the only thing this is missing is the impositionnof new tariffs under 232 or 301 which the government has been preparing for. but no downside to putting it in the bonded warehouse
I struggle to figure out how they can impose what amounts to blanket tariffs via 232 and 301. I suppose they can try, and just wait out the courts.
1 Like
in short, the relevant agency in the exec branch (commerce for 301 tariffs for example) does a study proving unfair practices impacting us commerce and presents the findings to the president. as long as they prepare a proper study the government can basically do what they want. highly unlikely to be overturned in court very much unlike the ieepa tariffs and maybe even the current ones. no congressional approval required. they delegates this to the exec branch and here we are.
I get that part as it’s part of my job. I just don’t see how they manage to do it lawfully for such a wide swath of commodities. Of course I am not sure if they care.
1 Like
I think Section 301 tariffs are supposed to be done on a country by country basis, based on findings related to the trade practices of the specific country.
-Al
Easy enough; so far the game plan has been to enact legislation and then deal with the consequences in court. It’s pretty messy, but hopefully will be dealt with a little quicker this time.
Unlikely. I actually think they are planning on a particular timeline and reaction, but can’t get into the details here. It’s too political.
1 Like
Yeah, that’s what I thought, though I’m no expert. I thought they had to tie the unfair trade practice to a specific product or products and then tariff those. Though perhaps they can make findings like “Europe subsidizes all agriculture [including wine]” and therefore tariff.
Yeah, because we don’t subsidize agriculture. It’s the Boeing/Airbus mess all over again.
1 Like
The WTO will resolve that quickly . . .
2 Likes
232’s are industry/product specific. 301’s are country-specific and can be pretty broad. Both will basically let the administration do what they want.
To clarify, the administration is not “enacting legislation”, that requires Congress…
Both require investigative findings. I wonder what they will use to impose tariffs on Kenya.
plenty of fodder there….
1. Section 301 Justifications (Unfair Trade Practices)
The USTR would likely frame a Section 301 investigation around Kenya’s “unreasonable or discriminatory” policies that burden U.S. commerce. Based on recent reports, the following arguments are most probable:
• Digital Services & SEP Taxes: The U.S. has consistently challenged Kenya’s Digital Services Tax (DST) and the more recent Significant Economic Presence (SEP) tax. A Section 301 study would argue these taxes disproportionately target American tech giants (like Google, Meta, and Amazon) while exempting local firms, constituting a “discriminatory” practice against U.S. innovation.
• Corruption in Public Procurement: The 2026 NTE Report explicitly identifies corruption as a significant barrier. The government could claim that “opaque procurement processes” and “bribery” at national and county levels prevent U.S. firms from competing on a level playing field, justifying retaliatory tariffs to force reform.
• Barriers to Agricultural Technology (GE Foods): Despite Kenya lifting its ban on Genetically Engineered (GE) foods in 2022, legal and regulatory hurdles remain. The U.S. could argue that these “unscientific” Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) barriers restrict U.S. agricultural exports (like GE corn and soy) in a way that violates international trade norms.
• Customs Inefficiencies: The USTR has highlighted that Kenya’s Integrated Customs Management System is ineffective. A 301 study could claim these administrative delays act as a “non-tariff barrier” that specifically burdens the movement of U.S. goods compared to those from regional competitors.
2. Section 232 Justifications (National Security)
Under Section 232, the Department of Commerce would focus on whether imports from Kenya—or the circumstances surrounding them—threaten U.S. national security.
• Critical Minerals Supply Chain: Following the October 2025 Section 232 report on processed critical minerals, the U.S. is prioritizing “trusted” supply chains. If Kenyan mines or processing facilities involve heavy investment or “non-market influence” from China, the U.S. could argue that relying on Kenya for minerals (like titanium or niobium) poses a security risk.
• Circumvention of Chinese Tariffs: A major concern in 2026 is the use of third countries to “launder” Chinese products. A 232 study could allege that Kenya is serving as a transshipment point for Chinese steel, aluminum, or electronics to bypass U.S. duties, thereby “impairing” the effectiveness of U.S. national security trade protections.
• Critical Infrastructure Security: The U.S. has raised concerns over the integration of “untrusted” telecommunications and port infrastructure in Kenya. A study could argue that trade through these channels allows for foreign surveillance or potential sabotage of U.S. defense-related cargo.
3. The “AGOA Transition” Leverage
The U.S. government is currently using these studies as leverage in the U.S.-Kenya Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership (STIP) negotiations. With the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) approaching expiration, the U.S. is signaling that unless Kenya moves toward a reciprocal trade agreement that addresses these 301 and 232 concerns, it may face “sectoral tariffs” instead of the duty-free access it currently enjoys.
The problem is there is no way to LEGITIMATELY do all the investigations required to reimpose blanket tariffs across the board.
How about Singapore? How about Switzerland…and no I don’t want a list. My point is that there is a ton of work to be done to get back to what they want, and I sorely doubt they have the stomach for the work. They have taken the easy way out at almost every turn.
1 Like
am not justifying it but where there is a will there is a way unfortunately. we can blame our congressperson for delegating these authorities without proper checks and balances…
1 Like
If you have a time machine. This happened long ago.
1 Like
There is little doubt that tariffs will become a major topic in the conversation around the midterms. I doubt whether there will much appetite for blanket tariffs on either side.
Yeah, but the side that matters doesn’t give a damn what anyone else thinks.
Not that they matter any more, but we have an FTA with Singapore that should provide the vehicle for addressing any such concerns!
I am wary of this getting political, but tariffs are unpopular on both sides of the aisle. Without the Executive, they would never have been enacted.