The Trump administration is not backing down from its America First trade agenda, and Congress has granted the executive branch the authority to use emergency powers to impose tariffs in support of that agenda, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told the Senate Finance Committee in a hearing on Tuesday.
Greer, testifying for the first time in his new role, said, “Congress told him what he has to do to use the emergency powers act — and he is using that authority.”
Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose 10% tariffs on most countries we trade with and higher reciprocal tariffs on others, which go into effect on Wednesday.
During his opening statement, Greer reminded the Senate about the problems the U.S. had sourcing medical supplies and pharmaceuticals during Covid; how semiconductors were stuck at ports in Asia because of lockdown restrictions there, leading to layoffs at automotive plants in the U.S.; and how the U.S. no longer builds ships like it used to. We don’t even make the container ships that bring us over $3 trillion worth of goods, even those are made in Asian shipyards.
Greer could have listed so many more import dependent items. He could have said the Biden administration was so worried about electricity prices going up because of the war in Ukraine in 2022 that he felt the need to stop all pending tariffs on solar panels from Southeast Asia because we didn’t make enough of it there and we might lose a power source. He did this despite billions in tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act to manufacture solar here.
The list of such items facing massive import penetration is long.
Last year, the U.S. recorded a $1.2 trillion deficit, its largest ever, despite historic tariffs on China. That’s because importers sourced from Mexico and Southeast Asia. Vietnam has become an outpost for Chinese multinationals and contract manufacturers who could manufacture there and ship to the U.S. at WTO-member tariff rates of 3.4%, the lowest of all nations. Until now.
“These are all serious indications of an economic emergency and we cannot ignore it,” Greer said, adding that non-tariff barriers promote other countries’ exports and disfavor U.S. imports.
“The EU can sell us all the shellfish it wants, but they ban 48 U.S. states from selling to them. We have a deficit in seafood,” he said. Actually, we have a $39 billion deficit in agriculture.
“We must become an economy that produces goods and services and not one that is financialized. It will be challenging, but I am sure we can do it,” Trump’s top trade diplomat, Jamieson Greer, told the Senate Finance Committee on April 8. It was as close to an official statement that the United States under Trump wants to be more of a producer economy and less of a services economy, of which selling stocks and bonds is the main services trade.
Republicans were surprisingly supportive. Even Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) said he understood the reason for tariffs.
“Tariffs force countries to discuss the imbalances between us,” he said, singling out China for the most part. Tariffs against China alone, however, will never work as they can just sell their overproduction to other Asian countries to make finished goods destined for the U.S.
Greer said at least 50 countries have reached out to the government in hopes to lift import restrictions to lower reciprocal tariff rates.
“The real headline is that there is a fundamental shift now in trade policies from the previous administration. We intend to trade. We want real trade policy. Trump is not going to deliberate endlessly over whether trade is good or bad. We don’t have free trade if our partners have barriers on us that remain unchallenged,” Crapo said.
Reading between the lines reveals that Republicans on the Committee, led by Crapo, believe that reciprocal tariffs will lead to more free trade. This is highly unlikely. Trump is not going to sign any new free trade deals. So what they hope for the most, and this goes for both parties, is more markets for American agriculture. This is always the case. It remained so again on Tuesday at Greer’s hearing. No one is looking to export more Jeep Wranglers to beach goers in the French Riviera. They are looking to export more Idaho potatoes and Montana beef.
At a time when many naysayers are ridiculing Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for bringing up historic uses of tariffs that go back to the 1800s, those who stand in opposition are mostly worried about one of the oldest economic sectors in the world.
Greer noted that Australia exported $3 billion worth of beef to the U.S. last year, but did not import any beef or pork. He cited non-tariff barriers linked to phytosanitary measures, something most Senators refer to as “non-science based barriers”. Australia, of course, has the right to protect its ranchers. But when the U.S. tries similar actions, it is lambasted and vilified for not wanting to take in the production of the world, often at the expense of the homegrown market.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) spoke about beef. He wanted more Texas beef sold around the world in exchange for lower reciprocal tariff rates.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) spoke about Louisiana shrimpers, who are being bombarded with Asian imports. “We will not see tariffs lowered for shrimp for the greater good of lowering reciprocal tariffs on other goods, will we?” he asked.
“No,” Greer said. “We are not going backwards to increase deficits.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) worried about her raspberry growers. Then she said that the Trump administration can’t build an innovative economy with tariffs. “You’re not going to win the innovation economy by imposing tariffs,” she said.
Sen. Cantwell has been in the U.S. Senate since 2001 and spent her entire career advocating for trade policies that she promised would open foreign markets to American producers, especially Washington State’s apple growers. In 2005, she described herself as “a longtime advocate for opening new markets to Washington state’s agricultural products.” But the facts expose a total failure: America exported more apples in 2011 than at any other point in the past decade, long before recent trade policies she advocated came into effect.
In 2011, Senator Cantwell praised the passage of trade deals with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, claiming the new export markets would be “a significant boon to our economy.” She emphasized that South Korea’s steep tariffs on Washington’s farm goods would finally come down under the deal. “South Korea has 45 percent tariffs on apples and pears and a 25 percent tariff on cherries, as well as tariffs on wine and potatoes,” Cantwell noted, saying that cutting these barriers could mean huge increases in exports of Washington products. These trade agreements, she argued, were “about opening up markets” and ensuring Washington apples, pears, cherries, etc., could compete fairly abroad.
The reality is that these new trade deals failed to deliver any growth for Washington’s apple growers. The United States exported more apples in 2011 than at any time in the 2020s. U.S. apple exports to Korea in 2011 were approximately 8,000 metric tons, higher than the 2020s average, where they have fluctuated between 6,500 and 8,100 metric tons.
A few weeks ago, Hyundai said it would invest $21 billion in the U.S. and part of that money was going to mass produce robots and robot parts. They acquired Boston Dynamics, an innovative robotics company in Massachusetts. Hyundai would have likely mass produced those robots in Asia. Instead, due to protective tariffs, they will make them here, as well. Remove those tariffs and Hyundai has no financial reason to make them here in the U.S., despite the fact they were invented here only recently and we may be one of the biggest buyers of their products.
A few Democrats asked about exemptions and exclusions.
“No exclusions. No exemptions,” Greer said, though exemptions have been for the USMCA, and some products, like pharmaceuticals, have been exempt from the reciprocal tariffs. Greer hinted that these products could get sectoral tariffs like steel. The U.S. needs to produce more of its critical generic drugs.
There are certain sectors we excluded because we think they need their own separate action. This includes semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, copper and critical minerals. There are things we can do in the Executive Branch on those, and things Congress can do, too.
Greer kept things close to the vest on the tariff strategy. He could have explained that the reciprocal tariffs can be negotiated lower over time, but not to zero. He could have explained that the Trump administration wants, we believe, to keep the 10% baseline tariff as a revenue source. And that sectoral tariffs on steel and other goods will be global and kept for strategic purposes, with perhaps a switch to quotas at some point down the road to protect local investments and labor.
Even Sen. Mike Bennet (D-CO) agreed. He said Trump should have been more strategic and target certain geographies first or certain industries. Greer said that the geographies that are hotbeds of overproduction that floods the U.S. were hit with the highest tariffs.
Bennet then said that he couldn’t understand why Mexico and Canada were “being treated the same way.” Mexico and Canada are not being treated the same way. The USMCA’s biggest market, automotive, remains duty free so long as companies abide by the 75% content required for a duty free car, something all countries agreed upon. If the car or car part does not meet that requirement, it will face a tariff.
Democrats were the most hostile to tariffs, repeating phrases like “tariffs are a tax”, “tariff chaos”, and expressing outrage over the declining stock market.
Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) set the tone early. “I am putting forth a resolution to put an end to these tariffs,” he said. Resolutions hold no power. They are akin to “strongly worded letters” and usually amount to nothing, especially against powers already granted to the Executive.
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) cited unnamed studies by economists showing that American taxpayers will dish out upwards of $3,800 because of tariffs. He was probably citing studies by groups like the Tax Foundation, the Peterson Institute, or Cato.
“These economists got it wrong before so when I hear them saying this now I don’t trust what they are saying,” Greer said. “The highest inflation we saw in the past was housing and education and services that are not imported.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tried to get Greer to say what red lines would cause Trump to back down. Was it three million unemployed because of Trump’s tariffs, she asked? Was it a 50% loss in the Dow? She said Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is worried about inflation now because of tariffs and that will mean he will have to raise interest rates again. “Congress should reverse these tariffs immediately,” she said, citing higher inflation and unemployment.
“The Wall Street people are wrong,” Greer said. “With respect to Chairman Powell, the President makes decisions on trade. Trump is not soliciting Powell’s advice on this one.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) did not criticize tariffs. Instead, he wondered if Trump could abuse the emerging powers act to enact them. He said he abhorred the abuses of hyper globalization.
Yet, despite the Democrats all in opposition, one thing was certain: for those who spoke up about the future of globalization, pre-2017 tariffs was not a place where they wanted to return.
“I am not arguing for a return to the status quo,” said Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN).
Greer said tariffs were part of a reshoring effort, and also to raise revenue for a government that has consistently failed to cut spending. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ends next year. Senate Republicans and the President want these tax cuts made permanent. But without revenue sources, tax cuts could increase to fund the government. Higher taxes will lead to outsourcing. Higher taxes will also upend tariffs; a double whammy.
Greer spoke very little about upcoming meetings with Japan and South Korea. He mentioned shipbuilding as a problem, and told Sen. Cassidy that they were still considering a million dollar tax on China ships, which may, or may not, include China built ships owned by South Koreans.
“This proposal is to address the lack of shipbuilding in the U.S.,” he said. “That is just an action that is proposed.”
Greer said the “underlying basis” of the tariff strategy “is that we have a national emergency trade deficit, which is at record highs and driven by non-reciprocity.” That’s one reason. There are more reasons, of course, such as undervalued currencies that make it very attractive to import. Years of underinvestment in manufacturing has also led to the deficit, regardless of whether South Korea or Vietnam sign a free trade agreement.
“If countries are bringing down barriers and our trade deficit is going down as we export more, that will be good,” Greer said. “But if we are going to be continually used as a dumping ground for their products, then that is not something we are going for.”
Tariffs Are Here to Stay: Greer confirmed the Trump administration will maintain tariffs, citing a national economic emergency of debt and deficits.
No Exemptions or Carve-Outs: When asked about product-specific or country-specific exclusions, Greer said, “No exclusions. No exemptions,” signaling the need to keep these global in order to avoid transshipment, and to make the domestic market more attractive for producers.
Shift Toward a Producer Economy: Greer said the U.S. economy should rely less on government spending and more on domestic production and services. Here, he singled out manufactured goods, especially in critical sectors like shipbuilding, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors.
Targeted Sectors May See Separate Action: Pharmaceuticals, copper, semiconductors, and critical minerals may face separate tariffs or restrictions beyond the current baseline.
Global Repositioning Underway: More than 50 countries have contacted the U.S. to negotiate opening markets to U.S. exports.
MADE IN AMERICA.
CPA is the leading national, bipartisan organization exclusively representing domestic producers and workers across many industries and sectors of the U.S. economy.
USTR Jamieson Greer Tells Senate: Trump Tariffs Will Stay as U.S. Shifts to Producer Economy
The Trump administration is not backing down from its America First trade agenda, and Congress has granted the executive branch the authority to use emergency powers to impose tariffs in support of that agenda, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told the Senate Finance Committee in a hearing on Tuesday.
Greer, testifying for the first time in his new role, said, “Congress told him what he has to do to use the emergency powers act — and he is using that authority.”
Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose 10% tariffs on most countries we trade with and higher reciprocal tariffs on others, which go into effect on Wednesday.
During his opening statement, Greer reminded the Senate about the problems the U.S. had sourcing medical supplies and pharmaceuticals during Covid; how semiconductors were stuck at ports in Asia because of lockdown restrictions there, leading to layoffs at automotive plants in the U.S.; and how the U.S. no longer builds ships like it used to. We don’t even make the container ships that bring us over $3 trillion worth of goods, even those are made in Asian shipyards.
Greer could have listed so many more import dependent items. He could have said the Biden administration was so worried about electricity prices going up because of the war in Ukraine in 2022 that he felt the need to stop all pending tariffs on solar panels from Southeast Asia because we didn’t make enough of it there and we might lose a power source. He did this despite billions in tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act to manufacture solar here.
The list of such items facing massive import penetration is long.
Last year, the U.S. recorded a $1.2 trillion deficit, its largest ever, despite historic tariffs on China. That’s because importers sourced from Mexico and Southeast Asia. Vietnam has become an outpost for Chinese multinationals and contract manufacturers who could manufacture there and ship to the U.S. at WTO-member tariff rates of 3.4%, the lowest of all nations. Until now.
“These are all serious indications of an economic emergency and we cannot ignore it,” Greer said, adding that non-tariff barriers promote other countries’ exports and disfavor U.S. imports.
“The EU can sell us all the shellfish it wants, but they ban 48 U.S. states from selling to them. We have a deficit in seafood,” he said. Actually, we have a $39 billion deficit in agriculture.
Republicans were surprisingly supportive. Even Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) said he understood the reason for tariffs.
“Tariffs force countries to discuss the imbalances between us,” he said, singling out China for the most part. Tariffs against China alone, however, will never work as they can just sell their overproduction to other Asian countries to make finished goods destined for the U.S.
Greer said at least 50 countries have reached out to the government in hopes to lift import restrictions to lower reciprocal tariff rates.
“The real headline is that there is a fundamental shift now in trade policies from the previous administration. We intend to trade. We want real trade policy. Trump is not going to deliberate endlessly over whether trade is good or bad. We don’t have free trade if our partners have barriers on us that remain unchallenged,” Crapo said.
Reading between the lines reveals that Republicans on the Committee, led by Crapo, believe that reciprocal tariffs will lead to more free trade. This is highly unlikely. Trump is not going to sign any new free trade deals. So what they hope for the most, and this goes for both parties, is more markets for American agriculture. This is always the case. It remained so again on Tuesday at Greer’s hearing. No one is looking to export more Jeep Wranglers to beach goers in the French Riviera. They are looking to export more Idaho potatoes and Montana beef.
At a time when many naysayers are ridiculing Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for bringing up historic uses of tariffs that go back to the 1800s, those who stand in opposition are mostly worried about one of the oldest economic sectors in the world.
Greer noted that Australia exported $3 billion worth of beef to the U.S. last year, but did not import any beef or pork. He cited non-tariff barriers linked to phytosanitary measures, something most Senators refer to as “non-science based barriers”. Australia, of course, has the right to protect its ranchers. But when the U.S. tries similar actions, it is lambasted and vilified for not wanting to take in the production of the world, often at the expense of the homegrown market.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) spoke about beef. He wanted more Texas beef sold around the world in exchange for lower reciprocal tariff rates.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) spoke about Louisiana shrimpers, who are being bombarded with Asian imports. “We will not see tariffs lowered for shrimp for the greater good of lowering reciprocal tariffs on other goods, will we?” he asked.
“No,” Greer said. “We are not going backwards to increase deficits.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) worried about her raspberry growers. Then she said that the Trump administration can’t build an innovative economy with tariffs. “You’re not going to win the innovation economy by imposing tariffs,” she said.
Sen. Cantwell has been in the U.S. Senate since 2001 and spent her entire career advocating for trade policies that she promised would open foreign markets to American producers, especially Washington State’s apple growers. In 2005, she described herself as “a longtime advocate for opening new markets to Washington state’s agricultural products.” But the facts expose a total failure: America exported more apples in 2011 than at any other point in the past decade, long before recent trade policies she advocated came into effect.
In 2011, Senator Cantwell praised the passage of trade deals with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, claiming the new export markets would be “a significant boon to our economy.” She emphasized that South Korea’s steep tariffs on Washington’s farm goods would finally come down under the deal. “South Korea has 45 percent tariffs on apples and pears and a 25 percent tariff on cherries, as well as tariffs on wine and potatoes,” Cantwell noted, saying that cutting these barriers could mean huge increases in exports of Washington products. These trade agreements, she argued, were “about opening up markets” and ensuring Washington apples, pears, cherries, etc., could compete fairly abroad.
The reality is that these new trade deals failed to deliver any growth for Washington’s apple growers. The United States exported more apples in 2011 than at any time in the 2020s. U.S. apple exports to Korea in 2011 were approximately 8,000 metric tons, higher than the 2020s average, where they have fluctuated between 6,500 and 8,100 metric tons.
A few weeks ago, Hyundai said it would invest $21 billion in the U.S. and part of that money was going to mass produce robots and robot parts. They acquired Boston Dynamics, an innovative robotics company in Massachusetts. Hyundai would have likely mass produced those robots in Asia. Instead, due to protective tariffs, they will make them here, as well. Remove those tariffs and Hyundai has no financial reason to make them here in the U.S., despite the fact they were invented here only recently and we may be one of the biggest buyers of their products.
A few Democrats asked about exemptions and exclusions.
“No exclusions. No exemptions,” Greer said, though exemptions have been for the USMCA, and some products, like pharmaceuticals, have been exempt from the reciprocal tariffs. Greer hinted that these products could get sectoral tariffs like steel. The U.S. needs to produce more of its critical generic drugs.
➔ Read CPA Trade Counsel Charles Benoit’s article on reciprocal tariffs in The American Conservative magazine. Why protective and revenue tariffs, along with quotes, are the real long term play.
Greer kept things close to the vest on the tariff strategy. He could have explained that the reciprocal tariffs can be negotiated lower over time, but not to zero. He could have explained that the Trump administration wants, we believe, to keep the 10% baseline tariff as a revenue source. And that sectoral tariffs on steel and other goods will be global and kept for strategic purposes, with perhaps a switch to quotas at some point down the road to protect local investments and labor.
Even Sen. Mike Bennet (D-CO) agreed. He said Trump should have been more strategic and target certain geographies first or certain industries. Greer said that the geographies that are hotbeds of overproduction that floods the U.S. were hit with the highest tariffs.
Bennet then said that he couldn’t understand why Mexico and Canada were “being treated the same way.” Mexico and Canada are not being treated the same way. The USMCA’s biggest market, automotive, remains duty free so long as companies abide by the 75% content required for a duty free car, something all countries agreed upon. If the car or car part does not meet that requirement, it will face a tariff.
Democrats were the most hostile to tariffs, repeating phrases like “tariffs are a tax”, “tariff chaos”, and expressing outrage over the declining stock market.
Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) set the tone early. “I am putting forth a resolution to put an end to these tariffs,” he said. Resolutions hold no power. They are akin to “strongly worded letters” and usually amount to nothing, especially against powers already granted to the Executive.
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) cited unnamed studies by economists showing that American taxpayers will dish out upwards of $3,800 because of tariffs. He was probably citing studies by groups like the Tax Foundation, the Peterson Institute, or Cato.
“These economists got it wrong before so when I hear them saying this now I don’t trust what they are saying,” Greer said. “The highest inflation we saw in the past was housing and education and services that are not imported.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tried to get Greer to say what red lines would cause Trump to back down. Was it three million unemployed because of Trump’s tariffs, she asked? Was it a 50% loss in the Dow? She said Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is worried about inflation now because of tariffs and that will mean he will have to raise interest rates again. “Congress should reverse these tariffs immediately,” she said, citing higher inflation and unemployment.
“The Wall Street people are wrong,” Greer said. “With respect to Chairman Powell, the President makes decisions on trade. Trump is not soliciting Powell’s advice on this one.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) did not criticize tariffs. Instead, he wondered if Trump could abuse the emerging powers act to enact them. He said he abhorred the abuses of hyper globalization.
Yet, despite the Democrats all in opposition, one thing was certain: for those who spoke up about the future of globalization, pre-2017 tariffs was not a place where they wanted to return.
“I am not arguing for a return to the status quo,” said Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN).
Greer said tariffs were part of a reshoring effort, and also to raise revenue for a government that has consistently failed to cut spending. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ends next year. Senate Republicans and the President want these tax cuts made permanent. But without revenue sources, tax cuts could increase to fund the government. Higher taxes will lead to outsourcing. Higher taxes will also upend tariffs; a double whammy.
Greer spoke very little about upcoming meetings with Japan and South Korea. He mentioned shipbuilding as a problem, and told Sen. Cassidy that they were still considering a million dollar tax on China ships, which may, or may not, include China built ships owned by South Koreans.
“This proposal is to address the lack of shipbuilding in the U.S.,” he said. “That is just an action that is proposed.”
Greer said the “underlying basis” of the tariff strategy “is that we have a national emergency trade deficit, which is at record highs and driven by non-reciprocity.” That’s one reason. There are more reasons, of course, such as undervalued currencies that make it very attractive to import. Years of underinvestment in manufacturing has also led to the deficit, regardless of whether South Korea or Vietnam sign a free trade agreement.
“If countries are bringing down barriers and our trade deficit is going down as we export more, that will be good,” Greer said. “But if we are going to be continually used as a dumping ground for their products, then that is not something we are going for.”
MADE IN AMERICA.
CPA is the leading national, bipartisan organization exclusively representing domestic producers and workers across many industries and sectors of the U.S. economy.
TRENDING
Americans Are Dangerously Dependent on Foreign-made Generic Drugs. Tariffs Can Fix That.
Imports Show Near-Zero Growth Month Over Month As Tariff Reset Begins
CPA Supports Senator Rick Scott’s Legislative Package to Protect American Investors from Chinese Exploitation
What Members of the House Ways and Means Committee Are Saying About Tariffs
Is China Gaining Ground in the New Space Race?
The latest CPA news and updates, delivered every Friday.
WATCH: WE ARE CPA
Get the latest in CPA news, industry analysis, opinion, and updates from Team CPA.
CHECK OUT THE NEWSROOM ➔