Are Imported Cars a Threat to National Security? No Way.

[EasyAce]

Trump can impose car tariffs only by stretching the meaning of "national security" beyond recognition
By Eric Boehm
http://reason.com/blog/2018/05/24/are-imported-cars-a-threat-to-national-s

President Donald Trump's decision to take the first step toward imposing tariffs on imported cars and trucks is probably best understood as a bargaining chip in his administration's ongoing efforts to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). But the official rationale for the tariffs makes zero sense . . .

. . . When Trump sought to impose the steel and aluminum tariffs, the Commerce Department conducted a similar investigation and determined that importing those commodities was indeed a national security threat. Because American weapons of war depend on steel and aluminum supplies, the department concluded, domestic producers must be protected from international supplies that could be cut off in the event of a conflict.

It was not a good argument, but it was supported by the American steel producers who stood to benefit from the tariffs, and it made some sense if you ignored basic facts. For instance, the largest exporter of aluminum to the United States is Canada, a nation that also happens to be one of America's closest allies. Any scenario where Canada restricts aluminum exports to weaken U.S. national security is a future where Washington has much bigger problems than aluminum imports . . .

. . . The argument for car tariffs is even weaker. "This isn't about national security," Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

said in a statement. The American automobile industry employs 50 percent more people than it did in 2011, Donohue noted, and domestic production has doubled in the last decade.

Those indicators do not suggest an industry in need of protection. Nor do they suggest anything that can accurately be described as a threat to national security. What the White House is really trying to do is apply pressure on Canada and Mexico ahead of an expected effort to renegotiate NAFTA later this year. "The president's Section 232 authorities should not be abused in this way," Donohue said, and "doing so only encourages other nations to do the same" . . .