Public Comments Express Concern About Scope of Potential Section 232 Tariffs on Critical Minerals

The comments came after the Commerce Department asked for public input regarding the effects on U.S. national security of imports of processed critical minerals, "as well as their derivative products." The Section 232 investigation began after Trump directed the department to investigate threats to national security (see 2504150060). It defines critical minerals using the U.S. Geological Survey’s 2022 critical minerals list, which includes not only rare earths but also metals such as aluminum, magnesium, nickel, tin, titanium and zinc, among other elements.

The National Mining Association, which calls itself "the voice of the U.S. mining industry" and its hundreds of thousands of American workers, exemplified the position of U.S. manufacturers, stating its support for "the overarching goals of the Section 232 investigation," while expressing concern that "a global supply chain disruption could have cascading effects across multiple industries, resulting in job loss, inflationary pressures and delays in production timelines."

The NMA did not explicitly support or condemn tariffs on critical minerals, saying that while it "generally supports free trade when it is also fair, this is not the case currently in the context of the critical minerals supply chains."

Rio Tinto, the "only major mining company with an integrated North American footprint" across the critical mineral spectrum, "respectfully suggest[ed]" that any tariff action that the Trump administration takes following the investigation should be "carefully calibrated to align with the existing market and industry realities for a given critical mineral."

The Steel Manufacturers Association began by emphasizing that it "strongly supports the Administration’s use of tools like Section 232," but then warned that "imposing import restrictions like tariffs or quotas would be detrimental to U.S. steel production, ... at least until there is sufficient domestic production" of the required critical minerals.

The Aluminum Association took a similar stance and suggested that tariffs should only be considered on minerals "in amounts connected to their ability to be supplied domestically."

The American Clean Power Association recommended a "strategic approach" to ensure certainty for American businesses and said that if the administration decides to impose tariffs, "They should be phased in over time, to avoid raising manufacturing costs without allowing adequate time for industry adjustment."

The American Automotive Policy Council, which represents the Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company and Stellantis in the U.S., asked the administration to "refrain from imposing near-term trade restrictions" disruptive to the U.S. auto industry's access to processed critical minerals, "that are essential for U.S. vehicle and parts production." If such restrictions are imposed, the AAPC urged the administration to implement them "on a phased basis to account for necessary transitions." It also requested that they not be "stacked" on other tariffs "levied recently by the Administration under separate legal authorities."

Tesla warned the government that, together with its investigations of imports of semiconductors, copper, auto parts, aluminum, and steel, it was "investigating vast, overlapping supply chains from the processing of critical minerals to the manufacturing of downstream products that contain critical minerals." It cited its experience of attempting to create a domestic graphite supply for its batteries as evidence that "import restrictions are not an adequate substitute for domestic know-how."

LG Energy Solution said that the imposition of tariffs or quotas on critical minerals under Section 232 would create "immediate and severe risks to LGES’s United States battery manufacturing operations." The company recommended that any such action be "narrowly tailored and risk-based."

Safire, a "Silicon Valley-based electric mobility company," urged the administration to adopt a "strategically balanced approach" in the Section 232 investigation. It acknowledged that reducing reliance on foreign supply chains is a "critical objective," but said that it is "equally important" to national security to ensure that critical materials and components remain available during the transition period.

Trade groups broadly agreed that some kind of action was necessary but were suspicious of tariffs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that instead of focusing on "broad-based tariffs, which would limit access and drive prices up," the administration should focus on policy objectives that will "strengthen domestic production footprints and partnerships with allies."

The National Foreign Trade Council said that "tariffs only serve to drive up prices," and that the U.S. cannot compete with China "by forcing American companies to pay more for [critical] minerals without an alternative."

The Silverado Policy Accelerator was more favorable towards tariffs, recommending that the administration "use a combination of economic and trade tools more creatively and assertively" than China uses. Still, it recommended that tariffs be imposed "only on critical minerals where the U.S. has viable domestic production capacity."

Foreign countries united in opposition to the possibility of tariffs on critical minerals. Some countries, like Canada, South Korea and Kazakhstan, sought to portray their exports as harmless to U.S. national security and emphasized the importance of their partnerships with the U.S.

Canada, the country insisted, shares the U.S. desire to build "resilient value chains for our energy, manufacturing and defence industrial bases," and Canadian critical minerals and derivative products "do not impair, or threaten to impair, U.S. national security."

Korea "kindly request[ed] special consideration" for products "intended for Korean companies’ investments in the U.S. ... considering the close cooperative relations between our two countries." And Kazakhstan, noting the "robust partnership grounded in mutual respect, economic cooperation, and geopolitical alignment" that it has with the U.S., expressed concern that tariffs on critical minerals "could disrupt longstanding, stable, and strategically beneficial trade relations between our countries."

China and the EU were less sanguine. China opposed the investigation outright and said that the U.S. was using national security as a "pretext" for launching illegal trade action. The EU agreed and said that "the proliferation of such investigations and possible actions under the guise of national security to protect certain industrial sectors against foreign competition is of great concern to the EU."