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

Consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulations. 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, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, he has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed about the automotive sector by national broadcasts, participated in a few amateur rallying events, and driven more rental cars than anyone ever should. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and learned to drive by twelve. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer and motorcycles.

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.

  • SilverHawk During the time of the annual model year changes, Motor Trend would do a Preview edition that included actual pencil drawings of new grills and taillights, along with whatever spy photos they had. Those pencil drawings were supplied by the manufacturers. At the time, I had friends at AMC and Ford who made these drawings available to MT.
  • Todd Reasland "For the SV, the FWD starts at $23,680 and AWD adds $25,330. " Yikes...25K more to get AWD? :)
  • 1995 SC I think it's different now and the manufacturers just sort of leak them to the desired automotive "influencers" but it is still interesting with some cars. The C8 was a good example because it was such a radical change.
  • ECurmudgeon One wonders why they didn't just go with a fleet of RHD Ford Transits, but the answer is, of course, "money."
  • RHD Part XXXIV.Talk about whipping a dead horse!
Next