Grassley to Trump: End the Tariffs or We'll Kill Your NAFTA Rewrite
A key senator issues the sort of binary, transactional choice that Trump seems to prefer. Will the POTUS listen?

There's only one way for President Donald Trump to get his much-touted rewrite of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through Congress: End the tariffs.
That's the blunt message that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) delivers in an op-ed that ran in Sunday's Wall Street Journal. Grassley's opinion matters more than most, given that he is chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, which would likely have to give its approval to Trump's United States-Canada-Mexico Agreement (USMCA) before it could face an up-or-down vote from the full Senate.
Congress must approve the USMCA before it can take effect, but Grassley says it will not do that until the Trump administration lifts tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico. "These levies are a tax on Americans, and they jeopardize USMCA's prospects of passage in the Mexican Congress, Canadian Parliament and U.S. Congress," he writes. "Canadian and Mexican trade officials may be more delicate in their language, but they're diplomats. I'm not. If these tariffs aren't lifted, USMCA is dead. There is no appetite in Congress to debate USMCA with these tariffs in place."
Grassley is concerned not only about the tariffs' effects on American businesses—many of which face higher prices due to the administration's import taxes—but about the retaliatory tariffs placed on U.S. goods by Canada and Mexico, which have hit American farmers.
"Jobs, wages and communities are hurt every day these tariffs continue—as I hear directly from Iowans," he writes. "It's time for the tariffs to go."
Rewriting NAFTA has been a priority for Trump since the start of his presidential campaign. In his State of the Union address this year, Trump called for Congress to replace "the catastrophe known as NAFTA"—though in reality, the USMCA is only a modest overhaul.
As Congress returns from recess this week, it is putting the squeeze on Trump's USMCA plans. While some Republicans remain skeptical of the USMCA because it creates higher barriers for tariff-free trade of cars and car parts, many Democrats are seeking changes to the USMCA that will beef up enforcement mechanisms. Sens. Sherrod Brown (D–Ohio) and Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) have proposed stricter audit rules that would give the U.S. the ability to reinstate tariffs on certain goods if Mexican factories are found to be skirting USMCA rules about wages and other labor standards.
With Democrats preparing to fight, Trump can hardly afford to lose support from Republicans too.
Grassley's message to Trump is exactly the kind of binary, transactional negotiating tactic that the president seems to prefer. But the substance of Grassley's op-ed is not exactly new. Congress—and outside interest groups—have been signalling to the White House for months that lifting the tariffs would be an essential condition for passing the USMCA. In November, shortly after Trump finalized the USMCA in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then–Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, I reported that the steel and aluminum tariffs were a major stumbling block for getting the deal through Congress.
Since then, Trump has given no indication that he's willing to withdraw the tariffs on Canadian and Mexican metals. The ball now appears to be in the president's court.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Grassley to US workers; kiss the new jobs goodbye.
Grassley to US workers who were already working in a field that didn't need government interference; your welcome.
Last I looked their are a far greater amount of construction workers then there are steel/metal manufacturers in this country. Heaven forbid we just leave them alone. But hey we survived Freddie and Fannies bullshit subprime loans and we will survive Trumps bullshit tariffs. Just be nice, for once, if the political class just forgot about us. But if they forgot about us then they wouldn't get to wear a hard hat and pretend to do some manual labor using a shovel.
So, who am I allowed to trade with?
Why do you think the State should be standing in between myself and a customer or supplier?
Do you know that the Father of Economics wrote a book specifically to blow holes in Mercantilism?
If I were to replace the tax system with a flat tax, would you complain about all the lost jobs at H&R Block?
If I were to get rid of all the governmental red tape, would you complain about all the government workers who'd lose their jobs?
Economies run on efficiency, not on "jobs".
Sure. And from now on, all shoes sold in the US will be made by guys named Dave. I just made a bunch of new jobs!
Grassley's message to Trump is exactly the kind of binary, transactional negotiating tactic that the president seems to prefer.
Well, he probably prefers it to non-binary, transgender tactics. 😉
Well, hell, now I'm going to have to rethink my whole stance on tariffs and free trade. Grassley's as greasy as they come, if you find him on your side it's a good bet you're on the wrong side.
The Chinese must have threatened to stop payment on his check.
Grassley is almost certainly trying to get rid of retaliatory tariffs that are hurting our farmers, given he's from Iowa.
I'm not convinced any congress critter, save a rare few, ever stumble upon a pro-freedom position out of a principled pro-freedom stance. Grassley is not one of the rare few, by the way. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't prefer pro-freedom outcomes just because their intentions aren't likely principled.
Applying leverage to get better deal with our trading partners was certainly bound to create some short term pain. No question. But if successful, the long term prospects for a more level playing field are bright.
What exactly is this “level playing field” that the neomercantilists keep talking about? It seems to me that if domestic producers have the ability to compete head to head with foreign sellers, that’s really all the “level” that we need. What I want is a playing field where American consumers and manufacturers can buy from whomever offers them the best deal, regardless of where those sellers come from.
If the purpose of a tariff is to create more American jobs the tariffs would have to outlast the president because no company is going to spend millions maybe billions to open plants in the U.S. to only have the tariffs lifted in a few years and then have to close those plants. its a lost cause
The purpose of the tariff is to motivate concessions in trade negotiations. Apparently Grassley would prefer that Trump not be able to obtain any concessions.
Weren't those concessions already made in the USMCA? If so, then haven't the tariffs already served their purpose? If not, then is the goal to re-renegotiate NAFTA/USMCA after passage of the new agreement?
>Weren’t those concessions already made in the USMCA?
With the Chinese?
I could be wrong, but I think the tariffs in question are only those on steel/aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico.
Are you referring to third party situations, whereby China exports to Canada/Mexico, and those countries then export to us?
No, it is just the tariffs for Mexico & Canada.
>>>delivers in an op-ed that ran in Sunday's Wall Street Journal.
ooooh, a strongly-worded letter.
What exactly was wrong with the previous NAFTA? Ross Perot's "Giant Sucking Sound" never materialized. Certainly is was not perfect, but was wrong enough that's it's worth starting a lose-lose trade war over?
P.S. WTH happened to the Preview button?
Agree with this, for all the problems with NAFTA from a free trade perspective, the USMCA seems to double down on them. NAFTA was fairly protectionist from an automotive industry standpoint. USMCA is even more protectionist (higher NA content requirements, adding the minimum wage requirements, etc).
The previous NAFTA permitted "laundering" products from outside NAFTA into the US by importing them into another NAFTA country first, even just nominally.
Whether you consider that a downside or an upside is up to you, but it was one of the expressed complaints about NAFTA from the administration.
[…] https://reason.com/2019/04/29/grassley-to-trump-end-the-tariffs-or-well-kill-your-nafta-rewrite/ […]
This is not a good idea. Trump might take him up on it and end NAFTA/USMCA all together.
Article 2205: Withdrawal
A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.
The Constitution grants to CONGRESS, NOT the President, the authority to regulate trade with foreign nations. It’s time - well past time - that Congress took this authority back from the President.
[…] his trade deal — an outcome congressional Republicans, in a rare burst of intraparty dissent, have indicated will only happen if the tariffs are lifted. He bemoaned the state’s “scars, empty […]
[…] his trade deal — an outcome congressional Republicans, in a rare burst of intraparty dissent, have indicated will only happen if the tariffs are lifted. He bemoaned the state’s “scars, empty […]
[…] his trade deal — an outcome congressional Republicans, in a rare burst of intraparty dissent, have indicated will only happen if the tariffs are lifted. He bemoaned the state’s “scars, empty […]
[…] wants to keep the current tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum imports in place, even after the deal is finalized. It doesn’t look like the administration is using tariffs to extract […]
[…] wants to keep the current tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum imports in place, even after the deal is finalized. It doesn’t look like the administration is using tariffs to extract […]
[…] wants to keep the current tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum imports in place, even after the deal is finalized. It doesn’t look like the administration is using tariffs to extract […]
[…] wants to keep the current tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum imports in place, even after the deal is finalized. It doesn’t look like the administration is using tariffs to extract concessions, […]