Since the President’s IEEPA tariffs were struck down, the Trump administration has been busy exploring new ways to impose tariffs. In response to the Section 301 investigations brought against 60 nations, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative USTR put out a request for comment, which prompted U.S.-based businesses and professional associations to weigh in on unfair trade practices and non-reciprocal trade arrangements implemented by foreign trading partners.
While the sentiments against new import tariffs varied, the one thing these businesses agree upon is that diversifying out of China—on the administration’s urging—hasn’t proven a safe tariff haven, either. Further, tariffs don’t solve the problem of finding local manufacturing, labor skills and/or input resources to replace those overseas. Those that can source from home are, unsurprisingly, broadly for tariffs to stem the flood of cheap foreign alternatives.
The divide both for and against tariffs underscores how varied U.S. businesses are, and how there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Meanwhile the comments, which come from individuals representing a broad swath of industries, illustrate commonalities in working with trading partners, importing goods and defending their businesses against competitors.
While some comments argue that any excess capacity in foreign manufacturing is often due to increased American demand from suppliers, others say that any influx of lower-priced merchandise is an existential threat to their business.
Here, some excerpts from manufacturers and importers to this invitation:
Please address the acts, policies, and practices of [the country in question] in creating or maintaining structural excess capacity or production in specific manufacturing sectors, including whether such acts, policies, and practices are unreasonable or discriminatory; whether they burden or restrict U.S. commerce (and the nature and extent of any such burden or restriction); and whether they are actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act, including any recommended tariff or non-tariff actions.
Sarah Wells Bags, a 14-year-old small business based in Fairfax, Virginia, now manufactures its breast pump bags and accessories in Cambodia “because the U.S. government made it clear that American businesses should reduce reliance on China.” Trump’s Section 301 tariffs in 2018 (25% on China) combined with the IEEPA tariffs that followed, are in part what drove the eponymous owner to Cambodia, “one of the few countries with available production capacity” for her product category.
While the Federal Register notice cites Cambodia’s garment, footwear and travel goods sector and bilateral trade surplus of approximately $1 billion with the U.S. as evidence of structural excess capacity, Wells asks the Committee to consider what is actually driving that growth. “Cambodia’s manufacturing sector expanded because international buyers, including American small businesses like mine, chose to produce there. That is demand-responsive growth, not state-engineered overproduction built in excess of market demand,” she said.
“Cambodia is a least-developed country whose GFT [garment, footwear, travelgoods] sector has grown because it filled a real need for businesses that were actively seeking manufacturing alternatives after the U.S. government’s own Section 301 findings identified China as an unfair trade partner. Economic development in a developing economy that is responding to real international demand is a far cry from the kind of systemic, market-distorting industrial overcapacity this investigation is designed to address.”
CINOA, the organization representing 5,000 art and antique dealers from 32 associations in 22 countries argues antiques, historical artworks, collectors’ pieces, and other cultural goods are unique, one-of-a-kind objects that foreign countries can’t flood the U.S. market with newly manufactured items.
“Often created decades or centuries ago, they cannot be ‘manufactured’ in the present day,” Erika Bochereau, secretary general of CINOA, said. “Even more recent artworks are inherently non-fungible, and no country can generate a surplus of identical cultural goods. Consequently, the sale or export of these items does not relate to the manufacturing sectors referenced in the investigation, and the concept of structural excess capacity or overproduction is not applicable to the art market.”
An importer of food ingredients from China argued that many food ingredients imported from China are not produced in commercially viable quantities in the United States. “As a result, China’s production capacity serves to fill a structural supply gap rather than displace domestic production. Reductions in China’s capacity would not lead to increased U.S. production in the near to medium term, but instead would create supply shortages and significant price volatility for U.S. importers and downstream industries and ultimately consumers. Accordingly, China’s role in the organic food ingredients sector reflects global demand dynamics and supply chain specialization rather than the creation of excess capacity that distorts U.S. markets.”
True Places, a manufacturer of outdoor chairs and products argues that Cambodia’s manufacturing sector does not burden or restrict U.S. commerce, it enables it. “My ability to do all other business functions in the US and source products from Asia is what enabled me to start and grow my American business,” said co-founder Ben Knepler. “Cambodia is what keeps my American business running. That means U.S. jobs on my team. It means warehousing and fulfillment operations in Pennsylvania and Nevada. It means sales to American consumers through my own store. It means significant revenue for our U.S. marketing partners.”
When tariffs spiked on True Places imports, the damage wasn’t to Cambodian commerce, as the factory “has plenty of demand from all over the world, even with True stopping production.” It was to American commerce.
“I have laid off American employees, completely scaled back our business, and paused product development. I have scaled back the community giving and raised our prices on U.S. consumers. None of that was caused by Cambodia. It was caused by tariff costs I had to pay before my products ever reached an American customer. If additional tariffs are imposed on Cambodian goods, they will not create American jobs at scale in my product category, because that manufacturing capacity does not exist here. It will likely close our business. If we are able to survive, raise costs on American businesses and American families and restrict the commerce that currently flows through U.S. supply chains.”
The American wine industry has been in favor of tariffs, pushing back hard against “cheap wine dumping” from Argentina, Chile, Australia, Italy, Spain and France. Rodney Schatz, a third-generation wine grower in Lodi, California, said the demand decline for California wine grapes was so great that many growers had been forced to leave acreage unharvested or abandoned entirely. While acknowledging the inherent risks to farming, he blamed the “influx of cheap, imported bulk wine” as a main issue, and is seeking relief from these “hostile import practices” so that domestic farmers can survive.
Additionally, he cited the misuse of the “American” appellation as one of the most significant issues facing farmers. “While intended to allow for blending across state lines, this designation is currently being used to blend up to 25% foreign wine with domestic product. This allows bulk wines with no clear identity to be presented as premium offerings, misleading consumers and undermining the value of California-grown grapes.”
The Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation took issue with inexpensive crawfish flooding the U.S. market mainly from China, but also from Spain, Egypt and Vietnam. Chinese crawfish imports to the United States have steadily climbed over the last few decades along with documented rapid expansion of their production in country. From 2019 through 2024, average landed duty‑paid (LDP) value of imported crawfish fell from $5.64/lb (2013–2018) to $3.02/lb (2019–2024). These prices are economically incompatible with U.S. production costs. Meanwhile, domestic crawfish tail meat production costs exceed $9.00 per pound, even under conservative assumptions.
“Imports of frozen whole‑boiled crawfish, a product category that did not meaningfully exist prior to 2022, have increased rapidly and now represent over 37% of U.S. crawfish imports, further threatening domestic processing channels,” said Richard B. Fontenot, president of the Federation. “By continuing to dump crawfish tail meat and whole frozen crawfish into the U.S. market, Chinese product is prohibiting further expansion and growth for domestic crawfish production and processing. Technological advancements both in the private sector and research and development sectors are unfeasible for U.S. investment with continued domestic market erosion prohibiting crawfish processing and production from operating at full capacity in the present. These factors are coupled with labor challenges for U.S. crawfish suppliers due unstable seasonality of the live crawfish market driving revenues.”
