In January 2018, the Trump Administration invoked Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2253) to impose safeguard measures on imports of solar cells and modules, allegedly to protect the U.S. manufacturing industry from an unforeseen surge in import competition.  The safeguard provisions (Section 201 et seq.) of the 1974 Trade Act authorize the President to “take all appropriate and feasible action within his power which the President determines will facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs,” when the domestic industry is facing import competition in products “like” the imports or “directly competitive” with them.  Generally, this has meant imposing additional import duties on such imports. 

The American market share of photovoltaic (PV) modules for solar panels in the global market since 2004 declined from approximately 13% to below 1%, while China’s share has grown exponentially from 1% to 67%.  Nonetheless, Trump’s duties added initially 30% to the cost of imported solar cells and modules, mostly from China, with a decrement of 5% per year, ending with 15% for the fourth year in 2021.  Although such measures are intended to temporarily protect the domestic industry from import competition, Trump’s tariffs reportedly caused the United States to lose 62,000 jobs.  Some claimed the duties really resulted from Trump’s open hostility to renewable energy on one hand and to China on the other.  Despite some bipartisan criticism of the duties, including Joseph Biden’s own when he was a candidate for U.S. President, the Biden Administration on February 4th, 2022 issued an executive order extending Trump’s tariffs on solar cell and module imports for an additional four years at an initial rate of 14.75% with an annual decrement of only 0.25%. 

Along with solar panel duties, President Trump approved Section 201 safeguard tariffs on residential washing machines, and extended the tariffs for an additional two years through February 2023 on washers before he left office in January 2021, as recommended by the bipartisan U.S. International Trade Commission.  Although safeguard measures must apply to imports from all countries under the WTO Agreements, most imported washers are manufactured in China as well.

In addition to using Section 201 safeguard measures to target China, Trump imposed tariffs on many foreign countries, including close U.S. allies, under Section 301 of the Trade Act, on the grounds of trade violations or unjustifiable burdens on U.S. commerce, and under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 based on alleged national security threats.  The Trump Administration also initiated six Section 301 investigations, specifically targeting China in August 2017, the EU in relation to large civil aircrafts in April 2019, France regarding digital services taxes (DST) in July 2019, a number of other countries for DST in July 2020, and Vietnam in October 2020.  Out of six investigations, three resulted in additional tariffs ranging from 7.5% to 25%, two imposed against China and the EU, and one against France in relation to DST.  Biden swiftly took action to suspend the tariffs against France on January 7, 2021, and those against the EU in March 2021.  The Section 301 tariffs against China in relation to intellectual property remain intact.  The Section 232 tariffs specifically targeted steel and aluminum imports, 25% and 10%, respectively, against all foreign states except for Australia, Argentina, Brazil and South Korea.  These tariffs, imposed without authorization by the WTO, predictably provoked retaliatory tariffs on U.S. manufactured goods, including bourbon and motorcycles.

The Biden Administration gradually repealed many of Trump’s tariffs, most notably the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs aimed at the EU on October 31, 2021, and Japan on February 7, 2022, while leaving untouched those targeting China. As a presidential candidate, Biden criticized Trump’s tariffs on China as “disastrous.”  His own continuation of some Trump-era trade policies have attracted criticism on general economic grounds, as a violation of WTO disciplines, and as inconsistent with candidate Biden’s campaign positions.