USTR Review of Section 301 Tariffs on China Gets Underway; SMA Weighs
In The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has started a review of Section 301 tariffs on imports from China implemented during the first Trump administration. The process revisits two separate 25% tariffs imposed in 2018 that cover a combined $32 billion of imports across more than 500 tariff categories, according to a Federal Register filing published Wednesday.
The tariffs were later continued and expanded under the Biden administration.
The USTR is telling domestic industries that may benefit from the duties to submit requests to continue them at least 60 days prior to May 7 and July 5, respectively. These two dates mark the anniversaries of when the tariffs were first put in place.
“Utilizing Section 301 is an appropriate and necessary tool to confront the scourge of excess capacity, which threatens American jobs, undermines fair competition, and erodes our manufacturing base,” Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) Executive Vice President Brandon Farris said in a statement, summarizing the SMA’s testimony.
“The American steel industry has long been a target of structural excess capacity and overproduction in global manufacturing,” Farris added. “Countries such as China continue to circumvent trade rules and target critical industries like steel. Steel is essential to both our economic and national security, and foreign producers routinely dump excess production into our market to distort competition and weaken our domestic industries.”
He cited the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity, which reports that “China-led global excess capacity exceeded 700 million tons annually last year which is more than eight times total US steel production. This imbalance demands decisive action.”
Farris said: “USTR is right to utilize Section 301 to address these distortions. We cannot continue to allow excess capacity to undermine American manufacturing and weaken our nation.” To “underscore why strong Section 301 measures are necessary,” his testimony provided that following examples:
• China: Even as Chinese steel demand continues to weaken, production capacity keeps expanding, creating vast and growing excess capacity. China now exports more steel than the world’s second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth largest steel-producing countries, India, the United States, Japan, and Russia combined, flooding global markets with unfairly cheap steel.
• European Union: The European Union’s steelmaking capacity exceeded both production and consumption by nearly 85 million metric tons, making it a major driver of global overcapacity.
• South Korea: South Korea’s steel production capacity surpassed actual production by roughly 18 million metric tons and domestic consumption by approximately 34 million metric tons.
• Vietnam: Between 2016 and 2021, Vietnam nearly doubled its crude steelmaking capacity, increasing by almost 100 percent, even as domestic demand declined. In 2025, Vietnam exported 788,000 metric tons of steel products, nearly four times the volume it shipped to the United States in 2015.
• Taiwan: Taiwan’s unused steel capacity climbed to 12.2 million metric tons in 2025, up from 10.2 million metric tons just one year earlier. A substantial share of this excess output has been directed toward the United States market.
• Thailand: Thailand’s steel industry operated at well below 50 percent capacity in both 2024 and 2025, while excess capacity reached 6.3 million metric tons in 2025. Thailand has also become a growing hub for both Chinese investment and steel shipments.