Public Comments Express Concern About Overlapping Section 232 Tariffs on Solar Components

The comments were filed after the Commerce Department asked for public input regarding the effects on U.S. national security of imports of polysilicon and its derivatives. The Section 232 investigation began after President Donald Trump directed the department to investigate threats to national security (see 2507140066).

The U.S. Clean Energy Associations, consisting of the American Council on Renewable Energy, Solar Energy Industries Association, and American Clean Power Association said that "without careful coordination, stacking of tariffs across supply chain levels" can increase manufacturing costs and "undercut the very manufacturing base the U.S. government is seeking to support."

The associations urged the commerce secretary to exempt "traceable, non-PRC supply of ingots, wafers, and cells from trusted allies and partners" from any polysilicon tariffs imposed through Section 232. They also said that additional Section 232 tariffs on polysilicon's derivative products will "raise costs, delay infrastructure modernization, and reduce grid resilience." Instead of new tariffs, they said that BIS should "build on existing tariff and import restriction policies" by aligning existing policies with "new and more deliberately applied programs."

The Alliance for American Solar Manufacturing and Trade said that to incentivize supply chain shifts and to alleviate "economic and national security concerns" from Chinese overproduction and subsidies, BIS should "structure any remedy arising" from the investigation to target “foreign entities of concern,” which it said were defined in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act from the Biden administration. The alliance said that imposing restrictions on Chinese polysilicon imports, "including on derivatives like cells and modules produced using Chinese polysilicon," would reduce the domestic U.S. solar industry’s "vulnerability to imports from China."

The Semiconductor Industry Association said that it supported "President Trump’s goal of reshoring U.S. semiconductor manufacturing," but said it is "critically important" to advance policies that make U.S. semiconductor production cost-effective, and therefore urged BIS to "consult closely with SIA and our member companies to understand and consider" how potential tariffs on polysilicon and its derivatives may impact the semiconductor industry in the United States.

Tesla warned the government that "together with the scope of the concurrent Section 232 investigations" on critical minerals, semiconductors, copper, unmanned aircraft systems and the already concluded investigations on auto parts, aluminum, and steel, BIS is investigating "vast, overlapping supply chains from the processing of polysilicon to the manufacturing of downstream products that contain polysilicon and other Section 232 targets."

Tesla recommended that BIS "refine the scope of the investigation" to apply only to specific products and sources with a "demonstrable nexus to national security interests" to reduce the impact on downstream manufacturers, consumers and the economy. The company also said that unless BIS adequately consults with industry and allies, it will create "an undue burden upon the U.S. polysilicon industry as well as American consumers."

Republican members of Congress from Michigan voiced full-throated support for the investigation and any tariffs that come from it. Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich., chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, wrote on behalf of the committee to "strongly support" the investigation, calling it "both timely and necessary." He said that polysilicon is a "foundational material" for microelectronics, solar energy systems, and advanced defense technologies, which are all sectors "where the United States cannot afford dependence on adversarial supply."

Importers are able to evade "both tariffs and UFLPA restrictions" on polysilicon, Moolenaar said, because there is no "enforced requirement for origin traceability of embedded polysilicon content." This leaves the U.S. "exposed" to unfair pricing, and "systemic ethical and legal violations tied to China’s use of forced labor," he said. "While UFLPA is a powerful law on paper, it lacks the structural enforcement tools that a Section 232 action can provide. By preventing the importation of Chinese or Chinese-linked polysilicon and its derivatives, the Commerce Department can close the very loopholes that are allowing this material to flow through the cracks."

To close the gaps and "ensure any remedy provides sufficient market signal and duration" to support investment in the U.S. polysilicon industry, Moolenaar called for an "applied tariff rate in excess of 600% based on current inside-China prices."

Laura Murphy, a human rights expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Biden administration official, concurred that UFLPA is not enough to deter Chinese forced labor in the solar industry: "As it currently stands, ... UFLPA is not adequately preventing the import of silicon-containing materials into the US."

Rep. Jack Bergman, R-Mich., said that addressing the risks of China’s "distortive practices" is "vital" to the national and economic security of the U.S., and commended Trump's "efforts to review threats posed by imports of this critical material" and to "consider trade policies that safeguard our industrial and manufacturing base" from China.

Rep. Tom Barrett, R-Mich., said that China's "massive overproduction of polysilicon" poses a "serious threat" to U.S. and allied producers, and commended the Trump administration for addressing "these unfair trade practices," which "risk undermining the modernization and resilience of the U.S. defense industrial base."

The Silverado Policy Accelerator called a future scenario in which U.S. industry lost access to polysilicon and its derivatives "the definition of a national security threat." It said that while the U.S. "currently retains a large polysilicon industry," it isn't profitable at current prices and "should not be expected to be for the foreseeable future absent a remedy." Chinese producers can "likely successfully export to the U.S. market" even with the "modest ad valorem import duties increases" as of July 2025, it said, given the "magnitude of ongoing global polysilicon price suppression." The think tank therefore called for import measures to "take any form required to completely prevent imports at quantities that could threaten U.S. national security," and suggested a specific duty "applied to the weight of polysilicon or an ad valorem rate that is high enough to account for the likelihood of Chinese producers selling polysilicon at well below even their costs of production."

The National Foreign Trade Council said that imposing "broad restrictions" on non-Chinese origin sources of semiconductor-grade polysilicon would "increase costs to the U.S. cloud and semiconductor industry" and risk supply chain shortages, which in turn would "hamper America’s ability to win the AI race against foreign adversaries." The council therefore recommended "excluding products containing semiconductor-grade polysilicon from non-Chinese origin" import restrictions resulting from the investigation, particularly because polysilicon derivatives are "already subject to review under existing Section 232 investigations covering semiconductors and critical minerals." It said that implementing "overlapping trade restrictions and stacking tariffs" could accidentally "disrupt the deployment of critical cloud infrastructure" which it called a "key component of U.S. national security and technological competitiveness."

Foreign countries were united in opposition to more tariffs on polysilicon. The EU, South Korea and Switzerland asked for exemptions from any future tariffs and emphasized the importance of their partnerships with the U.S.

A representative of the Swiss government said that restrictive trade measures, "such as additional tariffs on imports of polysilicon and its derivatives," will have an adverse effect "on both the U.S. and Swiss economies." Switzerland therefore "respectfully urges" the Trump administration to "refrain from introducing any restrictive measures, including the imposition of additional tariffs, on imports of polysilicon and its derivatives originating from Switzerland."

The EU said that it "understands the U.S.’[s] desire" to conduct a Section 232 investigation on polysilicon and its derivatives, but stressed that it "rejects the notion that its exports or industries could threaten U.S. national security."

The EU also expressed concern about the "lack of clarity" on the scope of the products covered under this investigation, saying that it is "not clear what derivative products are considered." Because EU-U.S. supply chains in sectors using polysilicon are "highly intertwined," the EU said that "any interruption could have severely negative consequences."

The EU therefore "invites the U.S. to consider the full extent" of the investigation and asked the U.S. to "refrain from the introduction of new Section 232 measures" on polysilicon and instead suggested that the U.S. "take measures to enhance transatlantic cooperation on these products in the wider context of the strongly intertwined transatlantic supply chains."

South Korea argued that "broadly applied" tariffs or other import restrictions on polysilicon risk "disrupting supply chains that are important to both economic and national security." South Korea said that its companies are serving as "trusted suppliers of secure polysilicon to the United States," and that any import restrictions will "disrupt the trusted, shared supply chains on which both economies rely."

South Korea added that if derivative products "such as ingots, wafers, and cells processed from polysilicon are also included," it has concerns that "price instability and disruptions across the entire solar supply chain may worsen" which risks "undermining U.S. manufacturing growth in the solar industry."

If import restrictions on polysilicon are introduced, South Korea "respectfully" requests that "special consideration be given to allow for flexible application to Korean companies."

China began its comments with an attack on U.S. use of Section 232 measures, calling it "bullying unilateralism and protectionism under the pretext of national security." It said such measures have "severely undermined the rules-based multilateral trading system" that the international community has been "working together for decades to build and have disrupted the stability of global supply chains in a devastating manner."

China accused the Commerce Department of "merely" stating that the product under investigation is “'polysilicon and its derivatives,' without providing any further details, clarification or definition of what constitutes 'derivatives' in this context." It said that the "lack of specificity" creates "significant uncertainty" for affected parties and "substantially hinders the transparency of this investigation."

The current approach departs from the "established practice" under previous Section 232 investigations, China said, in which derivative products were "explicitly identified, thereby ensuring adequate notice and procedural fairness for interested parties."

Finally, the Chinese government said that import restrictions based on national security grounds are "unwarranted and should not be adopted."