National Security as an Excuse for Tariffs: Garlic and Scissors

Although the overall purpose of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 is captured by the title of the legislation, it also included some loopholes.

One of the most infamous is Section 232, allow the president to impose tariffs on an imported product when it is “being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair national security.” Just to be clear, this providing is not about blocking exports of goods that might involve technologies including weapons or armaments–but instead about limiting imports.

One can easily imagine a few cases where the United States might have an interest in preserving and protecting certain products to assure that the US military would have a solid supply chain. Of course, it’s awkward to consider the possibility that foreign firms could be providing these products at equal or higher quality and lower cost, and that US industry is failing to match the international standard, but set that issue aside for now. But what appeals to industries looking for protection from imports is that Section 232 doesn’t require any additional fact-finding or legal action by Congress. The discretion of the president is enough.

Section 232 was used in relatively few cases from its passage in 1962 up to the Trump administration: instead, when tariffs on imports were imposed in the past, it was typically through legislation, or as part of “anti-dumping” actions. Section 232 was sometimes used to block the US from importing petroleum from certain countries (like Libya), but in other cases, the president would announce that although petroleum imports did threaten national security, no action would be take. But the Trump administration produced Section 232 findings that imports of six products violated national security: steel, aluminum, automobiles and auto parts, uranium ore and products, titanium sponges (used in aerospace applications), and transformers and certain grain-oriented electrical steel parts. The Trump administration used Section 232 to impose tariffs in two of these industries: steel and aluminum.

But the allure of using the Section 232 “national security” exception never goes away. Recently, Senator Rick Scott of Florida proposed that “national security” required limiting imports of garlic from China. In a letter written to the US Secretary of Commerce, he says:

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Commerce (Secretary) to conduct investigations “to determine the effects on [US] national security” of imports of an article. This law allows any “interested party” to request Commerce initiate such an investigation to ascertain the effect of specific imports on the national security of the United States. I write to request such an investigation into imports from Communist China of all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, chilled, fresh, frozen, provisionally preserved or packed in water or other neutral substance, and the threat they pose to U.S. national security. Food safety and security is an existential emergency that poses grave threats to our national security, public health, and economic prosperity. …

As garlic is a widely-used product for cooking and food preparation, the integrity and safety of this product are paramount to the entire population. To maintain a strong and stable economy, domestic tranquility, a productive society, public health and our national security, we must assure quality and confidence in our food supply to all Americans and their families. If our food is not safe to eat, we cannot expect our men and women in uniform to be equipped and able to do their jobs to defend our nation and her interests. Doctors, police officers, nurses, teachers, firefighters, military service members, retirement communities, moms and dads, and every American expects our government can and does make sure our food is safe to eat.

What’s especially weird about the letter is that it also refers to regular issues of trade, like whether garlic in China is produced in safe and sanitary conditions, and whether it is being “dumped” in the US by selling at under the cost of production. I take no position here on these regular meat-and-potatoes (with or without garlic) trade issues. What’s interesting to me is the florid invocation of Section 232 and national security on behalf of a root vegetable.

Scott’s letter reminds me of one of the classic attempts to use national security as a justification for import tariffs. It’s from back in 1962, when the Congressional hearings before the Trade Expansion Act and Section 232 were passed into law. During the hearings, a representative of the scissors and shears industry offered testimony. Through the magic of Google Books, you can easily check the full testimony (starting on p. 1969), but here is an excerpt:

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Ways and Means, my name is B. C. Deuschle. I am vice president of the Acme Shear Co., located in Bridgeport, Conn. I appear before this committee as president of the Shears, Scissors & Manicure Implement Manufacturers Association, the only national trade association of domestic manufacturers of scissors and shears. …

We realize that the domestic scissor and shear industry with its 1,000-plus employees accounts for only a fraction of 1 percent of the gross national product, but we see this as no justification for letting the industry be completely destroyed by imports produced with low cost labor. …The United States would then become wholly dependent on imported scissors and shears. We cannot understand how it could be in the national interest to permit such a loss. We would lose the skills of the employees and management of the industry as well as the capital investment in production equipment. In the event of a national emergency and imports cutoff, the United States would be without a source of scissors and shears, basic tools for many industries and trades essential to our defense.

The scissor and shear industry is one of the oldest in the world. … Scissors and shears of all sizes and types are used in every school, retail establishment, office, factory, hospital, and home in the United States. Scissors cannot be classified as a luxury, gimmick, or novelty. Scissors are used to separate us from our mothers at birth; to cut our toenails; to trim the leather in our shoes; to cut and trim the materials used in every piece of clothing that we wear. They are used to cut our fingernails, to trim our mustaches, the hair in our ears and nose, and to cut the hair on our heads—even down to the end of the road when our best suit or dress is cut down the back so that the undertaker can dress us for the last ride. Scissors are truly used from birth to death. They are essential to our health, education, and general welfare.

I ask you gentlemen, is this an industry that should be permitted to become extinct in this country?

You might not have previously believed that topics like garlic or scissors could galvanize such levels of oratory. But when national security is at stake, it is apparently inspirational.