U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer on Thursday defended the Trump administration’s use of national security as the premise for tariffs on products like steel and aluminum, even in cases where the products were coming from long-term allies of the U.S.
“If you are of the opinion that the section 232 [of the Trade Expansion Act] is justified because of the need to preserve the U.S. steel industry, then you have to put in place a program that actually works,” Lighthizer told the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday. “That means every country has to be [included]. You can’t let all of the steel come through any other country. Otherwise the program doesn’t make any sense.”
“That’s the context,” he added. “Nobody is declaring war with Canada or saying they are an unfriendly neighbor. They obviously are not. They are a great ally. It is about ‘Do you think having a steel industry is a national security issue?'”
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., seemed to reject this theory by saying it could be used to used to impose tariffs on anything.
“What else can we invoke Section 232 for? Can we use Section 232 to protect Hollywood, the entertainment industry?” Reed asked Lighthizer, before engaging in a bit of mockery. “France is a threat to us. Those New Wave films are cutting the heck out of us.”
[Also read: Teamsters union backs Canada in tariff tiff with Trump]
U.S. trading partners have strongly objected to the national security premise for tits various tariffs. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau scoffed in May at the White House’s announcement that it was looking into possible auto import tariffs on national security grounds.
“I am … trying to figure out where a possible national security connection is. Taking that a step further into autos seems to me to be on even flimsier logical grounds,” Trudeau told Reuters.
