U.S. Denies Safeguard Motive Behind Steel, Aluminium Tariffs in WTO Dispute with India

The United States has informed the World Trade Organization (WTO) that its steel and aluminium tariffs are justified on grounds of national security nor as a safeguard measure denying India’s allegation in a pending trade dispute.

India had officially requested consultations with the U.S. under the WTO’s Agreement on Safeguards on April 11, claiming that the duties introduced in 2018 operate as safeguard measures. India further asserted that the U.S. did not notify the WTO Committee on Safeguards, as is required under the agreement.

In a letter dated April 17, the U.S. contended that the tariffs were levied under Section 232 of its Trade Expansion Act, which permits action when imports are considered a national security threat. It held the position that the duties qualify under the security exceptions of GATT 1994 and not the WTO’s safeguards regime.

The President applied the tariffs on steel and aluminium under Section 232, under which it was found that tariffs are required to rebalance imports posing a threat to U.S. national security,” the U.S. stated in its communication to the WTO.

Washington maintained that the measures are not subject to the safeguards provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, which is generally employed for imposing safeguard measures based on injury to domestic industries.

“The United States is not keeping these measures under the safeguards/emergency action provision,” the note stated. “Hence, there is no reason to initiate consultations under the Agreement on Safeguards.”

Even as it dismissed India’s legal rationale, the U.S. indicated a willingness to talk. “We are still open to discussing this or anything else with India,” it stated.

The levies, initially 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium, were initially applied on March 23, 2018. In the new development, the U.S. revised the actions on February 10, 2025, to extend their application from March 12, 2025, without an expiration date.

The disagreement betrays growing frustration with how nations rationalize trade barriers whether as economic protectionist policies or national security requirements under WTO rules.