Do it. Very in line with the McKinley obsession too.

www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-at...

Well 232 steel/aluminium supposed to be about domestic production capacity so….

But, in terms of trade strategy, I remain resolute that the tariffing authority is just one part of the story. Indeed, the authority to negotiate these ecosec agreements may inevitably be far more consequential, as are policies on immigration and climate. So, jokes aside, trees/forest and all that.)

Currently, the use of IEEPA to establish never-ending emergencies has formed the basis for any number of frameworks and even economic security agreements, whereby poor economies have committed to alignment on pliable objectives without any potential oversight or control.

(p.s. I don't deny the potential impact the USSC's assessment of US security exceptionalism will have on domestic and foreign policy. Certainly, the world must watch whether there is scope to determine whether any matter can fall to the unchecked, unreviewed instincts of the executive powers.

... with principal supply countries, allocating import quotas taking into account special factors which affect trade, imposing security-justified restrictions and prohibitions for specific strategic sectors, and initiating investigations for potential discriminations against U.S. commerce.

So, when I hear arguments about how the Supreme Court will somehow upend or change the U.S. tariff strategy, I say this: think about Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Regardless of whatever limits the USSC sets, nothing changes the fact that the US can reset its bound concessions by negotiating ...