Congress Should Repeal Section 232 Provisions, Cato Scholars Say
Congress should repeal the Section 232 provisions that allow the president to impose tariffs in response to national security threats, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Scott Lincicome and Research Fellow Inu Manak said in a policy analysis released March 9. The statute is "superfluous given the expansion of presidential trade and other national security powers in laws enacted" since Section 232 became law in 1962, they said. Absent the appetite for a full repeal of the tariffs -- Lincicome and Manak's first proposal -- the writers floated other options for congressional changes, including amending the law to hand final say over Section 232 to Congress, providing for judicial review, narrowing what constitutes “national security,” moving Section 232 investigations to an independent agency and including a public interest provision.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Lincicome and Manak also suggested narrowing the definition of national security for the purposes of imposing Section 232 tariffs. While the Constitution tasks the president with protecting national security, it grants Congress the authority to regulate international trade -- and so Congress should thus set the national security-related tariff terms, they wrote. Further, the writers said, national security should cease to mean economic security.
The analysis also discusses President Joe Biden's relationship with Section 232 and how he could impose change. The report noted Biden has promised to impose carbon tariffs, which he may do using Section 232. The authors view this course as a “grave mistake,” saying that supporting these unilateral tariffs instead of seeking to upend Section 232 would undercut his message of unity and curbing presidential overreach while perpetuating an ineffective policy tool. On what Biden can do to distance himself from the use of Section 232, Lincicome and Manak said he “should quickly lift Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum,” end the investigation on vanadium, “request that the Commerce Department publish all reports that have not yet been released and issue a proclamation stating that he will not pursue further negotiations,” and back ending the “calamitous” tariffs.