The U.S. and India announced a deal June 22 that will end India’s retaliatory tariffs on some U.S. goods while leaving in place the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs that prompted them, and also end six World Trade Organization disputes brought by both the U.S. and India.
US Trade Representative (USTR)
A U.S. Cabinet level position which serves as the President's primary representative, negotiator, and spokesperson regarding U.S. trade policy. The USTR heads the Office of the United States Trade Representative which develops and coordinates U.S. policy for international trade, commodities, and direct investments, as well as overseeing trade negotiations with other countries.
The U.S. and Mexico have been consulting about U.S. complaints about favoritism to Mexican energy providers for 11 months, with no public movement toward a dispute settlement panel, and Karen Antebi, a former NAFTA negotiator, said she doesn't expect that to change in the next year.
While the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), an alternative to the World Trade Organization's Appellate Body, may work for the nations that want an appellate level of review of WTO panel decisions, it doesn't necessarily make sense for U.S. purposes, said Jamieson Greer, former chief of staff for the U.S. trade representative and partner at King & Spalding. Speaking at a May 8 Federalist Society event, Greer said that if the U.S. wanted another level of review at the WTO, the government would simply just start staffing up the AB again rather than pursue a solution under the MPIA.
U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said her team is on "phase three" of its reform talks at the World Trade Organization, saying that phase brings in all WTO members. Tai, speaking during a March 24 House Ways and Means Committee hearing, said her team in Geneva is "bringing written proposals every meeting" with the goal of making "a more functional negotiating forum." The aim is to move WTO dispute settlement away from litigation and toward negotiation, Tai said. She also decried the WTO's recent rulings against the Section 232 national security tariff action, saying they "are deeply concerning to us and to our national security sovereignty."
Although some observers thought the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's reaction to losing cases filed by Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and China at the World Trade Organization over its steel and aluminum tariffs marked a new era of rejecting the rules-based trading system, others who had served either in the WTO or the U.S. government said there was nothing too surprising about the U.S. reaction to its loss.
China took to the World Trade Organization Dec. 12 to challenge U.S. export control measures on semiconductor chips and other products, an official at China's Ministry of Commerce said, according to an unofficial translation. China referred the export restrictions to the trade body's dispute settlement mechanism, claiming the U.S. has been "generalizing the concept of national security."
Arguments from plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's remand submission at the Court of International Trade lack merit and reveal a "misunderstanding of judicial remands," the U.S. argued in a Nov. 4 brief defending the remand results. The plaintiffs said that USTR cannot take another look at the record to defend its tariff action under Section 301 from public comments and can only "parrot existing statements" on the record. The government said that this view is not compatible with a key Supreme Court precedent, and that under this interpretation, no agency would be able to stand by its decision in fixing a failure to respond to public comments (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
There's a consensus on the need for reform at the World Trade Organization, according to Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for WTO and Multilateral Affairs Andrea Durkin, but since member countries have different ideas about what reform is, and different ideas about how to achieve it, it will be a "significant challenge" to make changes in Geneva.
'Major Questions Doctrine' Does Not to Apply to Section 301 Exclusion Case, US Tells Federal Circuit
The "major questions doctrine" established in the Supreme Court decision West Virginia v. EPA does not apply to the question of whether a protest needed to be filed with CBP to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 28 brief opposing a motion for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Even if the major questions doctrine did apply, CBP acted in line with the clear authority granted by Congress in collecting Section 301 duties from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, the brief said (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who is retiring from Congress at year's end, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that he was disappointed there were no trade items in the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science (CHIPS) Act. "But I’m ready to negotiate a grand bargain on trade in this lame-duck session," he said in a video address Oct. 17. Portman was scheduled to participate in a roundtable of former U.S. trade representatives but was traveling overseas on an official congressional trip.