What is the legal basis for the Trump administration's decision to impose and then remove tariffs?












10















I'm no expert on the applicable law regarding tariffs and international trade, but I do know that the most famous tariff policy in US history was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, named after two members of Congress who were its principal sponsors. It added various new tariffs to US law, and is generally considered a disaster by historians because of the damage that the retaliation it prompted did to the US economy. The notable thing, for the purposes of this question, is that it was a law: a bill originating in Congress, passed by legislative process, and sent to the President to sign.



More recently, during the Trump administration, we've heard a lot about the administration imposing new tariffs as a bargaining chip to use against China, and then relaxing them as negotiations with China go well. News reports generally speak of the President imposing the tariffs, which can be interpreted either personally or as a synecdoche representing his administration, but either way it's referring to Executive Branch action.



How does this work, when tariffs, by historical precedent, are a matter of law and the responsibility of the Legislative Branch? Are the common news reports oversimplifying things, or has some action been taken to delegate this responsibility to the Executive for some reason?










share|improve this question















migrated from law.stackexchange.com Apr 11 at 11:09


This question came from our site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law.























    10















    I'm no expert on the applicable law regarding tariffs and international trade, but I do know that the most famous tariff policy in US history was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, named after two members of Congress who were its principal sponsors. It added various new tariffs to US law, and is generally considered a disaster by historians because of the damage that the retaliation it prompted did to the US economy. The notable thing, for the purposes of this question, is that it was a law: a bill originating in Congress, passed by legislative process, and sent to the President to sign.



    More recently, during the Trump administration, we've heard a lot about the administration imposing new tariffs as a bargaining chip to use against China, and then relaxing them as negotiations with China go well. News reports generally speak of the President imposing the tariffs, which can be interpreted either personally or as a synecdoche representing his administration, but either way it's referring to Executive Branch action.



    How does this work, when tariffs, by historical precedent, are a matter of law and the responsibility of the Legislative Branch? Are the common news reports oversimplifying things, or has some action been taken to delegate this responsibility to the Executive for some reason?










    share|improve this question















    migrated from law.stackexchange.com Apr 11 at 11:09


    This question came from our site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law.





















      10












      10








      10


      1






      I'm no expert on the applicable law regarding tariffs and international trade, but I do know that the most famous tariff policy in US history was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, named after two members of Congress who were its principal sponsors. It added various new tariffs to US law, and is generally considered a disaster by historians because of the damage that the retaliation it prompted did to the US economy. The notable thing, for the purposes of this question, is that it was a law: a bill originating in Congress, passed by legislative process, and sent to the President to sign.



      More recently, during the Trump administration, we've heard a lot about the administration imposing new tariffs as a bargaining chip to use against China, and then relaxing them as negotiations with China go well. News reports generally speak of the President imposing the tariffs, which can be interpreted either personally or as a synecdoche representing his administration, but either way it's referring to Executive Branch action.



      How does this work, when tariffs, by historical precedent, are a matter of law and the responsibility of the Legislative Branch? Are the common news reports oversimplifying things, or has some action been taken to delegate this responsibility to the Executive for some reason?










      share|improve this question
















      I'm no expert on the applicable law regarding tariffs and international trade, but I do know that the most famous tariff policy in US history was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, named after two members of Congress who were its principal sponsors. It added various new tariffs to US law, and is generally considered a disaster by historians because of the damage that the retaliation it prompted did to the US economy. The notable thing, for the purposes of this question, is that it was a law: a bill originating in Congress, passed by legislative process, and sent to the President to sign.



      More recently, during the Trump administration, we've heard a lot about the administration imposing new tariffs as a bargaining chip to use against China, and then relaxing them as negotiations with China go well. News reports generally speak of the President imposing the tariffs, which can be interpreted either personally or as a synecdoche representing his administration, but either way it's referring to Executive Branch action.



      How does this work, when tariffs, by historical precedent, are a matter of law and the responsibility of the Legislative Branch? Are the common news reports oversimplifying things, or has some action been taken to delegate this responsibility to the Executive for some reason?







      united-states china separation-of-powers tariffs






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Apr 11 at 15:48









      Fizz

      15.7k241103




      15.7k241103










      asked Apr 10 at 21:40









      Mason WheelerMason Wheeler

      1516




      1516




      migrated from law.stackexchange.com Apr 11 at 11:09


      This question came from our site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law.









      migrated from law.stackexchange.com Apr 11 at 11:09


      This question came from our site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law.
























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          9














          Congress granted to the President authority to set tariffs by agreement with outher countries in the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934, and later extended such authority under various laws. The trump tariff changes were imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as described in "America Trades Down" from Lawfare The article suggests that there may be challenges to these tariffs. It seems that Section 232 has been rarely used, and not since the creation of the WTO in 1995.






          share|improve this answer































            8














            The president can order that tariffs be imposed for national security. Trump's reasoning is laid out here:
            https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/17097206/trump-tariffs-congress



            You are right that the constitution gives congress the right to establish tariffs, but congress has ceded some of that power to the Executive Branch of the government over the years, but only for national security purposes or during an emergency.



            The act that Trump's administration used is summarized here:





            To conduct an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Secretary of Commerce may self-initiate the investigation or an interested party may initiate an investigation through an application. Any investigation initiated must be reported to the Secretary of Defense which can also be consulted for information and advice should any policy questions arise during the investigation. The Department of Commerce reports its findings to the President within 270 days of initiating any investigation, with emphasis on whether certain imports threaten to impair the country's national security. The President has 90 days to formally concur or not with the report received from the Commerce department. If s/he concurs, his or her statutory authority under Section 232 allows him or her to modify or adjust the imports as necessary though tariffs or quotas. In effect, following the report submitted, the President of the country may take a range of actions, or no action, based on the Secretary's recommendations provided in the reports.
            https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/section-232-trade-expansion-act.asp








            share|improve this answer































              2














              The other answers are only partially correct. Not all Trump tariffs are based on the national security section 232. In fact, most tariffs he raised on China are not like that, but rather:




              On March 22, 2018, Trump signed a memorandum under the Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, instructing the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to apply tariffs of $50 billion on Chinese goods. Trump stated that the tariffs would be imposed due to Chinese theft of U.S intellectual property.




              Actually the complete wording of section 301 investigation was




              “China’s unfair trade practices related to the forced transfer of American technology and intellectual property.”




              The latter section:




              authorizes the President to take all appropriate action, including retaliation, to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.




              The later $200 billion raise was also based on section 301, but basically as counter-retaliation to China's response to the initial tarrifs:




              After separate notice and comment proceedings, in June and August USTR released two lists of Chinese imports, with a combined annual trade value of approximately $50 billion, with the goal of obtaining the elimination of China’s harmful acts, policies and practices. Unfortunately, China has been unwilling to change its policies involving the unfair acquisition of U.S. technology and intellectual property. Instead, China responded to the United States’ tariff action by taking further steps to harm U.S. workers and businesses. In these circumstances, the President has directed the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the level of trade covered by the additional duties in order to obtain elimination of China’s unfair policies. The Administration will continue to encourage China to allow for fair trade with the United States.




              And unlike section 232, section 301 has been invoked more often:




              Since 1974, the USTR has initiated 125 Section 301
              cases, retaliating in 17 instances.




              but most of those retaliations were before the Uruguay Round of the WTO:




              After the United States implemented the UR [Uruguay Round] agreements
              and joined the WTO is 1995, the USTR still sometimes
              began Section 301 investigations but then brought the
              issues at hand to the WTO for dispute resolution. After
              2010, the USTR brought all trade disputes involving WTO
              members directly to the WTO for adjudication. The Trump
              Administration’s use of Section 301, rather than solely
              utilizing the WTO dispute settlement process to address the
              issues of concern, is a departure from past U.S. practices.



              Prior to the UR agreements, China was a major target of
              Section 301 actions. In 1992 and 1994, the United States
              threatened to impose increased tariffs against China over its
              IPR [intellectual property] policies. In 1992, the United States threatened
              increased tariffs on $3.9 billion worth of Chinese goods
              over market access issues. These cases resulted in bilateral
              agreements before tariff hikes were implemented. In
              October 2010, the USTR launched a Section 301
              investigation into Chinese policies affecting trade and
              investment in green technologies, and in December 2010,
              brought a WTO dispute settlement case against China, but
              only in regard to its wind power subsidies. In March 2012,
              the USTR initiated a WTO dispute case against China’s
              export restrictions on rare earth elements (used in a number
              of green technology products). The United States largely
              prevailed in both cases.




              As for a bit of historical background, the 1974 Trade Act was passed in the context of the Tokyo Round of GATT, and on the background of stagflation in the US, coupled with the 1973 OPEC oil embargo (itself related to Yom Kippur War).



              Later on, Congress tried to put some limits on the retaliatory power delegated in 1974 via section 301 (but also granted him foreign-investment stopping powers):




              Amendments to section 301 in 1979 established specific time lines for investigations and the final resolution of disputes. Although these amendments created a more elaborate regulatory framework for dispute settlement, they did not deprive the President of discretion regarding whether to take action. The amendments also required consultations with the government named in the petition.



              More amendments in 1984 defined "unjustifiable," unreasonable," and "discriminatory practices" and provided for the initiation of section 301 investigations by the USTR. The law required the preparation of an annual National Trade Estimate or NTE and
              permitted the President to place restrictions on foreign direct investment.



              The most recent amendments, in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, transferred final decision-making authority in section 301 cases from the President to the USTR.




              And so goes the theory that the USTR is somewhat independent from the President. Which I think is largely ignored by the press today. Probably the fact that Trump tweets every time that the USTR does something in relation to tariffs is undoubtedly related though.






              share|improve this answer


























                Your Answer








                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "475"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                convertImagesToLinks: false,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: null,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });














                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40478%2fwhat-is-the-legal-basis-for-the-trump-administrations-decision-to-impose-and-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes








                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                9














                Congress granted to the President authority to set tariffs by agreement with outher countries in the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934, and later extended such authority under various laws. The trump tariff changes were imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as described in "America Trades Down" from Lawfare The article suggests that there may be challenges to these tariffs. It seems that Section 232 has been rarely used, and not since the creation of the WTO in 1995.






                share|improve this answer




























                  9














                  Congress granted to the President authority to set tariffs by agreement with outher countries in the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934, and later extended such authority under various laws. The trump tariff changes were imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as described in "America Trades Down" from Lawfare The article suggests that there may be challenges to these tariffs. It seems that Section 232 has been rarely used, and not since the creation of the WTO in 1995.






                  share|improve this answer


























                    9












                    9








                    9







                    Congress granted to the President authority to set tariffs by agreement with outher countries in the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934, and later extended such authority under various laws. The trump tariff changes were imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as described in "America Trades Down" from Lawfare The article suggests that there may be challenges to these tariffs. It seems that Section 232 has been rarely used, and not since the creation of the WTO in 1995.






                    share|improve this answer













                    Congress granted to the President authority to set tariffs by agreement with outher countries in the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934, and later extended such authority under various laws. The trump tariff changes were imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as described in "America Trades Down" from Lawfare The article suggests that there may be challenges to these tariffs. It seems that Section 232 has been rarely used, and not since the creation of the WTO in 1995.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Apr 10 at 21:57









                    David SiegelDavid Siegel

                    3368




                    3368























                        8














                        The president can order that tariffs be imposed for national security. Trump's reasoning is laid out here:
                        https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/17097206/trump-tariffs-congress



                        You are right that the constitution gives congress the right to establish tariffs, but congress has ceded some of that power to the Executive Branch of the government over the years, but only for national security purposes or during an emergency.



                        The act that Trump's administration used is summarized here:





                        To conduct an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Secretary of Commerce may self-initiate the investigation or an interested party may initiate an investigation through an application. Any investigation initiated must be reported to the Secretary of Defense which can also be consulted for information and advice should any policy questions arise during the investigation. The Department of Commerce reports its findings to the President within 270 days of initiating any investigation, with emphasis on whether certain imports threaten to impair the country's national security. The President has 90 days to formally concur or not with the report received from the Commerce department. If s/he concurs, his or her statutory authority under Section 232 allows him or her to modify or adjust the imports as necessary though tariffs or quotas. In effect, following the report submitted, the President of the country may take a range of actions, or no action, based on the Secretary's recommendations provided in the reports.
                        https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/section-232-trade-expansion-act.asp








                        share|improve this answer




























                          8














                          The president can order that tariffs be imposed for national security. Trump's reasoning is laid out here:
                          https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/17097206/trump-tariffs-congress



                          You are right that the constitution gives congress the right to establish tariffs, but congress has ceded some of that power to the Executive Branch of the government over the years, but only for national security purposes or during an emergency.



                          The act that Trump's administration used is summarized here:





                          To conduct an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Secretary of Commerce may self-initiate the investigation or an interested party may initiate an investigation through an application. Any investigation initiated must be reported to the Secretary of Defense which can also be consulted for information and advice should any policy questions arise during the investigation. The Department of Commerce reports its findings to the President within 270 days of initiating any investigation, with emphasis on whether certain imports threaten to impair the country's national security. The President has 90 days to formally concur or not with the report received from the Commerce department. If s/he concurs, his or her statutory authority under Section 232 allows him or her to modify or adjust the imports as necessary though tariffs or quotas. In effect, following the report submitted, the President of the country may take a range of actions, or no action, based on the Secretary's recommendations provided in the reports.
                          https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/section-232-trade-expansion-act.asp








                          share|improve this answer


























                            8












                            8








                            8







                            The president can order that tariffs be imposed for national security. Trump's reasoning is laid out here:
                            https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/17097206/trump-tariffs-congress



                            You are right that the constitution gives congress the right to establish tariffs, but congress has ceded some of that power to the Executive Branch of the government over the years, but only for national security purposes or during an emergency.



                            The act that Trump's administration used is summarized here:





                            To conduct an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Secretary of Commerce may self-initiate the investigation or an interested party may initiate an investigation through an application. Any investigation initiated must be reported to the Secretary of Defense which can also be consulted for information and advice should any policy questions arise during the investigation. The Department of Commerce reports its findings to the President within 270 days of initiating any investigation, with emphasis on whether certain imports threaten to impair the country's national security. The President has 90 days to formally concur or not with the report received from the Commerce department. If s/he concurs, his or her statutory authority under Section 232 allows him or her to modify or adjust the imports as necessary though tariffs or quotas. In effect, following the report submitted, the President of the country may take a range of actions, or no action, based on the Secretary's recommendations provided in the reports.
                            https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/section-232-trade-expansion-act.asp








                            share|improve this answer













                            The president can order that tariffs be imposed for national security. Trump's reasoning is laid out here:
                            https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/17097206/trump-tariffs-congress



                            You are right that the constitution gives congress the right to establish tariffs, but congress has ceded some of that power to the Executive Branch of the government over the years, but only for national security purposes or during an emergency.



                            The act that Trump's administration used is summarized here:





                            To conduct an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Secretary of Commerce may self-initiate the investigation or an interested party may initiate an investigation through an application. Any investigation initiated must be reported to the Secretary of Defense which can also be consulted for information and advice should any policy questions arise during the investigation. The Department of Commerce reports its findings to the President within 270 days of initiating any investigation, with emphasis on whether certain imports threaten to impair the country's national security. The President has 90 days to formally concur or not with the report received from the Commerce department. If s/he concurs, his or her statutory authority under Section 232 allows him or her to modify or adjust the imports as necessary though tariffs or quotas. In effect, following the report submitted, the President of the country may take a range of actions, or no action, based on the Secretary's recommendations provided in the reports.
                            https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/section-232-trade-expansion-act.asp









                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Apr 10 at 21:52







                            Putvi






























                                2














                                The other answers are only partially correct. Not all Trump tariffs are based on the national security section 232. In fact, most tariffs he raised on China are not like that, but rather:




                                On March 22, 2018, Trump signed a memorandum under the Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, instructing the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to apply tariffs of $50 billion on Chinese goods. Trump stated that the tariffs would be imposed due to Chinese theft of U.S intellectual property.




                                Actually the complete wording of section 301 investigation was




                                “China’s unfair trade practices related to the forced transfer of American technology and intellectual property.”




                                The latter section:




                                authorizes the President to take all appropriate action, including retaliation, to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.




                                The later $200 billion raise was also based on section 301, but basically as counter-retaliation to China's response to the initial tarrifs:




                                After separate notice and comment proceedings, in June and August USTR released two lists of Chinese imports, with a combined annual trade value of approximately $50 billion, with the goal of obtaining the elimination of China’s harmful acts, policies and practices. Unfortunately, China has been unwilling to change its policies involving the unfair acquisition of U.S. technology and intellectual property. Instead, China responded to the United States’ tariff action by taking further steps to harm U.S. workers and businesses. In these circumstances, the President has directed the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the level of trade covered by the additional duties in order to obtain elimination of China’s unfair policies. The Administration will continue to encourage China to allow for fair trade with the United States.




                                And unlike section 232, section 301 has been invoked more often:




                                Since 1974, the USTR has initiated 125 Section 301
                                cases, retaliating in 17 instances.




                                but most of those retaliations were before the Uruguay Round of the WTO:




                                After the United States implemented the UR [Uruguay Round] agreements
                                and joined the WTO is 1995, the USTR still sometimes
                                began Section 301 investigations but then brought the
                                issues at hand to the WTO for dispute resolution. After
                                2010, the USTR brought all trade disputes involving WTO
                                members directly to the WTO for adjudication. The Trump
                                Administration’s use of Section 301, rather than solely
                                utilizing the WTO dispute settlement process to address the
                                issues of concern, is a departure from past U.S. practices.



                                Prior to the UR agreements, China was a major target of
                                Section 301 actions. In 1992 and 1994, the United States
                                threatened to impose increased tariffs against China over its
                                IPR [intellectual property] policies. In 1992, the United States threatened
                                increased tariffs on $3.9 billion worth of Chinese goods
                                over market access issues. These cases resulted in bilateral
                                agreements before tariff hikes were implemented. In
                                October 2010, the USTR launched a Section 301
                                investigation into Chinese policies affecting trade and
                                investment in green technologies, and in December 2010,
                                brought a WTO dispute settlement case against China, but
                                only in regard to its wind power subsidies. In March 2012,
                                the USTR initiated a WTO dispute case against China’s
                                export restrictions on rare earth elements (used in a number
                                of green technology products). The United States largely
                                prevailed in both cases.




                                As for a bit of historical background, the 1974 Trade Act was passed in the context of the Tokyo Round of GATT, and on the background of stagflation in the US, coupled with the 1973 OPEC oil embargo (itself related to Yom Kippur War).



                                Later on, Congress tried to put some limits on the retaliatory power delegated in 1974 via section 301 (but also granted him foreign-investment stopping powers):




                                Amendments to section 301 in 1979 established specific time lines for investigations and the final resolution of disputes. Although these amendments created a more elaborate regulatory framework for dispute settlement, they did not deprive the President of discretion regarding whether to take action. The amendments also required consultations with the government named in the petition.



                                More amendments in 1984 defined "unjustifiable," unreasonable," and "discriminatory practices" and provided for the initiation of section 301 investigations by the USTR. The law required the preparation of an annual National Trade Estimate or NTE and
                                permitted the President to place restrictions on foreign direct investment.



                                The most recent amendments, in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, transferred final decision-making authority in section 301 cases from the President to the USTR.




                                And so goes the theory that the USTR is somewhat independent from the President. Which I think is largely ignored by the press today. Probably the fact that Trump tweets every time that the USTR does something in relation to tariffs is undoubtedly related though.






                                share|improve this answer






























                                  2














                                  The other answers are only partially correct. Not all Trump tariffs are based on the national security section 232. In fact, most tariffs he raised on China are not like that, but rather:




                                  On March 22, 2018, Trump signed a memorandum under the Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, instructing the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to apply tariffs of $50 billion on Chinese goods. Trump stated that the tariffs would be imposed due to Chinese theft of U.S intellectual property.




                                  Actually the complete wording of section 301 investigation was




                                  “China’s unfair trade practices related to the forced transfer of American technology and intellectual property.”




                                  The latter section:




                                  authorizes the President to take all appropriate action, including retaliation, to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.




                                  The later $200 billion raise was also based on section 301, but basically as counter-retaliation to China's response to the initial tarrifs:




                                  After separate notice and comment proceedings, in June and August USTR released two lists of Chinese imports, with a combined annual trade value of approximately $50 billion, with the goal of obtaining the elimination of China’s harmful acts, policies and practices. Unfortunately, China has been unwilling to change its policies involving the unfair acquisition of U.S. technology and intellectual property. Instead, China responded to the United States’ tariff action by taking further steps to harm U.S. workers and businesses. In these circumstances, the President has directed the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the level of trade covered by the additional duties in order to obtain elimination of China’s unfair policies. The Administration will continue to encourage China to allow for fair trade with the United States.




                                  And unlike section 232, section 301 has been invoked more often:




                                  Since 1974, the USTR has initiated 125 Section 301
                                  cases, retaliating in 17 instances.




                                  but most of those retaliations were before the Uruguay Round of the WTO:




                                  After the United States implemented the UR [Uruguay Round] agreements
                                  and joined the WTO is 1995, the USTR still sometimes
                                  began Section 301 investigations but then brought the
                                  issues at hand to the WTO for dispute resolution. After
                                  2010, the USTR brought all trade disputes involving WTO
                                  members directly to the WTO for adjudication. The Trump
                                  Administration’s use of Section 301, rather than solely
                                  utilizing the WTO dispute settlement process to address the
                                  issues of concern, is a departure from past U.S. practices.



                                  Prior to the UR agreements, China was a major target of
                                  Section 301 actions. In 1992 and 1994, the United States
                                  threatened to impose increased tariffs against China over its
                                  IPR [intellectual property] policies. In 1992, the United States threatened
                                  increased tariffs on $3.9 billion worth of Chinese goods
                                  over market access issues. These cases resulted in bilateral
                                  agreements before tariff hikes were implemented. In
                                  October 2010, the USTR launched a Section 301
                                  investigation into Chinese policies affecting trade and
                                  investment in green technologies, and in December 2010,
                                  brought a WTO dispute settlement case against China, but
                                  only in regard to its wind power subsidies. In March 2012,
                                  the USTR initiated a WTO dispute case against China’s
                                  export restrictions on rare earth elements (used in a number
                                  of green technology products). The United States largely
                                  prevailed in both cases.




                                  As for a bit of historical background, the 1974 Trade Act was passed in the context of the Tokyo Round of GATT, and on the background of stagflation in the US, coupled with the 1973 OPEC oil embargo (itself related to Yom Kippur War).



                                  Later on, Congress tried to put some limits on the retaliatory power delegated in 1974 via section 301 (but also granted him foreign-investment stopping powers):




                                  Amendments to section 301 in 1979 established specific time lines for investigations and the final resolution of disputes. Although these amendments created a more elaborate regulatory framework for dispute settlement, they did not deprive the President of discretion regarding whether to take action. The amendments also required consultations with the government named in the petition.



                                  More amendments in 1984 defined "unjustifiable," unreasonable," and "discriminatory practices" and provided for the initiation of section 301 investigations by the USTR. The law required the preparation of an annual National Trade Estimate or NTE and
                                  permitted the President to place restrictions on foreign direct investment.



                                  The most recent amendments, in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, transferred final decision-making authority in section 301 cases from the President to the USTR.




                                  And so goes the theory that the USTR is somewhat independent from the President. Which I think is largely ignored by the press today. Probably the fact that Trump tweets every time that the USTR does something in relation to tariffs is undoubtedly related though.






                                  share|improve this answer




























                                    2












                                    2








                                    2







                                    The other answers are only partially correct. Not all Trump tariffs are based on the national security section 232. In fact, most tariffs he raised on China are not like that, but rather:




                                    On March 22, 2018, Trump signed a memorandum under the Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, instructing the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to apply tariffs of $50 billion on Chinese goods. Trump stated that the tariffs would be imposed due to Chinese theft of U.S intellectual property.




                                    Actually the complete wording of section 301 investigation was




                                    “China’s unfair trade practices related to the forced transfer of American technology and intellectual property.”




                                    The latter section:




                                    authorizes the President to take all appropriate action, including retaliation, to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.




                                    The later $200 billion raise was also based on section 301, but basically as counter-retaliation to China's response to the initial tarrifs:




                                    After separate notice and comment proceedings, in June and August USTR released two lists of Chinese imports, with a combined annual trade value of approximately $50 billion, with the goal of obtaining the elimination of China’s harmful acts, policies and practices. Unfortunately, China has been unwilling to change its policies involving the unfair acquisition of U.S. technology and intellectual property. Instead, China responded to the United States’ tariff action by taking further steps to harm U.S. workers and businesses. In these circumstances, the President has directed the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the level of trade covered by the additional duties in order to obtain elimination of China’s unfair policies. The Administration will continue to encourage China to allow for fair trade with the United States.




                                    And unlike section 232, section 301 has been invoked more often:




                                    Since 1974, the USTR has initiated 125 Section 301
                                    cases, retaliating in 17 instances.




                                    but most of those retaliations were before the Uruguay Round of the WTO:




                                    After the United States implemented the UR [Uruguay Round] agreements
                                    and joined the WTO is 1995, the USTR still sometimes
                                    began Section 301 investigations but then brought the
                                    issues at hand to the WTO for dispute resolution. After
                                    2010, the USTR brought all trade disputes involving WTO
                                    members directly to the WTO for adjudication. The Trump
                                    Administration’s use of Section 301, rather than solely
                                    utilizing the WTO dispute settlement process to address the
                                    issues of concern, is a departure from past U.S. practices.



                                    Prior to the UR agreements, China was a major target of
                                    Section 301 actions. In 1992 and 1994, the United States
                                    threatened to impose increased tariffs against China over its
                                    IPR [intellectual property] policies. In 1992, the United States threatened
                                    increased tariffs on $3.9 billion worth of Chinese goods
                                    over market access issues. These cases resulted in bilateral
                                    agreements before tariff hikes were implemented. In
                                    October 2010, the USTR launched a Section 301
                                    investigation into Chinese policies affecting trade and
                                    investment in green technologies, and in December 2010,
                                    brought a WTO dispute settlement case against China, but
                                    only in regard to its wind power subsidies. In March 2012,
                                    the USTR initiated a WTO dispute case against China’s
                                    export restrictions on rare earth elements (used in a number
                                    of green technology products). The United States largely
                                    prevailed in both cases.




                                    As for a bit of historical background, the 1974 Trade Act was passed in the context of the Tokyo Round of GATT, and on the background of stagflation in the US, coupled with the 1973 OPEC oil embargo (itself related to Yom Kippur War).



                                    Later on, Congress tried to put some limits on the retaliatory power delegated in 1974 via section 301 (but also granted him foreign-investment stopping powers):




                                    Amendments to section 301 in 1979 established specific time lines for investigations and the final resolution of disputes. Although these amendments created a more elaborate regulatory framework for dispute settlement, they did not deprive the President of discretion regarding whether to take action. The amendments also required consultations with the government named in the petition.



                                    More amendments in 1984 defined "unjustifiable," unreasonable," and "discriminatory practices" and provided for the initiation of section 301 investigations by the USTR. The law required the preparation of an annual National Trade Estimate or NTE and
                                    permitted the President to place restrictions on foreign direct investment.



                                    The most recent amendments, in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, transferred final decision-making authority in section 301 cases from the President to the USTR.




                                    And so goes the theory that the USTR is somewhat independent from the President. Which I think is largely ignored by the press today. Probably the fact that Trump tweets every time that the USTR does something in relation to tariffs is undoubtedly related though.






                                    share|improve this answer















                                    The other answers are only partially correct. Not all Trump tariffs are based on the national security section 232. In fact, most tariffs he raised on China are not like that, but rather:




                                    On March 22, 2018, Trump signed a memorandum under the Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, instructing the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to apply tariffs of $50 billion on Chinese goods. Trump stated that the tariffs would be imposed due to Chinese theft of U.S intellectual property.




                                    Actually the complete wording of section 301 investigation was




                                    “China’s unfair trade practices related to the forced transfer of American technology and intellectual property.”




                                    The latter section:




                                    authorizes the President to take all appropriate action, including retaliation, to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.




                                    The later $200 billion raise was also based on section 301, but basically as counter-retaliation to China's response to the initial tarrifs:




                                    After separate notice and comment proceedings, in June and August USTR released two lists of Chinese imports, with a combined annual trade value of approximately $50 billion, with the goal of obtaining the elimination of China’s harmful acts, policies and practices. Unfortunately, China has been unwilling to change its policies involving the unfair acquisition of U.S. technology and intellectual property. Instead, China responded to the United States’ tariff action by taking further steps to harm U.S. workers and businesses. In these circumstances, the President has directed the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the level of trade covered by the additional duties in order to obtain elimination of China’s unfair policies. The Administration will continue to encourage China to allow for fair trade with the United States.




                                    And unlike section 232, section 301 has been invoked more often:




                                    Since 1974, the USTR has initiated 125 Section 301
                                    cases, retaliating in 17 instances.




                                    but most of those retaliations were before the Uruguay Round of the WTO:




                                    After the United States implemented the UR [Uruguay Round] agreements
                                    and joined the WTO is 1995, the USTR still sometimes
                                    began Section 301 investigations but then brought the
                                    issues at hand to the WTO for dispute resolution. After
                                    2010, the USTR brought all trade disputes involving WTO
                                    members directly to the WTO for adjudication. The Trump
                                    Administration’s use of Section 301, rather than solely
                                    utilizing the WTO dispute settlement process to address the
                                    issues of concern, is a departure from past U.S. practices.



                                    Prior to the UR agreements, China was a major target of
                                    Section 301 actions. In 1992 and 1994, the United States
                                    threatened to impose increased tariffs against China over its
                                    IPR [intellectual property] policies. In 1992, the United States threatened
                                    increased tariffs on $3.9 billion worth of Chinese goods
                                    over market access issues. These cases resulted in bilateral
                                    agreements before tariff hikes were implemented. In
                                    October 2010, the USTR launched a Section 301
                                    investigation into Chinese policies affecting trade and
                                    investment in green technologies, and in December 2010,
                                    brought a WTO dispute settlement case against China, but
                                    only in regard to its wind power subsidies. In March 2012,
                                    the USTR initiated a WTO dispute case against China’s
                                    export restrictions on rare earth elements (used in a number
                                    of green technology products). The United States largely
                                    prevailed in both cases.




                                    As for a bit of historical background, the 1974 Trade Act was passed in the context of the Tokyo Round of GATT, and on the background of stagflation in the US, coupled with the 1973 OPEC oil embargo (itself related to Yom Kippur War).



                                    Later on, Congress tried to put some limits on the retaliatory power delegated in 1974 via section 301 (but also granted him foreign-investment stopping powers):




                                    Amendments to section 301 in 1979 established specific time lines for investigations and the final resolution of disputes. Although these amendments created a more elaborate regulatory framework for dispute settlement, they did not deprive the President of discretion regarding whether to take action. The amendments also required consultations with the government named in the petition.



                                    More amendments in 1984 defined "unjustifiable," unreasonable," and "discriminatory practices" and provided for the initiation of section 301 investigations by the USTR. The law required the preparation of an annual National Trade Estimate or NTE and
                                    permitted the President to place restrictions on foreign direct investment.



                                    The most recent amendments, in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, transferred final decision-making authority in section 301 cases from the President to the USTR.




                                    And so goes the theory that the USTR is somewhat independent from the President. Which I think is largely ignored by the press today. Probably the fact that Trump tweets every time that the USTR does something in relation to tariffs is undoubtedly related though.







                                    share|improve this answer














                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer








                                    edited Apr 11 at 17:56

























                                    answered Apr 11 at 15:42









                                    FizzFizz

                                    15.7k241103




                                    15.7k241103






























                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded




















































                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40478%2fwhat-is-the-legal-basis-for-the-trump-administrations-decision-to-impose-and-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        Plaza Victoria

                                        Puebla de Zaragoza

                                        Musa