Kenneth Glad
More than 80 economies are affected by a new set of American import duties. Governments abroad are challenging both the justification and the timing of the measures.
The United States has imposed tariffs of between 10% and 12.5% on goods from the UK, Canada, Mexico, China, India, Australia, the European Union and dozens of other trading partners, according to The Guardian.
The duties replace a temporary 10% tariff that expired early on Friday. President Donald Trump’s administration has based the new measures on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, arguing that they respond to foreign imports associated with forced labour.
Unlike the emergency legislation previously used by Trump, Section 301 permits action following investigations into foreign practices considered harmful or discriminatory to US trade.
Governments dispute the rationale
The objections differ across affected economies. Canada says it should not be targeted because it already maintains strong restrictions on products made under coercive working conditions.
The European Union is seeking clarification after saying it fulfilled commitments made under a transatlantic trade agreement.
Norway questioned the basis for the duties, while Australia and Brazil described them as unjustified.
Their responses place pressure on Washington to explain why broad national tariffs are an appropriate response to practices usually addressed through targeted enforcement.
Matthew Holmes, executive vice-president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, called for collective action instead:
“If the intent is truly to address forced labour, the focus should be a coordinated approach through a multilateral mechanism.”
Courts may be next
The policy also revives a constitutional dispute. In February, the US Supreme Court rejected Trump’s earlier reliance on emergency powers, finding that the relevant authority to impose peacetime tariffs remained with Congress.
Alan Wolff, a former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, wrote through the Peterson Institute for International Economics that the latest action could amount to another expansion of presidential power:
“These new tariffs would represent another case of presidential overreach. If they were challenged in court, the supreme court would likely overturn them.”
Domestic opposition could prove equally important. A Harris Poll conducted for The Guardian found that seven in 10 Americans believed Trump’s tariffs had increased prices.
The measures could now prompt court action, exemption requests or responses from affected governments.
Sources: The Guardian; Peterson Institute for International Economics
