Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xy | Hacker News Reader

The Biden admin not only kept the first Trump admin's China tariffs in place but significantly expanded them under the same law. Was Biden acting like a king or does this analogy only go one way?

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-bi...

https://web.archive.org/web/20250101032222/https://www.white...

"[The Biden admin intends to use] executive authority"

View on HN

In the linked Biden press release I see an announcement of tariff changes under section 301 and section 232. From today's article:

>Other tariffs imposed under different powers, like so-called Section 232 and Section 301 levies, are unaffected, and include the tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles.

It seems that Biden did not, at least in the instance you link to, do the thing that the courts have ruled against today.

The administration has previously contemplated imposing duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for tariffs that counter unfair foreign trade practices. That is the provision Trump used to underpin his first term tariffs on China and is considered to be on firmer legal footing than IEEPA. So they'll likely just use that justification going forward.

They’ve already mentioned that in the EOs - it’s what Trump’s first administration used - but it’s more limited and slower than he wants. That requires them to follow a process where they identify a trade barrier and first attempt to negotiate it, and it’s limited to trade barriers. That’s a lot of work to use to demand concessions individually from each country world – these are not people who like to do their homework – and it doesn’t cover non-trade pretexts like fentanyl or failing to confiscate some Vietnamese farmers’ land so his family can build a golf course and resort. Once they concede that it has to follow the usual legal process, they’re going to have to give up the most appealing ways to monetize his office.

You called GDPR a 'trade barrier' as a justification for tariffs against the EU so it's extremely obvious you're not arguing from any position of good faith at all here.

> You called GDPR a 'trade barrier' as a justification for tariffs against the EU so it's extremely obvious you're not arguing from any position of good faith at all here.

The least interesting commentary you can imagine is of or from a country's closest friends. From many perspectives Europe is indistinguishable from America, except from being a little poorer.

Let's see America's (or Europe's!) earnest criticism of Kinshasa. C'mon, show us who you really are. I promise you it will only benefit humanity.

It’s almost like you don’t understand the concept of doing things in moderation and abusing a granted privilege - you know, the origin of the phrase “this is why we can’t have nice things”. That is, what is happening now is different, and we all know it is different, hence the unanimous court ruling.

Did Biden do that unilaterally claiming that a half-century economic trend was an EMERGENCY!!! or did he follow the legal process and negotiate with the Congress? They’ve delegated some powers but that’s not carte blanche.

But those weren’t under the emergency economics power law Trump is using this time right?

And these tariffs apply to the entire world for some reason?

The rationale for universal tariffs is it prevents rerouting goods to circumvent their intent.

God. The WTO penalties are gonna be epic (if much of this stuff ever actually goes into effect).

I believe you are correct. Biden used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Trump has used the 1974 act, but he's also used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which is what the trade court just ruled on. My understanding is the Trump admin's strategy of putting a tariff on every country as an opening to negotiations doesn't fly under the 1974 act, which only allows placing tariffs on a country if there is evidence that it has broken fair trade practices in the US.

Biden used executive authority on tariffs repeatedly, the same method Trump is using. And you're totally incorrect, Biden maintained the existing IEEPA tariffs on China that were imposed in Trump's first term.

Did raise them with that power?

The accusation was Biden significantly expanded tariffs using the same power Trump is claiming.

Simply maintaining an existing tariff is something different. Though it could certainly still be objectionable.

You’re making a false equivalence.

Not repealing an action isn’t the same as supporting it. It doesn’t make sense to arbitrarily repeal tariffs without a coordinated draw down of tbr other party.

You're literally replying to a comment putting in a great detail which statues were used in case of Trump tariffs this time and in case of Biden tariffs (and Trump to the extent) last time. Just saying "this is executive authority on tariffs" doesn't equate these usages, it is important what laws does this authority rely on.

As far as I'm aware, Trump's first term tariffs on China were Section 301 tariffs, and even though he floated the idea of IEEPA tariffs, he never actually invoked IEEPA in his first term [1]. Every article I can find about Biden extending and/or increasing Trump's China tariffs that mentions the legal authorization says it's under Section 301 of the 1974 act [2, 3, 4]. If you're aware of any evidence to the contrary, please share.

[1] https://www.millercanfield.com/resources-Can-President-Impos...

[2] https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2024/biden-ups...

[3] https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/bidens-new-tariffs-h...

[4] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202502/1328911.shtml

Those tariffs were imposed under Trump's authority given to him by Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which, in brief, allows the Executive to impose tariffs if a foreign nation's trade practices are affecting national security. Crucially, this determination is not made by the president, but rather the Department of Commerce.

Here is one such report from 2018 that was the impetus for the steel tariffs: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/232-steel

What did the courts say ?

Are you suggesting what Trump and Biden did are the same thing?

Both literally imposed tariffs. How can you not compare and group them?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com