link to page 1  link to page 2 

 
Updated April 23, 2021
Export Restrictions in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Overview of Export Restrictions 
certain medical gloves, without explicit approval from 
In response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 
FEMA. The rule included various exemptions, including 
pandemic, countries all over the world, including the United 
exports of subject goods that are destined for either Canada 
States, imposed temporary restrictions on exports of certain 
or Mexico. The rule also required FEMA to consider the 
medical goods and some foodstuffs in order to mitigate 
need to minimize disruption to supply chains, the 
potential shortages of key supplies. According to the World 
humanitarian impact of a restriction, as well as other 
Trade Organization (WTO), for G-20 countries, export bans 
diplomatic considerations. The restriction applies to an 
accounted for more than 90% of trade restrictions related to 
estimated $1.1 billion of U.S. exports (Figure 1). On 
the pandemic. Many measures are not explicit bans, but 
December 31, 2020, FEMA extended this temporary rule to 
vary from licensing requirements to a right of first refusal 
June 30, 2021, and added syringes and needles to the list of 
for the government of the exporting country. These 
restricted products. 
restrictions have raised debate about the consistency of such 
Figure 1. U.S. Imports and Exports of Goods now 
actions with WTO rules and the potential impact on the 
subject to FEMA’s Temporary Export Restrictions 
global trading system. Some markets depend heavily on 
countries that have implemented trade restrictions. Most 
leading exporters are also major importers of critical 
supplies, which put integrated supply chains at risk. The 
proliferation of such measures prompted some countries to 
lift restrictions or to abide by certain principles in their 
temporary application.  
WTO Rules 
In general, WTO agreements are flexible in allowing the 
use of emergency trade restrictions related to national 
security or health that might otherwise contravene WTO 
 
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. imports for consumption and U.S. 
obligations; the agreements require, however, that such 
exports for 2019. Based on HTS codes subject to FEMA restrictions. 
restrictions be targeted, temporary, and transparent. Article 
XI of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
Advocates of the policy argue that it is necessary to prevent 
(GATT) broadly prohibits export bans and restrictions, 
evasion of U.S. domestic anti-hoarding actions by exporting 
other than duties, taxes, or other charges. It allows members 
goods to markets where they can command higher prices. 
to apply restrictions temporarily “to prevent or relieve 
Advocates contend the measure was not an outright ban, but 
critical shortages of foodstuffs or other products essential” 
rather prioritized U.S. demand and granted FEMA the 
to the exporting country. In the case of foodstuffs, the WTO 
discretion to allow the export of excess goods. Critics note 
Agreement on Agriculture requires members to give “due 
that the United States imports many more of the goods 
consideration to the effects on food security” of importing 
subject to the restriction than it exports, thus imperiling 
countries. In addition, general exceptions (e.g., GATT 
U.S. supplies of those goods should more of its major 
Article XX) within WTO rules provide for policy 
trading partners take similar actions. With the United States 
flexibility, including to protect health, provided restrictions 
a net importer of other kinds of PPE, critics worry that 
do not “constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable 
counter export restrictions by U.S. trading partners might 
discrimination,” or a “disguised restriction on international 
quickly encompass other goods. Still others are concerned 
trade,” among other conditions. 
about the impact of such restrictions on countries in Latin 
America and the Caribbean, many of which rely on U.S. 
WTO leadership has emphasized the downside risks of 
exports of the restricted goods. As one trade economist 
curbs on exports and urged members to restrain their use 
noted, “Jamaica … gets more than half of its total imports 
and minimize disruptions to supply chains. The WTO has 
of respirators, masks, and gloves from the United States.” 
called on members to abide by notification obligations and 
improve transparency on COVID-related trade measures.  
Export Restrictions Globally 
Recent U.S. Actions 
Between January 2020 and the beginning of April 2021, 
countries took more than 220 actions banning or limiting 
In recent decades, U.S. export restrictions typically have 
the export of certain products for COVID-19-related 
applied to defense articles, dual-use goods and 
reasons, according to Global Trade Alert (Figure 2). The 
technologies, crude oil, or sanctioned entities. On April 7, 
products covered by these export curbs vary, broadly falling 
2020, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
into two categories: medical goods (medical supplies, 
(FEMA), pursuant to the Defense Production Act (DPA) 
pharmaceuticals, and equipment) and foodstuffs.  
and other authorities, issued a temporary final rule banning 
Most of the export restrictions came early in the pandemic, 
the export of certain personal protective equipment (PPE), 
peaking in March and April 2020. While many of the 
including certain respirators, certain surgical masks, and 
https://crsreports.congress.gov 

Export Restrictions in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic 
restrictions have been rescinded, as of April 1, 2021, more 
chains.” In May 2020, 42 WTO members pledged to lift 
than 45 countries have more than 70 restrictions in force, 
emergency measures as soon as possible; the United States, 
most of which apply to medical goods 
EU, and China did not participate. Following expressions of 
An accurate picture of the number of restrictions is elusive, 
concern, some countries removed restrictions. The WTO 
as many WTO members were slow or failed to notify the 
reported that G-20 countries had lifted approximately 30% 
WTO Secretariat of all measures. As of mid-April 2021, 7 
of trade restrictions by October 2020. At the same time, 
export restrictions and 64 quantitative restrictions had been 
63% of pandemic-related measures facilitated trade. 
notified. With respect to medical supplies, some analysts 
Some observers view the trade response to COVID-19 as 
have argued that Chinese government actions in early 2020, 
reinforcing the need for a plurilateral agreement on medical 
including prioritizing domestic use and making large state-
goods to address broader trade issues, including the phasing 
backed purchases on the international market, fueled global 
out of export restrictions. In December, a group of 13 WTO 
PPE scarcity and prompted the global restrictions. China 
members proposed a “trade and health” initiative calling for 
has selectively released PPE for export, with destinations 
cooperation in various areas, including tariffs and export 
seemingly chosen according to political calculations. See 
policies. The WTO’s 1994 Agreement on Trade in 
CRS Report R46304, COVID-19: China Medical Supply 
Pharmaceutical Products addresses tariff liberalization of 
Chains and Broader Trade Issues. 
selected goods, but only applies to some WTO members. 
Figure 2. Export Restrictions During COVID-19 
Economists have advocated for a coordinated effort to 
prepare for mitigating new virus variants and for global 
vaccine distribution. 
“Taken collectively, export restrictions can be dangerously 
counterproductive. What makes sense in an isolated 
emergency can be severely damaging in a global crisis. Such 
measures disrupt supply chains, depress production, and 
misdirect scarce, critical products and workers away from 
where they are most needed. Other governments counter 
with their own restrictions. The result is to prolong and 
exacerbate the health and economic crisis — with the most 
serious effects likely on the poorer and more vulnerable 
countries.” 
 
IMF and WTO, April 24, 2020 
Source: Global Trade Alert, January 1, 2020 – April 1, 2021. 
Economic Impact  
Vaccines and Trade 
A growing economic literature assesses the impact of past 
Economists and policymakers have expressed concern that 
export curbs during crises, in particular related to raw 
if countries repeat the patterns observed in early 2020, they 
materials and the food sector, on resource allocation, trade, 
might hinder the production and equitable distribution of 
and the competitiveness of industries. These studies have 
COVID-19 vaccines, as well as therapeutics. Some 
generally concluded that export restrictions, particularly by 
countries have considered or imposed export controls on 
larger producers, can have ripple effects throughout the 
vaccines or inputs necessary for production. Such actions 
global economy, affecting both the level and volatility of 
would likely have a severe impact on vaccine availability in 
supply and prices. In the short run, export curbs by larger 
low-income countries. Others, such as the United States and 
exporters may result in lower domestic prices and increase 
India have more subtle restrictions, such as contract terms 
domestic availability of scarce medical products. At the 
or informal agreements with vaccine or input manufacturers 
same time, such measures can reduce the total global supply 
that prioritize output for the domestic population. In 
and limit the availability of these goods for countries with 
January 2021, the EU announced a “temporary export 
limited manufacturing capacity. In addition, domestic price 
transparency and export authorization mechanism,” in 
restrictions in exporting countries can reduce incentives for 
effect through June, which would restrict certain vaccines 
firms to produce and sell at home. Economists assert that 
under advance purchase contracts. There are exemptions, 
export restrictions can lead to retaliatory measures that 
including for exports to certain low- and middle-income 
further cut off countries from essential supplies, disrupt 
countries. In the first action taken, in March, the Italian 
supply chains, and create uncertainty.  
government utilized the EU mechanism to deny a shipment 
Reactions and Global Coordination 
to Australia. EU officials emphasize that shipments have 
Countries and intergovernmental organizations have taken 
been authorized to more than 30 countries. 
some coordinated action, as concerns mounted about 
growing export restrictions. In March 2020, for example, 
Christopher A. Casey, Analyst in International Trade and 
Germany, France, and the European Commission 
Finance   
negotiated an end to intra-European export restrictions on 
Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, Analyst in International Trade 
medical supplies. That same month, G-20 countries stated 
and Finance   
that emergency measures must be “targeted, proportionate, 
transparent, and temporary,” and must not “create 
IF11551
unnecessary barriers to trade or disruption to global supply 
 
 
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
Export Restrictions in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic 
 
 
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 | IF11551 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED