MethodologyContact usLogin
Here are some ways their proposed policies are aligned or differ when it comes to steel:
Harris and Trump are both cognizant of the critical role of the steel industry in the US’ national security, infrastructure and energy industry, Kevin Dempsey, president and chief executive officer of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), told Fastmarkets in an interview on Thursday September 12.
“We’re going to need more steel, not less, produced in the US. Both parties and both candidates recognize that, and see a role for government to enforce trade rules and to allow the industry to continue to compete on a level playing field,” Dempsey said.
Both Harris and Trump have openly criticized the potential $14.9 billion sale of US Steel to Japan’s Nippon Steel.
US Steel should remain “American owned and American operated,” Harris said at a September 2 presidential campaign appearance with President Joe Biden at a union hall in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
“US Steel is a historic American company, and it is vital for our nation to maintain strong American steel companies,” Harris said.
Trump pledged in January to block the sale of US Steel to Nippon Steel if re-elected.
“I would block [the sale] instantaneously. Absolutely,” Trump reportedly said after meeting with a labor union representing workers in the transportation industry. “We saved the steel industry. Now, US Steel is being bought by Japan. So terrible.”
Biden, who has publicly opposed the deal since March, is expected to officially block the deal, with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) likely to raise national security concerns about the transaction, according to media reports.
CFIUS had previously concluded in late August that the deal would create security risks, because it could injure domestic steel supply, media reports showed.
The committee then reportedly allowed Nippon Steel to refile their application in September for review of the deal, giving the review process a 90-day extension and ultimately delaying the outcome until after the November 5 presidential elections.
The steel industry has largely benefited from the Biden-Harris administration’s slew of federal programs — namely the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) — and the reversal of these programs is unlikely, regardless of who takes office in November, sources said.
The federal initiatives were expected to add between 5 million and 8 million tonnes of annual demand for steel over the next several years, according to Leon Topalian, chairman, president and chief executive officer of domestic steelmaker Nucor.
In July, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced nearly $160 million in grants to advance efforts to report and reduce climate pollution from the manufacturing of construction materials and products, including steel, which accounts for over 15% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions.
“The very design of the IRA was intended to generate a lot of economic benefits in Republican districts and Republican states, to make it more likely that the IRA would be preserved over time, even if there was a change in government,” Todd Tucker, director of industrial policy and trade at Roosevelt Forward, told Fastmarkets in an interview on September 11.
Indeed, Republicans have expressed support for keeping the IRA, with 18 Republicans in the House of Representatives writing a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson on August 6, urging him not to scrap clean energy tax credits in the IRA if the Republican party maintains or expands its House majority in 2025.
“It would be difficult to see a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act without some significant changes in Congress,” Dan Ujczo, senior counsel for international trade and transportation at Thompson Hine, told Fastmarkets in an interview on September 10.
When it comes to trade policies, it is likely that under a Harris administration, the US would continue the policies that were implemented under the Biden administration — which were arguably a continuation of the policies under the Trump administration, sources said.
“Whether it’s Harris or Trump that is elected this fall, you will see a continued focus on trade enforcement, maintaining Section 232 measures and strengthening Section 301 measures, and both sides would continue strong enforcement of the anti-dumping and countervailing duty law measures,” Dempsey said.
“[Under a Harris administration], it would be a continuation of the use of tools such as tariffs, foreign investment reviews, antitrust implications to avoid monopolies,” Ujczo said. “You’ll see more of that [continuation]…combined with a domestic policy focused on encouraging domestic production for things in the renewable energy space through the Inflation Reduction Act, strengthening Build America, Buy America procurement [policies] and existing trade agreements like USMCA.”
Trump could take an even more aggressive approach than his opponent toward trade policy, Ujczo added.
While the Biden administration has kept most of the Trump administration’s tariffs relating to steel imports in place, Trump and Harris might take different approaches if elected, sources said.
Trump “reset the clock” on how US policymakers think about tariffs, Tucker said.
“[Trump showed that] we don’t need to be afraid of tariffs, and tariffs can be useful in certain circumstances. That approach has carried over into the economic policy of the Biden administration,” he said.
A potential difference in approaches to tariff policies under a Harris or Trump administration is that the former is likely to be strategic in scope, while the latter would be more sweeping, sources said.
“There’d be a much more functional approach towards tariffs under a Harris administration than from a Trump administration,” Mike Williams, senior fellow at left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress, said.
“The Trump administration applied a shotgun approach, where they put tariffs virtually on everything,” Ujczo said.
In a potential second term, the former president has proposed a much more extensive and indiscriminate use of tariffs than in his first term, Tucker said.
Tucker added: “Looking ahead, you have this new trajectory of US trade policies that would continue under Harris’ administration, which is more selective use of tariffs, but also not being afraid of tariffs, compared to a big pivot under a [second] Trump administration that would at least threaten much more significant tariffs than we’ve seen in the past.”
The two candidates are opposed on the topic of climate, which could impact climate-centric trade policies and the development of a carbon tariff, sources said.
“Harris is a lifelong environmentalist. [Climate] is something that’s very deeply rooted for her — going after polluters, trying to reduce carbon emissions. I would expect [under a Harris administration] to see more of an emphasis placed on connecting the goals of climate and trade. Trump is exactly the opposite. [He has] no particular agenda on the environment,” Tucker said.
Williams echoed that sentiment in an interview with Fastmarkets on September 11: “Any incorporation of the climate crisis into trade policy would happen under a Harris administration, and it assuredly would not under a Trump administration. We can’t solve the climate crisis without global collaboration.”
Despite the candidates’ views on climate, the development of a potential carbon tariff is a key focus of Congress and the White House, sources said. Legislation in Congress to establish a type of carbon tariff system is likely, regardless of which presidential candidate takes office in November, Dempsey told Fastmarkets.
Both Democrats and Republicans have proposed carbon tariffs, Dempsey said, and that “details are still to be worked out.”
“Folks from both sides of the aisle who understand the importance…to continue its progress in the United States on decarbonization will recognize the importance of having a comprehensive and effective carbon tariff scheme,” the AISI chief said.
Dempsey then highlighted the White House Climate and Trade Task Force, developed in April, that aims to reduce pollution and prevent carbon dumping.
Looking ahead, the future of the steel industry and its competitiveness hinges on the outcome of the US presidential election, sources said.
Under a Harris administration, there is a greater likelihood that a regulatory approach taken by President Biden would be continued, Dempsey told Fastmarkets.
“Whereas [a re-elected] President Trump, on the basis of his one term in office, would take much more of a deregulation approach, removing regulations and allowing industry to pursue the best approaches on what the market would support.”
A Harris administration would boost the steel industry’s competitiveness, focusing on securing the future of the steel industry in the US, which is one that is decarbonized, Williams said.
On the other hand, Williams said that while Trump will say he aims to secure the future of the steel industry, “he doesn’t actually care or know what the future is.”
“We’re at a sort of fork in the road for the US steel industry, where down one path is a competitive future, and another path is doubling down on older production methods that are probably not going to have a place in the decades to come,” Tucker told Fastmarkets.
Tucker added: “The Biden-Harris administration have really leaned into trying to preserve, build and strengthen the US steel industry for the long term, whereas Trump has been clinging to the past production methods. That that would be another difference in a Trump versus a Harris administration.”
But experimentation and the evolution of steel technologies will continue to be driven by market forces and competition, Dempsey said.
“There’s going to be continued experimentation and evolution [of technologies], looking at things like injecting hydrogen into blast furnaces to reduce emissions, using more direct-reduction technology, and that’s going to continue. That’s going to be driven by what the market demands, and improvements in technology,” the AISI chief said.