “misuse of presidential tariff authority.” Several Members have introduced legislation that would constrain the President’ in China.

Many Members of Congress and U.S. businesses, interest groups, and trade partners, including major allies, have weighed in on the President's actions. While some U.S. stakeholders support the President's use of unilateral trade actions, many have raised concerns, including the chairs of the Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, about potential negative impacts. In July 2017, Congress passed a nonbinding resolution directing appropriations bill conferees to include language giving Congress a role in Section 232 determinations, and several Members have introduced legislation that would constrain the President's authority (e.g., S. 3013H.R. 723, S. 287, and S. 3266S. 365), while other Members and the Administration has advocated for increasing this authority (e.g., H.R. 764). As it debates the Administration'’s import restrictions, Congress may consider the following:

•   Delegation of Authority. Among these statutes, only Section 201 requires an affirmative finding by an independent agency (the ITC) before the President may restrict imports. Section 232 and Section 301 investigations are undertaken by the Administration, giving the President broad discretion in their use. Are additional congressional checks on such discretion necessary?
• Economic Implications and Escalation. The Administration'’s tariffs imposed to date cover more than cover 10% of annual U.S. goods imports; pending investigations and threatened further counter-retaliationsproposed tariffs could potentially increase this to nearly 30%. While most economists estimate that the current level of tariffs is unlikely to have major effects on the overall U.S. economy, these effects to 40%. Negative effects of the tariffs may be substantial for individual firms reliant either on imports subject to the U.S. tariffs or exports facing retaliatory measures. The potential drag on economic growth could be significant if tit-for-tat action escalates. What are the Administration'’s ultimate objectives from the tariff increases and do potential benefits justify potential costs?
• International Trading System Congressional Research Service   4 International Trading System and U.S. Foreign Relations. While the Administration argues that the imposition of U.S. import restrictions is within its rights under international trade agreement obligations, including at the World Trade Organization (WTO), U.S. trade partners disagree and have initiated dispute proceedings, and begun retaliating. The United States has initiated its own dispute proceedings arguing that retaliatory countermeasures violate trade agreement obligations. What are the risks to the international trading system and to broader U.S. foreign policy goals of continued unilateral action and economic confrontation? Author Information Brock R. Williams, Coordinator Specialist in International Trade and Finance Keigh E. Hammond Research Librarian Wayne M. Morrison Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. IN10971 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED international trading system of continued unilateral action?

Potential Trade Affected