Trump's Tariffs Create Uncertainty in European Steel Market
Via Metal Miner
European bodies recently criticized U.S. President Donald Trump's order to introduce tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports entering the country. Meanwhile, experts at home and abroad continue to evaluate how the trade dispute will affect steel prices and aluminum prices.
The European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, recently vowed that it would respond swiftly to Trump's February 10 order to impose a 25% import tariff on steel and 10% on aluminum, regardless of the point of origin. If you're worried about changing steel prices and aluminum prices as a result of tariffs, MetalMiner's weekly newsletter covers weekly metal price updates with weekly market insights and macroeconomics news.
'Unjustified tariffs on the EU will not go unanswered—they will trigger firm and proportionate countermeasures,' EC President Ursula von der Leyen said in a February 11 statement.
'The EU will act to safeguard its economic interests. We will protect our workers, businesses and consumers,' von der Leyen added. The statement did not indicate what reciprocal actions the EC would undertake. The tariffs are due to take effect from March 12 and presently do not allow for exemptions on points of origin. Trump initially announced plans to introduce the tariffs on February 9 while on board Air Force One.
Brussels-based European Steel Association, commonly known as Eurofer, also criticized the tariffs. A February 11 statement quoted the organization's president, Dr. Henrik Adam, as saying, 'If all product exemptions and tariff rate quotas are now removed, the EU could lose up to 3.7 million metric tons of steel exports to the United States.'
He added that 'The U.S. is the second biggest export market for EU steel producers, representing 16% of the total EU steel exports in 2024. Losing a significant part of these exports cannot be compensated by EU exports to other markets,'
A February 10 report by Politico stated that around 3.8 million metric tons of steel and aluminum entered the United States from the bloc in 2023, making the EU the country's third-largest importer. The cited data came from the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, which has its headquarters in New York.
On February 6, Eurofer representatives warned that growing economic uncertainty within Europe will continue to weigh on the steel market for the rest of 2025 and will likely stretch into 2026. At the time, the organization stated that the expected recovery in apparent steel consumption for 2025 had been downgraded to 2.2% from 3.8%, whilst end-user sectors' recession had fallen to 0.9% from 1.6%.
In December 2021, the EU finalized an agreement with the U.S. Government on tariff rate quotas regarding steel imports from the bloc. The deal exempted them from the 25% tariffs on steel imports introduced by the first Trump administration (2017-2021) in 2018.
The new tariffs also cancel any concession towards Ukraine, which has used its rolling works in Bulgaria and Italy to roll long steels and flat steels using semi-finished Ukrainian material.
A Presidential Proclamation issued by the White House stated that 'Rather than supporting the Ukrainian steel industry and alleviating the economic harm caused by the ongoing conflict, the benefits of this temporary exemption have accrued primarily to producers in EU member countries, which have significantly increased duty-free exports to the U.S. market of steel articles processed from Ukrainian semi-finished steel.'
It continued to say that 'Since 2021, imports from Ukraine have remained steady at 0.5% of total U.S. imports, while imports from the European Union have increased 11.2% to 14.8%. This has facilitated evasion of both the Section 232 measures and of anti-dumping duties that would be paid if the finished products were imported directly from Ukraine.'
One trader told MetalMiner that the planned tariffs are creating uncertainty in the European steel market, at least for now. For example, mills in Europe and Asia have started to back away from doing any transactions to the United States. This is not only due to fear of the upcoming tariffs, but also of retrograde tariffs. 'You cannot take measures against that. These are dangerous times,' the trader said.
Meanwhile, prices for hot rolled coil on the domestic market have started to rise with the expectation that mills will cut back production to hedge against increased supply. The trader stated that mills were 'kind of reluctant' to push up their production due to fears of financial impacts.
The effect on steel prices is starting to show. Offers for the flat rolled product currently stand at €650 ($650) per metric ton EXW for May delivery, up from the €630-635 ($660-665) seen in late January. Benchmark 62% FE iron ore prices also reached a high of $106.77 per metric ton CFR Qingdao on February 13.
According to data from the website Trading Economics, this represents an increase of 8.15% from the $98.72 recorded on January 13. That price is also up 16.59% from $91.57 reported on September 18.
One European market participant took a wait-and-see approach with regard to the new tariffs. He pointed to the U.S. imposing 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico on February 1. These were set to come into force on February 4, but Trump later agreed to a 30-day pause as the two neighboring states undertook steps to appease U.S. concerns about border security and narcotics trafficking.
'Everybody's worrying about the after-effects. Let's first see if it materializes before panicking,' the market participant said about the planned tariffs.
Other sources note that even if the tariffs do come into effect, the United States will likely need to import steel, as mills in the country do not have the capacity to cope with demand. Data from the World Steel Association stated that the United States poured about 81.4 million metric tons of crude steel in 2023 against an apparent consumption of about 93 million metric tons.
Sources also told MetalMiner that many end users in the country are continuing to seek steel from abroad, including in Europe. The primary reason is that they want higher quality materials that may not be available from domestic producers. This, more than anything, has the potential to impact steel prices.
By Christopher Rivituso
More Top Reads From Oilprice.comRead this article on OilPrice.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
18 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Strike set back Iran's nuclear program by only a few months, US report says
WASHINGTON — A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of Iran's nuclear sites sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings, according to officials familiar with the findings. The early findings conclude that the strikes over the weekend set back Iran's nuclear program by only a few months, the officials said. Before the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had said that if Iran tried to rush to making a bomb, it would take about three months. After the U.S. bombing run and days of attacks by the Israeli air force, the report by the Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that the program was delayed less than six months. Former officials said that any rushed effort by Iran to get a bomb would be to develop a relatively small and crude device. A miniaturized warhead would be far more difficult to produce, and it is not clear how much damage to that more advanced research has taken place. The findings suggest that President Donald Trump's statement that Iran's nuclear facilities were obliterated was overstated, at least based on the initial damage assessment. Congress had been set to be briefed on the strike Tuesday, and lawmakers were expected to ask about the findings of the assessment, but the session was postponed. Senators are now set be briefed Thursday. The report also said much of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strikes, which destroyed little of the nuclear material. Some of that may have been moved to secret nuclear sites maintained by Iran. Some Israeli officials said they also believe that Iran has maintained small covert enrichment facilities that were built so the Iranian government could continue its nuclear program in the event of an attack on the larger facilities. Officials cautioned that the five-page classified report is only an initial assessment, and others will follow as more information is collected and as Iran examines the three sites at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. One official said that the reports people in the administration had been shown were 'mixed' but that more assessments were yet to be done. But the Defense Intelligence Agency report indicates that the sites were not damaged as much as some administration officials had hoped and that Iran retains control of almost all of its nuclear material, meaning if it decides to make a nuclear weapon it might still be able to do so relatively quickly. Officials interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because the findings of the report remain classified. The White House took issue with the assessment. Karoline Leavitt, a White House spokesperson, said it was 'flat-out wrong.' 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program,' she said in a statement. 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.' Elements of the intelligence report were reported earlier by CNN. The strikes badly damaged the electrical system at Fordo, which is housed deep inside a mountain to shield it from attacks, officials said. It is not clear how long it will take Iran to gain access to the underground buildings and then repair the electrical systems and reinstall equipment that was moved. Initial Israeli damage assessments have also raised questions of the effectiveness of the strikes. Israeli defense officials said they have also collected evidence that the underground facilities at Fordo were not destroyed. Before the strike, the U.S. military gave officials a range of possibilities for how much the attack could set back the Iranian program. Those ranged from a few months on the low end to years on the higher end. Some officials cautioned that such estimates are imprecise and that it is impossible to know how long Iran would exactly take to rebuild, if it chose to do so. Trump has declared that B-2 bombing raids and Navy Tomahawk missile strikes 'obliterated' the three Iranian nuclear sites, an assertion that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth repeated at a Pentagon news conference Sunday. But Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been more careful in describing the attack's effects. 'This operation was designed to severely degrade Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure,' Caine said at the Sunday news conference. The final battle damage assessment for the military operation against Iran, Caine said Sunday, standing next to Hegseth, was still to come. He said the initial assessment showed that all three of the Iranian nuclear sites that were struck 'sustained severe damage and destruction.' At a Senate hearing Monday, Democrats also struck a more cautionary note in challenging Trump's assessment. 'We still await final battle damage assessments,' said Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Military officials had said that to do more significant damage to the underground sites, they would have to be hit with multiple strikes. But Trump announced he would stop the strikes after approving the first wave. U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded before the strikes that Iran had not made the decision to make a nuclear weapon but possessed enough enriched uranium that if it decided to make a bomb, it could do so relatively quickly. While intelligence officials had predicted that a strike on Fordo or other nuclear facilities by the United States could prompt Iran to make a bomb, U.S. officials said they do not know yet if Iran would do so. Representatives of the Defense Intelligence Agency did not respond to requests for comment. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Why Trump's trade war will last way longer than his Iran war
President Trump had a unique advantage when he ordered the June 21 US strikes against Iranian nuclear targets: giant "bunker buster" bombs able to penetrate deeper than any weapon short of a nuke. That allowed Trump to declare victory after a few bombing runs that barely lasted a day. In Trump's other conflict — the trade standoff with dozens of trading partners — there is no such decisive weapon. Trump pretends there is, claiming that other nations will suffer grievous harm if he raises tariffs on the goods they import to the US. But in these battles, Trump is often bluffing, and his adversaries know it. Trump's willingness to attack Iran provides lessons on how he handles risk and negotiates in challenging situations. It may also dispel a myth or two about how he's prosecuting the trade war. For one thing, Trump doesn't always "chicken out." The so-called TACO trade — "Trump Always Chickens Out" — became memey in May after a Financial Times columnist observed that Trump often postpones or backs down from tariff threats. But that isn't completely true. Trump has imposed new tariffs on imports from most countries, raising the average import tax from 2.5% before he took office to about 15%. American importers are paying those taxes, and they'll be the first to tell you that, alas, Trump hasn't chickened out. Trump certainly could have chickened out when it came to Iran, especially given that several of his White House predecessors declined to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, choosing diplomacy and negotiation instead. That was Trump's approach too, until Israel opened the door to a US strike with a week of bombing that accomplished much of the job of degrading Iran's nuclear program. Even then, Trump took a considerable risk in dropping bombs on Iran, given that it could seek revenge through attacks on Americans or efforts to disrupt oil flows and cause an energy shock. What Trump demonstrated in attacking Iran is that when he has a strong hand, he plays it. Strategist Eliot Cohen of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies said Trump has a "feral instinct for human weakness ... when his enemy is lying prostrate in front of him, he's perfectly happy to kick him in the head."That was the Trump who bombed Iran. Its air defense system was shredded, its leader hiding in a bunker. Trump took a risk other presidents haven't taken because he felt the odds of success were strongly in his favor — and he might have been right. In Trump's trade war, however, most adversaries aren't nearly as vulnerable. Trump has no magic weapon, and victory is elusive. This will likely become apparent once again as a July 9 deadline approaches for dozens of countries to make trade deals with Trump or risk his "reciprocal" tariffs. The trade war was never going to end in a day, or a month, or even a year. Trump announced draconian tariffs on April 2 but postponed them a week later after an ugly market sell-off. That was Trump showing weakness, rather than the other way around, because his tariffs amounted to friendly fire, causing unintended damage at home. Markets have yo-yoed as Trump's tariffs go on, then come off, triggering alternating bouts of despair and euphoria. But markets are generally adjusting to a tariff regime that might not be so bad because Trump doesn't have the leverage to strike a decisive and lasting blow, as he did with Iran. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances Torsten Sløk, chief economist at private equity firm Apollo (Yahoo's parent company), recently mused that Trump may have "outsmarted everyone on tariffs." He suggested that as the July 9 deadline approaches, Trump may extend his trade deal deadline by as much as a year, giving markets time to adjust while the US pulls in something like $400 billion in tariff revenue, which would be nearly a fivefold increase over 2024 levels. The bigger surprise for markets, in fact, would be if Trump attempted some kind of shock-and-awe tariff blast around the July 9 deadline, rather than simply setting a new deadline. "The widely held assumption (which we share) appears to be that even if deals with trade partners do not materialize in the next two weeks (which is unlikely), the pause will simply be extended," Capital Economics explained in a June 24 analysis. "Market turmoil on the scale of those sparked by the original tariffs back in April looks improbable, if only because market participants would probably assume that any sell-off would lead to another u-turn." Trump's deliberations with China, as one example, suggest the whole ordeal could end up a quagmire rather than a decisive victory for one side or the other. In April, Trump hit Chinese imports with tariffs as high as 145%, which basically halted all inbound shipments. Trump lowered that to 30% in May. Some analysts described that development as a "truce" in the trade war and said it damaged Trump's credibility as a negotiator because he failed to act on a threat. Read more: How to protect your money during turmoil, stock market volatility Trump hasn't explained exactly what he wants from China, which could be part of a strategy that allows him to declare victory at any time and only then explain what his demands are, once he knows what he can get China to agree to. Yet China is making even that difficult. In response to Trump's tariffs, one Chinese move has been to impose new limits on exports of rare-earth magnets, a market China dominates, with about 90% of the world's supply. US companies that need those magnets for automobiles, fighter jets, medical equipment, electronics, and many other things are now running into shortages, in some cases threatening the shutdown of domestic assembly lines. As Trump sniffs out weakness in an adversary, he also recognizes strength. He must recognize that his promise of revitalizing US manufacturing will never pan out if American firms can't even get key components. China may not have all the leverage, but it certainly has some. This puts Trump in the position of bluffing, and the more he bluffs, the less serious he seems. That's why investors are fairly confident Trump's July 9 deadline will merely morph into another deadline, and maybe another one after that. The S&P 500 stock index has broadly recovered from the April sell-off, and it's close to topping the all-time high set in February. That's an indication investors don't think Trump's tariffs will harm corporate profits or stock values. There's no bunker buster in a trade war, and markets are grateful for that. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Dems aim to curb Trump's use of military in Iran but GOP expects to kill bills
The votes spotlight a dispute between Congress holding the power to declare war while the president is the commander in chief of the military who can order bombings without legislative support. WASHINGTON – The Senate could vote as early as June 26 to curb President Donald Trump's use of military force in Iran, despite the fragile cease-fire and the expectation of Republican congressional leaders that the proposals will be defeated. The measure from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, is one of at least three pending in Congress amid a dispute between the legislative and executive branches about who holds the keys to a U.S. attack on another country. Trump argues as commander in chief of the armed forces he had the discretion to bomb Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. But lawmakers note the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Votes on the measures in the Senate and House also carry political implications amid fears of Iranian retaliation, as numerous lawmakers weigh campaigns for president in 2028. Here is what we know about the war-powers debate: What will the Senate be voting on? Kaine introduced his resolution days before Trump ordered the bombing against Iran on June 21. Kaine had sponsored a similar measure during Trump's first term that was approved by Congress but vetoed by Trump. 'I happen to believe that the United States engaging in a war against Iran – a third war in the Middle East since 2001 – would be a catastrophic blunder for this country,' Kaine said on the Senate floor June 17. Under Senate rules, the measure has an expedited path to a floor vote by June 27. Because senators are expected to be debating Trump's tax and policy legislative package at the end of the week, the vote could come sooner. More: Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is shrinking in the Senate: What to know Kaine said June 24 that the vote could come June 26 or 27, after Trump administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio provide lawmakers a classified briefing on the bombing. The Senate debate comes amid a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Iran, which Trump criticized both countries for violating. 'I think they both violated it,' Trump told reporters at the White House on June 24 before leaving for a NATO meeting in the Netherlands. 'I'm not sure they did it intentionally. They couldn't rein people back.' What is the War Powers Act? The Constitution gives Congress the power 'to declare war.' In addition, lawmakers approved the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during the Vietnam War to require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. The law also limited the deployment of armed forces to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, in the absence of a formal declaration of war. But Trump and his allies note he is the commander in chief of the military and that swift, decisive military action is sometimes needed. "There is only one Commander in Chief, and thank God it's President Trump," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina and a former military lawyer, said on social media June 22. "To all those claiming he acted outside his authority, you are dead wrong." House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, noted the last declaration of war was for World War II in 1941, but there have been 125 military operations since then, including in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Then-President Joe Biden ordered strikes on Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and then-President Barack Obama ordered an eight-month bombing campaign against Libya, Johnson said. Johnson, a constitutional attorney before launching his politics career, called the war-powers statute unconstitutional and a relic with reporting requirements to Congress no longer necessary because of 24-hour news cycles and social media. 'The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within Trump's Article II powers as commander in chief," Johnson said. "It shouldn't even be in dispute." Critics have questioned what was so urgent that required the strike June 21. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said Johnson was wrong and the law is constitutional. 'There is a legal obligation for the administration to inform Congress about precisely what is happening," Schumer told reporters June 24. Some Republicans who have supported Trump opposed bombing Iran Several Republicans who have supported Trump on other issues parted ways with him over bombing Iran. Two of the critics are Kentucky Republicans: Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie. "There was no imminent threat to the United States," Massie said. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said she spent millions campaigning with Trump in 2024 but considered the attack a betrayal of his pledges to avoid foreign wars or try to change foreign governments. More: 'Bait and switch': Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticizes Trump's Iran strike 'It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!' Greene said June 23 on social media. 'Contrary to brainwashed Democrat boomers think and protest about, Trump is not a king, MAGA is not a cult, and I can and DO have my own opinion." House votes expected later Two proposals are pending in the House. Massie introduced one with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California. And the top Democrats of three committees – Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut on Intelligence, Gregory Meeks of New York on Foreign Affairs and Adam Smith of Washington on Armed Services – introduced another. "President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval, without meaningful consultation or Congressional authorization," the lawmakers said in a joint statement June 23. War-powers resolutions used to be designated for a House floor vote within 48 hours. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, said a GOP change in House rules at the start of the Congress to hold such votes after 15 legislative days meant the vote might not happen for weeks. 'The question is what was the imminent threat to the United States of America,' Jeffries told reporters June 24. 'The question is what justified this particular action and was it even successful.' Johnson told reporters June 24 he didn't have the power to stop a privileged resolution. But he said he spoke with Massie, who agreed the resolution may not be needed if the cease-fire holds. 'We may not have to act upon that," Johnson said. "I hope we don't because it would be a terrible look and it will not pass the House because it's inappropriate and it's not a proper use of the law anyway." Polls show concerns about Iran conflict broadening Uncertainty about how the conflict with Iran will play out carries potential political risks for lawmakers considering presidential campaigns in 2028. 'For most Democratic politicians, a vote in favor of the president's position involves significant risk and little benefit,' said John Pitney Jr., a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College. 'Whatever happens in Iran, any support for Trump will alienate core Democratic voters. That's especially true if things go badly.' 'There's a flip side to that coin,' Pitney added. 'Republican lawmakers know that any departure from the president's position will anger the White House.' Americans were anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on June 23. Nearly four out of five Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early June 23 before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East. In 2002, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001, some Democratic senators such as Hillary Clinton supported the congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq. But the lingering conflict became one of the political differences in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Obama, who wasn't yet serving in Congress for the Iraq vote but spoke out against the war, won the party's nomination en route to two terms in the White House.
