The Trump administration frequently invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act as a key tool in trade disputes, targeting unfair practices by various nations. During his first term, investigations led to measures against one major case on China and six others, though most resolved through negotiations rather than sustained duties.
China Remains the Primary Target
China stands out as the most significant ongoing Section 301 case. In August 2017, the United States launched a probe into China’s intellectual property practices, technology transfers, and steel exports. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced unfair trade findings in March 2018, imposing tariffs by July. While some tariffs were suspended amid negotiations, the case persists as a major trade leverage point between the U.S. and China.
Other Investigations Largely Settled
Inu Manak, a senior researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes, “During Trump’s first term, six countries faced Section 301 measures, but currently, only one remains a valid measure—China.”
Most other probes concluded without long-term penalties. The European Union investigation stemmed from steel and aluminum safeguards but suspended in October 2019. Negotiations finalized a resolution in June 2021, preserving quotas over duties.
Digital Services Taxes Draw Scrutiny
The U.S. targeted digital services taxes (DSTs) in several countries. France faced a Section 301 initiation in July 2019, followed by the UK, Italy, Spain, and India in June 2020. These largely suspended through bilateral talks, with limited actual duties imposed.
Vietnam Currency and Beyond
Vietnam encountered a Section 301 action in October 2020 over currency practices and tax haven concerns. The USTR suspended remedies in January 2021 but resolved further issues by July amid cooperation. Similar patterns emerged with UK investment policies post-Brexit, where negotiations prevented escalation.
Overall, Trump’s first-term Section 301 actions numbered around seven, with only about one year of active duties in the shortest cases. Higher-profile disputes often ended in deals, establishing patterns of negotiation over enforcement. China alone exemplifies sustained application, underscoring its role as a structural trade challenge.
