Biden administration strongly condemns WTO's rejection of Trump imposed tariffs on aluminium and steel

The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled on Friday that the 2018 tariffs placed on foreign aluminium and steel by then-President Donald Trump were unjustified, which was unaccepted by the Biden administration. The Biden administration took action to avoid the tariffs, but it disagreed with the WTO's judgement and said it exceeded its power by rejecting levies because of national security concerns.

Reports indicate that WTO's ruling won't significantly affect the world. If the United States challenges the decision, it will be ineffective since the WTO's Appellate Body has not been operational for three years due to the United States blocking the nomination of new judges.

"The United States strongly rejects the flawed interpretation and conclusions. The United States has held the clear and unequivocal position, for over 70 years, that issues of national security cannot be reviewed in WTO dispute settlement," said Adam Hodge, spokesman for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Additionally, the Biden administration reached deals with the EU, Japan, and the UK that effectively abolished tariffs and replaced them with import quotas that negate tariffs on aluminium and steel imports below the cutoff point. In response to the adjustments made by the Biden administration, these trade partners reduced their retaliatory tariffs on the United States.

The Trump administration raised taxes on imported aluminium and steel to shield US producers from what it perceived as global overproduction, albeit Canada, Mexico, and many other countries were spared from the duties. The levies incensed American allies like the European Union and Japan, and when China, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey protested the action, it sparked a trade dispute at the WTO.

Hodge added, "The Biden administration is committed to preserving U.S. national security by ensuring the long-term viability of our steel and aluminum industries, and we do not intend to remove the Section 232 duties as a result of these disputes."