Can ‘Blaming China’ Deflect Harm of US Steel, Aluminum Tariffs on Allies?

Kate Kalutkiewicz, who was senior director for international trade policy at the National Economic Council during US President Donald Trump’s first term, told the Canadian Broadcasting that Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum are motivated mostly by concerns over China, Bloomberg reported on Monday.

Not long ago, The New York Times gave a similar explanation in a story headlined “China is at the heart of Trump tariffs on steel and aluminum.”

Despite these efforts to point the finger at China, asserting that the tariffs are a response to China’s “overcapacity” and a necessary move to bolster US production, this argument falls apart upon closer scrutiny. In essence, this tariff policy is a byproduct of domestic political maneuvering in the US, with the global economy bearing the cost.

For starters, data showed that China’s steel and aluminum exports to the US are minimal. Due to existing trade barriers, China, despite being the world’s largest steel producer and exporter, accounted for less than 2 percent of US steel imports in 2024, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute, South China Morning Post reported. So the US tariffs will have little direct impact on China, and the main casualties of this policy will be America’s major allies, including Canada, the EU and Japan, which have long been major suppliers of steel and aluminum to the US.

Attributing the motives for the tariffs to China is largely an attempt to deflect domestic and international criticism of the protectionist policies. By hyping topics such as China’s “overcapacity,” some in the US try to cloak their trade protectionism in a veil of legitimacy. However, regardless of how it is explained, the fact remains that those who export the most steel and aluminum to the US are the ones who suffer the most. Moreover, this political maneuvering cannot obscure the essence of the policy: the tariffs are designed to serve the interests of certain American interest groups at the expense of global economic cooperation.

From a domestic political perspective, the steel and aluminum tariffs are deeply rooted in US domestic politics. The American steel industry, represented by powerful labor unions, wields significant influence in key political battlegrounds. So the introduction of the tariffs is undoubtedly aimed at pandering to the interests of the steel industry, and this is not the first time such tactics have been employed.

However, prioritizing domestic political needs over global economic stability is an irresponsible approach. The fixation on steel and aluminum tariffs reflects the complexity of political considerations on US trade policy. Indeed, some of Trump administration’s actions can be interpreted as calculated moves designed to satisfy domestic political demands, revealing a willingness to sacrifice the interests of international allies in exchange for bolstering its support at home.

Yet, these actions come at a high cost, undermining international alliances and destabilizing global markets.

In the meantime, as the US erects economic barriers through tariffs, China is actively opening its markets and promoting global economic cooperation. As noted by Shaun Narine, a professor of International Relations and Political Science at St Thomas University Canada in The Conversation, while “the US is threatening to impose tariffs on its major trading partners … China is consolidating its position as the world’s manufacturing and technological innovation hub by increasing trade with the Global South.” This stark contrast highlights the divergent paths taken by the two nations in their approach to global trade.

Consistently advocating for free trade and fostering global economic integration, China has positioned itself as a champion of multilateralism. By comparison, the US’ protectionist policies increasingly risk isolating it on the global stage. As the world witnesses the significant differences in trade policies between China and the US and the different impacts they bring, it is becoming increasingly clear that open cooperation is the right path to global economic prosperity, while protectionism is a dead end.

This article was originally published by Global Times