|
On Thursday, October 30, the Council’s Trade Working Group welcomed Haley Adams, trade counsel to Senator Elizabeth Warren, to discuss tariff, trade, and government policy issues.
Haley began by acknowledging that from a certain perspective, tariffs have their place when they are utilized strategically and that if done right, they can build an equitable and fair economy. However, she indicated that the tariffs put into place on “Liberation Day” (April 2nd) by the White House have been chaotic and have not produced intended results. She noted that tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost since then and that hiring has not kept pace. She said the President’s claim of millions of new jobs has not panned out, and that small businesses are hurting.
Haley spoke about the three separate Senate resolution votes during the week to deny the President’s ability to declare an emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) to levy tariffs specifically on Canada, Brazil, and globally. She implied that the House would not support these resolutions and the President would veto them. She added that the Supreme Court would also address the use of IEEPA power to levy tariffs, but was unclear how the Justices would rule. She stated that the President did have other tools he could use, including Section 232.
She went on to say that some of the perceived “need” for all the tariffs relates back to America’s economic relationship with China. She stated that the President had just reached a deal with China, but felt that it was a return to the status quo. She further said that Senator Warren had released a report prior to the President’s discussions that the trade war on China has added significant costs on American consumers and businesses. She contended that only the well-connected would benefit.
During Q&A, Haley was asked about the use of Section 232 tariffs and means to counter their use and effects. She replied the Administration is not using proper procedures on tariffs and while there are legislative opportunities, it is unclear if there is a current avenue to address what the President is doing.
Another question was asked about the USMCA review process and would Congress get involved in any way during the negotiation process. Haley responded that the USMCA review was expected to be cut-and-dried, but with the current Administration, it’s up in the air. Progressives had hoped for updates on environmental and labor provisions, but it’s unclear what will happen.
Another question focused on the Supreme Court case related to IEEPA and whether the Administration would prevail and what they would do if they did not. Haley indicated that it would depend on the Justices ruling as jurists or political appointees. If the President’s view does not prevail, Haley wondered if the Justices would give Mr. Trump a “roadmap” to how he can proceed on implementing tariffs.
In response to a question on curtailing the use of tariffs by the White House, Haley pointed out that there is a bill by Senators Cantwell and Grassley that would impose more power on the Executive Branch. But, she said, there are legislators on both sides of the aisle who want to preserve the Executive’s ability to implement tariffs and who think tariffs do have a role in strengthening the economy or on setting policy, such as environmental rules.
Finally, Haley was asked if she had any insight as to when the government shutdown would end. Haley replied that she did not.
After Haley’s remarks, the focus was on some of the items brought up by Haley, including a brief overview of the three votes in the Senate on tariff disapproval motions and the likelihood they’ll not proceed further. The Supreme Court’s case on IEEPA authority was also mentioned again including a possible 4-6 week timeline for a decision from the Court.
An overview was also provided as to what would happen with the tariff revenue already collected if the President’s position was not upheld. Those who paid tariffs could petition to receive their funds, but that the government could “slow walk” refund payments by up to a year.
Further, the discussion turned to whether the Congress would be able to regain its authority on trade policy and the probability that Republicans would challenge the Administration on its policies. Finally, the upcoming review process on the USMCA was discussed including the prospect that the Administration would continue to negotiate or if the USTR would appear before Congress during the process.
| 
