[Anchor]
The United States Trade Representative (USTR) has announced it will increase the current global tariff rate of 10% to 15% for some countries.
President Trump reaffirmed his strong intention to impose tariffs in his State of the Union address, but alternative tariffs are also facing legal challenges.
Correspondent Shin Yoon-jung reports from Washington.
[Reporter]
USTR representative Jamieson Greer stated, “The U.S. currently imposes a 10% global tariff, but for some countries, it will rise to 15%.”
The Trump administration imposed a 10% global tariff based on Section 122 of the Trade Act following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against reciprocal tariffs. President Trump has announced that the world will immediately be subjected to a 15% rate.
If a ‘15% tariff’ is uniformly applied, adjustments are being made considering that some countries, such as the UK, will face higher tariffs than before.
Representative Greer mentioned that other countries could see even higher increases following the 15% hike, which is interpreted as a warning of differential increases through investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act.
However, seemingly mindful of President Trump’s planned visit to China late next month, it was clarified that there are no plans to increase tariffs on China beyond the current level.
Representative Greer explained that notices related to the investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act will be published in the Federal Register within days, and procedures such as public consultation, hearings, and negotiations with counterpart countries will follow.
President Trump also stated in his State of the Union address that he intends to strengthen tariff policies and reiterated that the new tariff regime is legally justified.
[Donald Trump / U.S. President: Tariffs will remain in place under fully approved and long-proven alternative legal grounds.]
However, there are predictions that Section 122 of the Trade Act could face legal challenges due to insufficient legal justification.
The Washington Post and others reported that experts pointed out that the international balance of payments deficit, a condition for the enactment of Section 122, cannot be equated with the trade deficit claimed by President Trump.
The international balance of payments deficit refers to the overall external economic transactions including capital movement and financial transactions, whereas a trade deficit is a concept limited to merchandise trade.
Some scholars have defended Trump’s position, arguing that Section 122 of the Trade Act is intended to address trade deficits, but there is also the possibility that importers may file additional lawsuits.
This is Shin Yoon-jung in Washington for YTN.
※ ‘Your report becomes news’
[KaKaoTalk] Search YTN and add the channel
[Phone] 02-398-8585
[Email] social@ytn.co.kr