Trade War Watch: Were the Auto Tariffs Ever Supposed to Be More Than a Threat?

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

The U.S. Commerce Department has submitted draft recommendations to the White House on its investigation into whether it’s prudent to impose tariffs of up to 25 percent on imported automobiles and parts, based on the premise that they’re a threat to national security. The possibility has the industry in a tizzy, with both foreign and domestic brands lobbying against it.

Truth be told, we half assumed the entire concept was a ruse to bring other nations to the bargaining table with something to lose — a scenario where the United States could be viewed as a favorable alternative to tariff-crazy China. However, China has begun opening its market to foreign automakers while also placing a massive 40 percent duty on American autos, leaving the U.S. at a disadvantage. Now it looks as if the Trump administration may go through with everything.

According to Reuters, two administration officials claim the Section 232 recommendations on ensuring health within the domestic auto industry are undergoing an interagency review process. They’ll be discussed today during the president’s weekly meeting with top trade officials. Thus far, the White House has promised not to move forward with new tariffs on the European Union or Japan as long as it is making constructive progress in trade negotiations.

The EU’s trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom, is scheduled to convene with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer in Washington on Wednesday to discuss the negotiations. However, one of the officials claims the Trump administration wanted to send a message for negotiators to get the lead out and make some real headway.

From Reuters:

But having the Commerce report ready for action would underscore a consistent threat from President Donald Trump – that he would impose tariffs on autos and auto parts unless the EU and Japan make trade concessions including lowering the EU’s 10 percent tariff on imported vehicles and cutting non-tariff barriers.

Trump has repeatedly suggested he would move quickly to impose tariffs, even before the Commerce Department launched its investigation in May into whether imported autos and parts pose a national security risk. The study followed closely on the heels of the imposition of similar national security tariffs on steel and aluminum.

“We said if we don’t negotiate something fair, then we have tremendous retribution, which we don’t want to use, but we have tremendous powers,” Trump said on Wednesday. “We have to – including cars. Cars is the big one. And you know what we’re talking about with respect to cars and tariffs on cars.”

In October, the administration said it had planned to open formal trade talks with the European Union and Japan in early 2019 — once the 90-day required congressional notification period ends. But backlash to the proposal cropped up long before that date.

Automakers, unilaterally opposed to higher tariffs, claim there’s no reason to presume imported vehicles and parts risk national security. Of course, security is unlikely a pressing matter within the industry. Already suffering in China due to its steep tariffs, certain brands don’t want additional import trouble.

A group representing major automakers told the Commerce Department in July that imposing tariffs of 25 percent on imported cars and parts would raise cumulative prices for U.S. vehicles by $83 billion annually and risk hundreds of thousands of jobs. According to the The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, consumers would see an alleged premium of $6,000 on imported vehicles and roughly $2,000 on domestically assembled products. Some automakers have threatened to scrap future investment in the U.S. if the administration goes through with the fees.

[Image: Nissan]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 28 comments
  • Antiquepacbell Antiquepacbell on Nov 14, 2018

    Chicken tax derp, derp. America sucks and Trump sucks derp, derp. Aussie land lost its auto industry and has a crap GDP. Chicken tax good. Trump good.

  • Cimarron typeR Cimarron typeR on Nov 14, 2018

    it amuses me on this site, how a click bait articles can stir up a frenzy ,all good for the pocketbooks of TTAC but most of us reasonable folks can read between the lines and realize that this is just posturing from Washington.USMCA is a great example. If a couple of USDMs decide to import a few less window switches and light bulbs from China, all the better.

  • Probert They already have hybrids, but these won't ever be them as they are built on the modular E-GMP skateboard.
  • Justin You guys still looking for that sportbak? I just saw one on the Facebook marketplace in Arizona
  • 28-Cars-Later I cannot remember what happens now, but there are whiteblocks in this period which develop a "tick" like sound which indicates they are toast (maybe head gasket?). Ten or so years ago I looked at an '03 or '04 S60 (I forget why) and I brought my Volvo indy along to tell me if it was worth my time - it ticked and that's when I learned this. This XC90 is probably worth about $300 as it sits, not kidding, and it will cost you conservatively $2500 for an engine swap (all the ones I see on car-part.com have north of 130K miles starting at $1,100 and that's not including freight to a shop, shop labor, other internals to do such as timing belt while engine out etc).
  • 28-Cars-Later Ford reported it lost $132,000 for each of its 10,000 electric vehicles sold in the first quarter of 2024, according to CNN. The sales were down 20 percent from the first quarter of 2023 and would “drag down earnings for the company overall.”The losses include “hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off.” [if they ever are recouped] Ford is the only major carmaker breaking out EV numbers by themselves. But other marques likely suffer similar losses. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fords-120000-loss-vehicle-shows-california-ev-goals-are-impossible Given these facts, how did Tesla ever produce anything in volume let alone profit?
  • AZFelix Let's forego all of this dilly-dallying with autonomous cars and cut right to the chase and the only real solution.
Next