link to page 1 link to page 2 
Updated December 3, 2020
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
Background
Presidential Action and Notification. If Commerce finds
The Trump Administration conducted multiple
in the negative, Commerce informs the President and no
investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion
further action is required. If Commerce determines in the
Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended) to determine if
affirmative, the President, upon receipt of the report, has 90
certain imports threaten to impair national security.
days to (1) determine whether he/she concurs with its
President Trump acted after five separate investigations
findings; and (2) if so, determine the nature and duration of
found potential threats; three additional investigations are
the action to be taken to adjust the subject imports. The
ongoing. Prior to the Trump Administration, a president last
President may decide to impose tariffs or quotas to offset
imposed tariffs or other trade restrictions under Section 232
the adverse effect, without any limits on their duration, or
in 1986, based on a 1983 probe into imports of machine
take other action. The President may exclude specific
tools. Recent actions under Section 232 have generated
products or countries. After a determination, the President
debate in Congress and at the multilateral level. Some in
must implement the action within 15 days, and submit a
Congress favor legislative initiatives to amend the
written statement to Congress explaining the actions or
congressional delegation of authority.
inaction within 30 days (see Figure 1). The President must
Section 232 Process
also publish his determination in the Federal Register.
Section 232 allows any department, agency head, or any
Figure 1. Section 232 Investigation Process
“interested party” to request the Department of Commerce
(Commerce) to initiate an investigation to ascertain the
effect of specific imports on U.S. national security.
Commerce may self-initiate an investigation.
Investigation. Once a Section 232 investigation is
requested in writing, Commerce must “immediately initiate
an appropriate investigation to determine the effects on the
national security” of the subject imports. After consulting
with the Secretary of Defense, other “appropriate officers of
the United States,” and the public, if appropriate,
Commerce has 270 days from the initiation date to prepare
a report advising the President on whether the targeted
product is being imported “in certain quantities or under
such circumstances” to impair U.S. national security, and to
provide recommendations based on the findings.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) at Commerce
conducts the investigation (15 CFR Section 705). In terms
Source: CRS graphic based on 19 U.S.C. §1862.
of national security, Commerce considers (1) existing
domestic production of the product; (2) future capacity
Prior Section 232 Actions
needs; (3) manpower, raw materials, production equipment,
Prior to the Trump Administration, Commerce initiated 26
facilities, and other supplies needed to meet projected
Section 232 national security investigations, beginning in
national defense requirements; (4) growth requirements,
1963. Previous investigations of manufactured goods
including the investment, exploration, and development to
focused on specific products, including antifriction bearings
meet them; and (5) any other relevant factors.
and gears, and gearing products. Of these 26 cases,
On imports, Commerce must consider (1) the impact of
Commerce made negative determinations 62% of the time.
foreign competition on the domestic industry deemed
Prior to 2018, when Commerce made positive
essential for national security; (2) the effects that the
determinations, the President recommended action six times
“displacement of domestic products” cause, including
(Figure 2). In one case, the President sought voluntary
substantial unemployment, decreases in public revenue, loss
restraint agreements. Five positive determinations and
of investment, special skills, or production capacity; and (3)
actions addressed petroleum products or crude oil: one
any other relevant factors that are causing, or will cause, a
resulted in a conservation fee, later held illegal by a federal
weakening in the national economy. Commerce may
court; two actions were based on the Mandatory Oil Import
request public comments or hold hearings, if appropriate.
Program that predated enactment of Section 232; and, twice
An Executive Summary of the final report (excluding any
the President imposed an embargo (on crude oil from Iran
confidential or classified material) must be published in the
in 1979 and on crude oil from Libya in 1982).
Federal Register.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
Figure 2. Section 232 Investigations 1963-2020
imports withdrew its request for tariffs though the probe is
ongoing, as is the investigation into vanadium imports.
How Does Section 232 Differ from Other
Trade Enforcement Tools?
Section 232 is one of several U.S. policy tools to address
imports and unfair trade practices. Section 201 of the Trade
Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §2252 et seq.) addresses temporary
safeguards measures for import surges of fairly-traded
goods, based on U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC) investigations of whether the imports are causing or
Source: CRS Graphic based on BIS data (https://www.bis.doc.gov/).
threaten to cause serious injury. Rather than focusing on
Trump Administration and Section 232
national security, however, Section 201 investigations aim
The Trump Administration opened eight investigations.
to help the U.S. industry return to health. Presidential action
Commerce initiated investigations into steel and aluminum
is required under Section 201 before tariffs can be imposed.
imports in April 2017. In each, Commerce analyzed current
Other enforcement tools include antidumping (AD) and
and future requirements for national defense and 16 specific
countervailing duty (CVD) actions, provided when a
critical infrastructure sectors. The agency and determined
domestic industry is materially injured, or threatened with
that the quantities and circumstances of the imports
material injury, either by sales found to be at less than fair
threatened to impair the national security of the United
value in the U.S. market (AD) or of products found to be
States and provided recommendations to the President.
subsidized by a foreign government or other public entities
The President concurred with Commerce’s findings, and in
(CVD). Presidential action is not required in these
March 2018, applied tariffs of 25% and 10% on certain
investigations; it is automatic, based on affirmative findings
imports of steel and aluminum, respectively. The United
jointly by the ITC and Commerce.
States initially exempted several countries, such as the
WTO Implications
European Union (EU), from the tariffs, pending
Under the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements,
negotiations on potential alternative measures. Permanent
Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
exemptions were granted to Brazil and South Korea for
(GATT) allows WTO members to take measures in order to
steel and to Argentina for steel and aluminum in exchange
protect “essential security interests.” Several WTO trading
for quotas. Australia was exempted from both tariffs. In
partners, including China, the EU, and India, have
May 2019, the United States, Mexico, and Canada
challenged the current U.S. tariffs by alleging that they
announced a joint monitoring and consultation system to
violate GATT Article I, which obligates WTO members to
replace the tariffs. In January 2020, the President expanded
treat one country’s goods no less favorably than another
the scope of the tariffs.
member’s; and GATT Article II, which generally prohibits
Commerce initiated a third Section 232 investigation into
members from placing tariffs on goods above the upper
the imports of automobiles and certain automotive parts in
limits to which they agreed. Some WTO members have also
May 2018. The President stated that Commerce concluded
asserted that the U.S. actions violate the WTO Agreement
that the imports posed a national security threat because
on Safeguards and have imposed (or plan to impose)
they affected domestic producers’ global competitiveness
counter tariffs on U.S. imports without WTO authorization,
and the research and development needed to maintain U.S.
which also may raise questions about whether those
military superiority. The report has not been released. In
members are upholding similar WTO commitments.
May 2019, the President directed the U.S. Trade
Issues for Congress
Representative to negotiate with Japan, the EU, and others
The recent Section 232 investigations and actions raise a
to address the threat. Autos were part of the negotiations to
number of issues for Congress, including:
update free trade agreements with South Korea and with
What is the impact of the tariffs, and retaliatory tariffs,
Canada and Mexico, but not in the agreement with Japan.
on different sectors of the U.S. economy?
In July 2019, the President did not concur with the
Should Congress consider amending current delegated
Commerce Section 232 finding that imports of uranium ore
authorities under Section 232, such as by requiring an
and related products threatened to impair national security,
economic impact study, congressional consultation or
but did establish a working group to address the issue; the
approval, or by specifying further guidance?
group released policy recommendations in April 2020.
How should Congress work with new Administration
In February 2020, the President agreed with the Commerce
to review the existing Section 232 tariffs and actions?
finding of a national security threat posed by imports of
Could U.S. unilateral actions undermine the WTO rules
titanium sponge and instructed officials to negotiate with
and the multilateral trading system or impact
Japan to ensure U.S. access rather than to restrict imports.
relationships with U.S. allies?
In spring 2020, Commerce initiated three investigations into
imports used in national defense applications and certain
Rachel F. Fefer, Analyst in International Trade and
critical infrastructure sectors. For grain-oriented electrical
Finance
steel exports, Mexico agreed to set up a monitoring system,
IF10667
avoiding potential tariffs. The petitioner for mobile crane
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
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.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10667 · VERSION 20 · UPDATED