What’s Old Is New: The Trump Administration Weighs a Section 232 Redux on Crude Oil Imports

May 15, 2020

Reading Time : 2 min

Over the past several months, softening demand and declining prices have wreaked havoc on domestic crude oil producers. Members of Congress and industry participants have pleaded with the Trump administration for relief, including from import competition.

Recent reports indicate that the Trump administration may decide to utilize Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to investigate whether crude oil imports threaten to impair the national security. Although it has invoked Section 232 far more than its predecessors, a decision by the Trump administration to investigate crude oil imports under Section 232 would align with steps taken by previous administrations.

I. Section 232

Section 232 authorizes the President to take action to address imports of articles that threaten to impair the national security. Prior to any presidential action, the U.S. Department of Commerce will investigate the effects of such imports on the national security. In so doing, Commerce will consult with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and appropriate officers of the United States, as well as hold a hearing. The DOD will also provide Commerce with an assessment of the defense requirements of the article subject to investigation. Within 270 days of initiating the investigation, Commerce must submit a report to the President disclosing whether such imports threaten to impair the national security and recommending action.

Within 90 days of receiving the report, the President must decide whether he concurs with Commerce’s finding and “determine the nature and duration” of any action to eliminate any threat to the national security. Upon making a decision, the President has “no later than” 15 days to implement the action. The President may take a broad range of actions to address the imports, including the negotiation of a trade agreement that limits or restricts imports of the article at issue.

II. Previous Investigations

Since its enactment in 1962, the current administration and its predecessors have initiated a total of 33 investigations pursuant to Section 232, two of which remain ongoing. These investigations have addressed a broad range of products, from watches to antifriction bearings, from automobiles to mobile cranes. Previous administrations have investigated petroleum and crude oil imports on eight separate occasions, most recently in 1999. Each of these investigations resulted in a finding that such imports threaten to impair the national security, though not every affirmative finding has resulted in the imposition of a trade restriction. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, Presidents Nixon, Carter and Reagan imposed various embargos and fees on the imports. But in the late 1980s and 1990s, Presidents Reagan and Clinton declined to impose any remedy.

III. What’s Next?

Since assuming office in 2017, the Trump administration has initiated seven investigations pursuant to Section 232, more than 20 percent of all such investigations initiated to date. Moreover, each of these investigations has concluded that imports of the articles at issue threaten to impair the national security. Bolstered by past practice, it stands to reason that an investigation of crude oil imports pursuant to Section 232 may pique the Trump administration’s interest, particularly as the COVID-19 outbreak and industry woes have resulted in double economic blows to domestic crude oil producers, their employees, and the communities across the United States that rely on them.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

August 07, 2024

*Thank you to JaKell Larson, 2024 Akin Summer Associate, for her valuable collaboration on this article.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 31, 2024

Interstate oil, liquid and refined products pipelines regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will soon be able to raise their transportation rates (provided they were set using FERC’s popular Index rate methodology) in the wake of a significant new decision by the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC (LEPA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce held a Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security hearing to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request. Members of the Subcommittee had the opportunity to hear testimony from all five Commissioners, including FERC Chairman Willie Phillips and Commissioner Mark Christie, as well as the three recently confirmed commissioners, David Rosner, Lindsay See and Judy Chang. In addition to their prepared remarks, the five commissioners answered questions on FERC’s mandate to provide affordable and reliable electricity and natural gas services nationwide, while also ensuring it fulfills its primary mission of maintaining just and reasonable rates.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On July 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) erred in ordering refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) region that exceeded the $1,000/megawatt-hour (MWh) “soft” price cap for such sales.1 Finding FERC failed to conduct a “Mobile-Sierra public-interest analysis” before “altering” those contracts by ordering refunds, the court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings.2

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2024

On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency interpretations of federal statutes in certain circumstances, even when the reviewing court would read the statute differently. The Court ended “Chevron deference” and held that courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” In doing so, the Court upended a longstanding principle of administrative law that is likely to make agency decisions more susceptible to challenge in the courts.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 3, 2024

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin and ICF’s recently presented “Powering Progress: Decoding FERC Order No. 1920” webinar, along with the program materials.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partner Ben Reiter at Infocast's Transmission & Interconnection Summit, where he will moderate the “Dealing with the Impacts of Increased Interconnection Request Requirements and Costs” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 4, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partners Hayden Harms and Vanessa Wilson at Infocast's RNG & SAF Capital Markets Summit, where Hayden will moderate the "Investor Perspectives: Private Equity, Infrastructure Funds, & Strategies" panel, and Vanessa will moderate the "Opportunities in Other Biogas/Fuels Markets" panel.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.