U.S. companies criticized the Trump administration’s China tariffs policy from both sides Monday, with some arguing the trade restrictions were choking the U.S. economy and others saying that the administration hasn’t gone far enough.
A majority of the dozens of businesses and several trade associations that appeared at the first day of public comment hearings hosted by the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office on the proposed China tariffs urged the administration to either walk back the policy or to at least to grant exceptions to specific products that were part of their supply chains.
[Read: Beauty benefits all nations, says Estee Lauder CEO protesting cosmetics tariffs]
But others applauded the tariffs and argued that, if anything, the administration needed to extend the policy further to cover Chinese products competing with U.S. that had thus far escaped the administration’s notice.
The conflicting testimony underscored the difficult nature of active trade policy, in which changes that help one group can harm another and consensus is hard to find. President Trump told Reuters Monday that while the administration was meeting with Chinese officials this week, the White House had “no time frame” for resolving the ongoing dispute.
The hearings, which began Monday and will continue through the end of the week, are a key step in instituting the administration’s 25 percent tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese products. These tariffs would be in addition to 25 percent tariffs on $34 billion in Chinese products already enacted, 25 percent tariffs on another $16 billion in Chinese goods set to go into effect this week, and broad-based 25 percent tariffs on imported steel and 10 percent tariffs on imported aluminum, both of which administration officials have said are mainly directed at China. More than five dozen companies and trade groups pleaded their case Monday.
For most, the problem is that the tariffs are disrupting their supply chains by raising the costs of raw materials they import. This is hurting the broader economy, they argued, because they have no choice but to pass the costs on to consumers. “Maintaining supply chains doesn’t exist in a vacuum,” said Edward Brzytwa, director of international trade for the American Chemistry Council. “They can’t easily be reconfigured to meet the whims of U.S. trade policy.”
Many argued for narrow exceptions. Douglas Heffiner, a representative for Dole Packaged Foods, called for an exception for mandarin oranges, claiming that while other fruits the company imported could be sourced elsewhere, those couldn’t. Richard Ruzzini, supply chain director for Johnson Matthey Refining, urged the administration to grant an exception for a particular type of crystal his company used in emissions-reducing technology. Ruzzini said there just wasn’t any readily available substitute outside of China that wouldn’t cause “extreme economic harm to our company.”
Others argued that that administration was right to target China and argued for even broader lists of targeted items. “By the time a pair of blue jeans enters the market they have been boosted at every stage by China,” testified Sara Beatty, senior vice president of the National Council of Textile Organizations. Beatty said the council “strongly supports” the administration’s policy, but wants more apparel items added.
John McGrath, president of Pactiv, a food packaging company, applauded the administration for targeting China on intellectual property issues, starting the company had to defend on product from theft “a total of nine times at great expense.”
