HOUSE WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE HEARING ON U.S. TRADE POLICY AGENDA
For questions on the note below, please contact the Delta Strategy Group team.
On April 9, the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing entitled, “The Trump Administration’s 2025 Trade Policy Agenda with United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.” The witness in the hearing was U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and his testimony is available here.
Key Takeaways
The following is a summary of the main topics explored in the hearing, with further details in the Discussion section below.
- Chairman Smith (R-MO) argued that the Trump administration’s trade policies leveraged and transformed U.S. market power to secure fairer trade deals within efforts to restore the strength domestic production. He emphasized that these the trade policy agenda is focused on stimulating long-term economic growth, citing successes such as $5 trillion in new investment commitments, strengthened negotiating leverage through tariffs, and the renegotiation of trade deals like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). He criticized the Biden administration for trade enforcement failures and rising trade deficits, asserting that Trump’s approach works to restore U.S. competitiveness and prioritizes domestic industries through increasing market access and trade reciprocity.
- Chairman Smith questioned Greer on the trade barriers imposed on U.S. exports, particularly regarding non-tariff barriers, in reference to the European Union’s agricultural policies that impede U.S. market access. Greer responded how the situation has been fundamentally and structurally unfair for decades, noting that he made it clear to the EU that any trade agreement or negotiation must include agriculture considerations for imports previously denied market access.
- Greer outlined how the administration’s tariffs were necessitated by a pattern of unfair, unbalanced, and non-reciprocal trade. He described higher tariffs by foreign governments, non-tariff measures that obstruct U.S. exports, and foreign economic policies that encourage overproduction while undermining U.S. manufacturing and export capacity. He emphasized that the President is committed to prioritizing American trade interests and reciprocity in tariff negations, noting that non-tariffs barriers imposed by countries on U.S. imports are often more harmful than tariffs and that the current lack of reciprocal treatment drives the U.S. trade deficit.
- Greer said that as the U.S. pushes for more balanced relationships, many countries have begun to express a willingness to cooperate and understand they must lift unfair trade practices, such as non-tariff barriers, in order to align with the administration’s agenda of trade reciprocity. He explained that expanding market access depends on ensuring other countries lower tariffs and non-tariff barriers alongside reciprocal market and regulatory treatment for U.S. exports. He highlighted that the President’s trade agenda is designed to reduce trade barriers and create stable, long-term opportunities for U.S. agricultural and other producers through improve terms of trade.
- Democrats, led by Ranking Member Neal (D-MA) criticized President Trump’s aggressive trade policies and reiterated tariffs are taxes paid by and at the expense of U.S. importers and consumers. Ranking Member Neal described the use of emergency tariff powers under IEEPA as an unprovoked overreach, arguing that the justification based on the trade deficit did not meet the legal threshold for an emergency. He called for Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over trade policy, while Representative Horsford (D-NV) accused the administration’s trade policy of engaging in market manipulation.
Opening Statements and Testimony
Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO)
The Trump administration’s trade policies leverage the power of the world’s largest market to create fair trade relationships, leveling the playing field for American farmers, workers, and producers. These policies prioritize long-term prosperity over short-term stock market fluctuations, aiming to grow the economy and create good-paying jobs. Prior to the President’s reciprocal tariff actions, two-thirds of the 600,000 U.S. exports faced higher tariffs than foreign products, from Thailand to Japan among other trade measures. The EU rejects U.S. biotech crops after a six-year regulatory process. Since President Trump’s tariffs were enacted, over $5 trillion in new investments have been committed to the U.S., and nearly seventy countries have come to the table to reset trade relationships. Tariffs helped bring China to the table for the phase one agreement, netting $40 billion annually in tariff revenue, while agreements like the USMCA ensured fairer trade and market access for U.S. products. The Biden administration failed to enforce the Phase One agreement with China, but Trump’s administration is reviewing potential violations and using Section 232 and 301 investigations to address unfair trade barriers. Trump has successfully tackled China’s trade abuses, ending its access to de minimis privileges. Under Biden, trade enforcement struggled, with Canada and Mexico denying market access to U.S. farmers, but Trump’s administration will enforce agreements for the benefit of farmers and ranchers. Tariffs have set the U.S. in a strong negotiating position, and more nations will come forward to reset trade relations. The U.S. is losing companies to unbalanced trade and offshoring.
Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-MA)
Recession odds rise daily, following the largest tax and tariff hike in decades all due to self-inflicted harm. By declaring a so-called “emergency,” the President gave himself powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but IEEPA is not a blank check. While some may argue the trade deficit is not a major concern, it clearly does not meet the definition of an emergency. Republicans in Congress are missing in action, and our constitutional principles and the Republican Tariff Caucus are nowhere to be found. Supporting tariffs that burn the economy is a shocking turn of events, with the Republican conference and the President bearing the blame of price hikes. The Constitution vests trade authority in Congress, with some powers delegated to the President and USTR. I do not object to all tariffs, but across-the-board tariffs always raise prices and harm our exports. The courts will see these “emergencies” for what they are and declare them illegal. When that happens, trade policy should return to serving America’s interests and the Constitution. The people cannot afford more amateur-hour policies.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer
On April 2, President Trump declared a national emergency in response to the large and persistent trade deficit that has built up in recent years, driven in part by non-reciprocal tariffs, trading barriers, and other economic policies pursued by our foreign trading partners. He imposed tariffs to address this urgent emergency, with these measures aimed squarely at achieving reciprocity and reducing our massive trade deficit to reshore production in the U.S. This national emergency declaration and tariff action is the most significant change in U.S. trade policy since we allowed China to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). The American working class suffered concentrated losses from the so-called “China Shock” and other adverse effects of past trade policy and the conditions that gave rise to this massive trade deficit. President Biden left with a 1.2 trillion trade deficit in goods, the largest of any country in the history of the world. Our share of world manufacturing output declined from 2001 to last year, and in the fourth quarter of 2024, U.S. manufacturing as a share of gross domestic product was the lowest it has been in twenty years. During World War II, we built nearly 9,000 ships; last year, the U.S. built only three ocean-going vessels. Our agricultural trade balance, which historically resulted in trade surpluses for our farmers, was in deficit during the last two years of the Biden Administration and likely will take some time to recover. These are all serious indicators of an economic and national security emergency, and we cannot ignore it.
A driver of this is unfair, unbalanced, and non-reciprocal trade, including the effect of higher tariffs imposed by other countries, the effect of non-tariff measures that promote other countries’ exports and obstruct U.S. exports, and other foreign economic policies favoring overproduction and integrating America’s manufacturing capacity. The lack of reciprocity is an important driver of our global trade deficit, particularly with certain countries; it is common sense to focus on these indicators. We only charge a 2.5 percent tariff on ethanol, but Brazil charges us an eighteen percent tariff, leading to our large trade deficit in ethanol with Brazil. Our average tariff on agricultural goods is five percent, but India’s average tariff is 39 percent, with our dangerous trade deficit driven by these non-reciprocal conditions. The President recognizes the urgency of the moment, issuing a comprehensive memorandum setting out his trade policy directive and executing on nearly all of these priorities. Companies have announced $4 trillion in new investment in the U.S., and nearly fifty countries have approached USTR to discuss the President’s new policy and explore how to achieve reciprocity. Several of these countries, such as Argentina, Vietnam, India, and Israel have suggested that they will reduce their tariffs and non-tariff barriers in line with the President’s policy, and these are welcome moves. Our large and persistent trade deficit has been over thirty years in the making, and we are finally taking an overdue, drastic, and positive step. We must move away from an economy that is based solely on government spending and a financial sector; we must become an economy based on producing real goods and services that provide jobs.
Discussion
Representative Smith (R-MO): Do you agree that there is a serious non-tariff trade barrier problem when it comes to agriculture and the European Union? Greer: Yes, it is fundamentally unfair and has been structurally unfair for decades. I have been very clear with the EU that any kind of agreement, negotiation, or arrangement must include an agricultural component.
Representative Smith (R-MO): Do you share concerns about unfair practices in India and elsewhere that harm U.S. farmers, with a particular focus on the ways that unfair subsidies and other practices harm our farmers by distorting markets and reducing export opportunities? Greer: Yes, I share those concerns and will address them in negotiations.
Representative Buchanan (R-FL): How do you see the trade negotiation process progressing? Greer: The President has been very clear that he is open to negotiating with countries that are willing to pursue reciprocal trade and reduce their trade deficit with the U.S. or, where the U.S. has a surplus, provide market access to ensure that we are treated fairly. Yesterday, I met with counterparts from the EU, Korea, Ecuador, and Mexico after a four-hour meeting with the Senate. In the near term, there is an opportunity for these countries to reduce their tariff differentials and non-tariff barriers if they want to engage in more reciprocal trade with the U.S.
Representative Smith (R-NE): How are you engaging with the UK and Kenya? Greer: Over the past month, I have had several discussions with my counterpart in the UK regarding non-tariff barriers, particularly in the agricultural sector. I have expressed my concerns about the barriers in the UK, especially in agriculture, and they are aware of these issues. When I met with Kenya’s Trade Minister last week, we had a productive conversation. He expressed a desire to engage with the U.S. and understands both our concerns and the need to move forward, showing a willing to work with us on establishing some kind of agreement.
Representative Smith (R-NE): When do you anticipate nominees for Chief IP Negotiator and Chief Agricultural Negotiator, positions created by Congress to address key issues? Greer: Several of my Deputies have been announced, and they are making their rounds on the Hill. We are also very close to finalizing announcements for an agricultural negotiator and a second Deputy. In the meantime, the nature of these negotiations is clear as other countries are aware of the trade barriers we are addressing. We are moving quickly and meeting daily with several trade ministers from other countries. Representative Doggett (D-TX): Do you think tariffs are tax cuts? Are we not going to reverse course, no matter how much the markets implode? Did we impose tariffs on allies with whom we have a trade surplus not a trade deficit? Greer: The tariffs are imposed on foreign goods and all countries to protect American workers and products. We need to work through this period to reshore and address the $1.2 trillion deficit. The President has directed that we negotiate with willing partners to move forward with this effort.
Representative Schweikert (R-AZ): Does USTR analyze the infrastructure mechanics within the U.S. production ability and capacity? Greer: Absolutely. When we talk about trade policy, especially considering the President’s recent actions, we are discussing favorable tax policy, which is crucial for production, as well as permitting and environmental policies. President Trump had such a successful first term in terms of the economy because all these elements moved in coordination. EPA Administrator Zeldin and others are working to expedite permits and ensure that regulations are appropriate to allow the kind of reshoring we need to invest.
Representative Larson (D-CT): Why did the President exclude Russia, Belarus, Cuba, and North Korea from the new global tariff announced on April 2? Was this an oversight, or is the president attempting to reinvigorate trade with Russia, as Treasury indicated that Russia was left off because existing sanctions already restrict most U.S.-Russia trade and make higher tariffs unnecessary? Greer: There is no effort to reintegrate trade with Russia. Congress did the right thing a couple of years ago by revoking permanent normal trade relations with Russia, placing it in the “bad” category. Belarus, Russia, and North Korea already face high tariffs and are in a category established by statute. They already have these high tariffs and do not have permanent normal trade relations, unlike other countries with which we maintain normal trade relations. In the distinctions law, there is always an exclusion for agricultural products, and that is the only type of trade we really have with Russia.
Representative LaHood (R-IL): What would you tell farmers experiencing uncertainty and anxiety amid trade tensions, especially given that agriculture is often the first pawn in a trade war? Greer: Almost all countries have announced that they will not retaliate. China, however, has made its own choice, as they have always been difficult to work with and have limited our access. They are doubling down on that path, but that is a matter of Chinese agency. Many other countries, including Indonesia and India, have affirmed that they are not retaliating. These are also the countries saying they are willing to reduce their tariffs, with Vietnam unilaterally deciding to reduce its tariffs certain corn products and ethanol. We are already seeing the kind of movement we expected, which is an important message for our farmers.
Representative LaHood (R-IL): How do you view the expanding U.S. leadership in digital trade moving forward? Greer: It is a huge comparative advantage. Our digital commerce companies and digital trade companies are the most competitive in the world, and they are competing against those from China. In that competition, we must win. If other countries are discriminating against our champions, that is bad for America, our companies and workers, and the world. We are having a national conversation politically about how to regulate digital tech, but in no case can we allow discrimination to undermine our competitive advantage here.
Representative Davis (D-IL): Has USTR conducted an analysis on the net impact of tariffs across different sectors of the economy, and what steps is it taking to mitigate any negative effects on employment? Greer: We have historical data about tariffs, with the International Trade Commission’s report after the Trump administration’s first term tariffs showing positive effects on domestic production, including higher employment and better profits for domestic industries. When tariffs were implemented, inflation decreased, employment rose, and real median household income increased. We expect similar outcomes with strong energy policy, trade policy, tax policy, and efficient permitting and regulatory processes.
Representative Estes (R-KS): What is your strategy for addressing Germany’s extraterritorial assertion of retroactive taxes under Section 49, which disproportionately targets U.S. businesses? Will you commit to pursuing a resolution, especially in coordination with Treasury and the IRS? Greer: I will work with Secretary Bessent on this issue with Section 49. I have had some good interactions with my German counterpart in the past couple of weeks, and we will work on the best way forward.
Representative Smucker (R-PA): What will a successful trade policy look like? Greer: American businesses are much more competitive when they have open markets overseas. When we cannot access foreign markets or face barriers overseas, not just tariffs but also non-tariff barriers as outlined in the 400-page report, it increases costs and makes it difficult to remain competitive both globally and domestically. At the same time, foreign producers benefit from subsidies and countries with economic policies that suppress domestic demand, leading them to produce more than they can consume, which they then send here. We want to see a select group of partners who are willing to open their markets to us, making it easier and more competitive economically to manufacture, grow, and process products here, and then export them worldwide. This creates a virtuous cycle where open markets lead to broader economic policies, such as good tax and energy policies, which provide the tailwind we need. Reshoring manufacturing is essential, and tariffs can protect us as we reduce the trade deficit and bring manufacturing back.
Representative Sewell (D-AL): Do you believe there are any restrictions on President Trump’s emergency authority, or does he have unlimited power to impose tariffs on any country for any reason? Given that Congress has placed limitations on that authority, do you believe using emergency powers to address a trade deficit is legal, and does Congress have a role in providing oversight of the administration’s use of that authority? Greer: The President’s authority is not unlimited. Congress has put a number of limitations on that authority.
Representative Hern (R-MO): How can we ensure our trade policies prioritize strategic allies like Israel and Taiwan, who share American values and are willing to join us in acting common policies to counter adversaries? Greer: Sunday night, I had a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu about this very issue. The Taiwanese have also reached out. We are having close, high-level talks about how to move forward. As we engage with our allies, we are encouraging them and hoping they will align with us on issues like export controls and investment screening. Our goal is to ensure that, as we trade with them, we are doing so in a way that enhances our economic security, not just our economic growth.
Representative Hern (R-MO): Is the President, along with USTR, taking into consideration factors such as export controls, foreign military sales, and foreign direct investment in evaluating other countries’ relationships with the U.S.? Greer: We consider those factors. With foreign direct investment, because these countries export so much to us, they accumulate hard dollars, and the best place for them to invest is here. This naturally leads to increased investment. We are very focused on ensuring that we maintain fair trading practices, making sure we are not subject to dumping or an overflow of overcapacity into the U.S. at the same time that we are working to secure export market opportunities. We are encouraged by the $4 trillion in investments that have been announced by foreign companies.
Representative Hern (R-MO): Will you make it a priority, unlike the last administration, to address rising digital trade barriers such as data localization, discriminatory regulations, and censorship that undermine innovation and the competitiveness of American businesses? Greer: Yes, we are focused on this. We are not politically motivated or choosing specific sectors we prefer or avoid, and we have recorded different digital trade barriers in this year’s trade estimate. Congress will regulate and decide how to manage digital trade and competition.
Representative Delbene (D-WA): How can countries trust the U.S. enough to enter a trade deal when President Trump has thrown out existing agreements, including those with Australia, South Korea, and even the USMCA, which he himself negotiated and Congress enacted? Does this raise concerns about the reliability and stability of U.S. commitments? Greer: The U.S. remains the consumer market of choice. During Trump’s past tariffs on China and the reinvigoration of NAFTA to become the USMCA, we saw real household median income go up, inflation go down, and unemployment go down. Countries are coming to us every day without hesitation, and we are having several meetings with them every day to do these deals.
Representative Miller (R-WV): What commitments can you make regarding the USMCA review, and will you ensure Mexico’s compliance? How will you use this opportunity to promote domestic manufacturing, and how will you engage with Congress to support and facilitate this process? Greer: Goods coming from Canada to Mexico that comply with the rules agreed upon continue to enter duty-free. The USMCA is an important agreement that must be enforced. I met with my Mexican counterpart last night, and I have a meeting with my Canadian counterparts in the works. We expect to initiate the public consultation process required by statute at the appropriate time. It is important that Canada and Mexico not be used as export platforms for third countries. The USMCA should be an agreement that promotes manufacturing in America, and we should be able to rely on our partners to the north and south if needed. It cannot be a situation where countries can simply come in, build a factory in Mexico, assemble with parts from there, and send it across to get the benefit of an agreement without taking on any obligations. This must be an agreement that helps America first.
Representative Miller (R-WV): What are your plans to address harmful policies impacting American digital trade and ensure its continued prosperity, and do you believe digital trade will play a role in the upcoming trade discussions on tariffs? Greer: There is an ongoing national conversation on tariffs, and there are lots of views on how digital trade should be regulated. We are not going to outsource regulation and are not going to let the EU, Korea, or any other jurisdiction set the rules for digital trade with the potential for discriminatory practices. That is impermissible, especially with Chinese competition. If we are going to have companies that operate in and are competitive in the space, we need to make sure that they are American companies. This is certainly something we can discuss in any negotiations that come up.
Representative Miller (R-WV): Do you commit to exploring trade discussions and partnerships with like-minded partners to protect and build up our critical minerals? Greer: Yes.
Representative Murphy (R-NC): Why is the administration addressing the de minimis loophole, given that Chinese companies flood the U.S. with tariff-free goods, and why is taking action on this issue is so necessary? Greer: It is essentially for the reasons you just described. De minimis loopholes allowed foreign companies to abuse the system, taking advantage of it, and building a commercial case for their entire business on it, which undermines U.S. retailers. We must ensure that this tool is used for its original purpose and not exploited by other countries to avoid duty payments or similar issues.
Representative Kustoff (R-TN): How is USTR balancing the near-term need for components with the long-term goal of onshoring these critical supply chains? Greer: When the President took his action on reciprocal trade, there were some items not covered by the new tariff due to the need for further investigation. This includes pharmaceuticals as well as semiconductors. Many semiconductors are not covered by the reciprocal tariff because the Commerce Department is conducting further investigations to determine where tariffs may or may not be appropriate on semiconductor chips or their downstream components and is closely monitoring this issue.
Representative Stuebe (R-FL): Why did President Trump feel it necessary to take such divisive action with tariffs? What problems were inherited from decades of failed globalist trade policy? Greer: President Biden left the largest trade deficit for any country of $1.2 trillion. We must address reshoring and remanufacturing now, before another crisis, conflict, or pandemic. Everyone knows, if you want certainty and market access, you build in here and you use U.S. labor.
Representative Stuebe (R-FL): Have over sixty countries come to the table to negotiate since the President announced the new reciprocal tariff structure? What does that say about the global leverage we have regained under this administration? Greer: We are the market destination for consumption, investment, and more. Other countries want access to our market. They now understand that this access must be on fair terms, which is why they are here. They would be running the other way if that were not the case. Nearly all said they will not retaliate and will work with the administration.
Representative Stuebe (R-FL): Do you believe that the current tariff policy has reestablished America economic sovereignty, no longer at the mercy of foreign governments for fair treatment? Greer: There is no question it has. We can become less dependent on foreign powers, such as China, for the most critical goods and services. The President’s leadership, and willingness to stand up to global leads and foreign governments is reasserting the U.S. as a trade power.
Representative Moore (R-UT): Are we at the risk of losing ground in industries to China if we cede our innovative edge and exporting advantage? Greer: We benefit from having significant innovation in the U.S. Unlike China, we have strong protection and a level of attractiveness for innovation that is unmatched, but we cannot be complacent. We must continue creating domestic laws and incentives to ensure we are innovating here. Additionally, manufacturing and innovation go hand in hand, so it is crucial to maintain and grow our manufacturing base. We have seen 90,000 factories leave the U.S. We face the choice of either maintaining the status quo and continuing to lose more or resetting the system to reduce our dependence on foreign countries, especially foreign adversaries. This level of import dependency is fragile and poses significant risks to our well-being, and we need to act quickly to reset the system. Countries are currently negotiating to move toward more reciprocal trade, but a country like China will always make its own decisions. They have never been a reliable trading partner, and we are often at their mercy.
Representative Van Duyne (R-NY): What will you do to ensure compliance, particularly for Mexico, in the upcoming USMCA review? Does Congress need to update trade remedy law? Greer: Mexico, despite their obligations under the USMCA, continues to discriminate against U.S. companies and products. In the energy sector, Mexico favors state owned industries over U.S. industries, which are cleaner and more efficient. There are a variety of unfair trading practices that Mexico has or threatens to have. USTR watches closely if we expect any renegotiation or review of USMCA to focus on those types of issues. When countries do not follow the rules, enforcement means tariffs. Trade remedy laws should be updated.
Representative Feenstra (R-NE): How can we expand market access for agricultural products? Greer: The foundation of the President’s action is to achieve reciprocity, as the lack of reciprocity is driving the trade deficit. As we seek reciprocity, we are seeing countries express interest in working with us. Part of this process is ensuring they treat us as we treat them, meaning they must lower their tariffs and non-tariff barriers. This is how we gain true market access, expanding markets for our agricultural and other producers and allowing them to gain real, reliable access. This approach is expected to reduce trade barriers and expand market access.
Representative Yakym (R-IN): If Canada and Mexico were to coordinate with the U.S. on addressing Chinese overcapacity, could that potentially serve as an off-ramp for those countries from current U.S. tariffs? Greer: Overcapacity in China infects the whole world and can displace product in third countries that come to us indirectly. Global tariff action is needed because the Chinese actions are not just bilateral. They cause a problem for the whole economy, so we have to take global actions to make sure there are not loopholes.