US cites national security to justify steel tariffs to counter India at WTO

IANS April 18, 2025 257 views

The United States has firmly defended its steel and aluminum tariffs against India's World Trade Organisation challenge by invoking national security grounds. Washington argues that the tariffs were imposed under Section 232, not as safeguard measures, and therefore fall outside standard trade dispute mechanisms. India had requested WTO consultations, claiming the tariffs were essentially protectionist measures disguised as security policy. The US response underscores the ongoing complex trade dynamics between the two countries, highlighting the Trump administration's assertive trade stance.

"The President imposed the tariffs on steel and aluminium... necessary to adjust imports that threaten national security" - US WTO Response
New Delhi, April 18: The US has informed the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that the Donald Trump administration's decision to levy tariffs on steel and aluminium, was based on national security grounds and should not be considered as safeguard measures.

Key Points

1

US invokes national security to justify steel tariffs against India

2

WTO challenge rejected by Washington

3

Section 232 cited as legal basis

4

Trade tensions escalate between nations

The US defence came in response to India filing a request with the WTO on April 11 for the holding of consultations with the US on the tariff hikes under the WTO's Safeguards Agreement.

India has said that despite the US's characterisation of these measures as security measures, they are, in essence, safeguard measures.

It also pointed out that the US has failed to notify the WTO Committee on Safeguards under a provision of the Agreement on Safeguards on taking a decision to apply these measures.

The Trump administration, in its response to the WTO dated April 17, stated: "The US notes that the premise for India's request for consultations under Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards is that the tariffs are safeguard measures. The President imposed the tariffs on steel and aluminium pursuant to Section 232, under which the President determined that tariffs are necessary to adjust imports of steel and aluminium articles that threaten to impair the national security of the US," Washington stated in its response to the WTO, dated April 17.

The US also claimed that Section 232 is a national security statute, and the tariffs are being kept in place under the security exception allowed under a provision of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994.

The defence further stated that the tariffs were not imposed under a provision of the Trade Act of 1974, which is the law under which the US imposes safeguard measures.

"The United States is not maintaining these actions pursuant to the safeguards / emergency action provision.These actions are not safeguard measures and, therefore, there is no basis to conduct consultations under the Agreement on Safeguards with respect to these measures," the US has stated in its defence.

Reader Comments

P
Priya K.
Interesting how national security is being used as justification for trade policies now. While I understand protecting domestic industries, this seems like it could set a dangerous precedent where any country could claim "national security" to impose tariffs. 🤔
R
Rahul S.
As someone in the steel industry, these tariffs have actually helped our local manufacturers. But I do wonder if there's a better way than using national security as the reason. The WTO system needs updating for modern trade realities.
A
Anika M.
The US response seems legally clever but ethically questionable. If every country starts doing this, what's the point of having trade agreements at all? India is right to challenge this at the WTO.
S
Samir P.
While I support protecting domestic industries, the US argument feels like a stretch. National security exceptions should be reserved for genuine threats, not economic protectionism. This could backfire if other countries adopt similar tactics.
N
Neha V.
The WTO needs to clarify what constitutes a legitimate national security concern in trade. Right now it's too vague and countries are taking advantage. This case could set an important precedent either way!
M
Mike T.
Respectfully disagree with the criticism here. Steel production capacity IS a national security issue - you can't build ships, tanks or infrastructure without it. The US is right to protect this critical industry, even if the method is controversial.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Your email won't be published


Disclaimer: Comments are the opinions of users and not of this website or it's staff. News stories are provided by news agencies. We do not guarantee their accuracy. Inappropriate content may be removed. By posting, you agree to our terms.

Tags:
Trump Administration WTO Dispute Steel Tariffs US-India Trade National Security Trade Tensions
You May Like!