Lewis Leibowitz on Section 232, investment-for-access deals and a WTO that can’t bite: interview

Fastmarkets01-29

Fastmarkets spoke with Washington-based trade attorney Lewis Leibowitz in early December about Section 232 tariffs and whether their recent use in trade negotiations could expose the statute to legal ...

Source Link

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Comments

We need your insight to fill this gap

Leave a comment

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"isChannel":false,"data":{"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2607818080?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2026-01-29 13:00","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"2607818080","market":"hk","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Lewis Leibowitz on Section 232, investment-for-access deals and a WTO that can’t bite: interview","media":"Fastmarkets","content":"<div>\n<p>Fastmarkets spoke with Washington-based trade attorney Lewis Leibowitz in early December about Section 232 tariffs and whether their recent use in trade negotiations could expose the statute to legal ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fastmarkets.com/insights/lewis-leibowitz-section-232-investment-for-access-deals-wto-interview/\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"fastmarkets_highlight","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Lewis Leibowitz on Section 232, investment-for-access deals and a WTO that can’t bite: interview</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nLewis Leibowitz on Section 232, investment-for-access deals and a WTO that can’t bite: interview\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2026-01-29 13:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fastmarkets.com/insights/lewis-leibowitz-section-232-investment-for-access-deals-wto-interview/><strong>Fastmarkets</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Fastmarkets spoke with Washington-based trade attorney Lewis Leibowitz in early December about Section 232 tariffs and whether their recent use in trade negotiations could expose the statute to legal ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fastmarkets.com/insights/lewis-leibowitz-section-232-investment-for-access-deals-wto-interview/\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"BK4539","symbol_name":"次新股","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.fastmarkets.com/insights/lewis-leibowitz-section-232-investment-for-access-deals-wto-interview/","article_id":"2607818080","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":{"source":"fastmarkets_highlight","url":"https://www.fastmarkets.com/insights/lewis-leibowitz-section-232-investment-for-access-deals-wto-interview/","rn_cache_url":null,"directOrigin":true},"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2607818080","pubTimestamp":1769662800,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"fastmarkets_highlight","name":"Fastmarkets"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Explore the insights from Lewis Leibowitz on Section 232 tariffs and their potential legal implications for trade negotiations.","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"fastmarkets.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"BK4539":"次新股","BK4145":"电子制造服务","WTO":"联代科技"},"translate_title":"刘易斯·莱博维茨(Lewis Leibowitz)谈第232条、投资换准入协议和无法咬人的世贸组织：采访","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"WTO":1.5},"content_text":"Fastmarkets spoke with Washington-based trade attorney Lewis Leibowitz in early December about Section 232 tariffs and whether their recent use in trade negotiations could expose the statute to legal challenges.\nFor example, on November 24, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick told a media outlet that if the EU resolved its outstanding legal cases against Amazon.com, Microsoft and Alphabet Inc’s Google, the US would “come up with a cool steel and aluminium deal.”\nThat same month, the administration agreed to ease Section 232 tariffs on certain South Korean products after the country committed to investing $350 billion in strategic US industries.\nIf investment deals and cross-industry concessions become more common, the legal boundaries of Section 232 may be tested. Fastmarkets asked Leibowitz whether these changes could mean for the statute moving forward.\n\nWatch the full interview \n\n\nCould the shift in the application of Section 232 tariffs, and in some cases, using them as a bargaining chip with other nations, expose the statute to legal challenges on the basis that it is no longer serving its original national security purpose?\nIt could. think the court’s historic reluctance to second guess the president in terms of what national security is, [is going to be] the break on that. [Even the] judiciary has points of no return. If the national security language is being abused, judges can say [the administration] can’t [have it both ways.] I think we’re pretty close to that line in many cases.\nThe idea of putting the steel industry [tariffs] on the chopping block in exchange for concessions by other countries in other industries and markets, could lead the steel industry to go in and say [the administration] cannot do that economically. They need certainty. They keep talking about that. And how can you be certain about anything if the tariffs on steel are put on the bargaining table in exchange for unrelated industries? It’s at least being talked about.\nCould linking tariff relief to international investment deals in the US cause problems under international trade rules? Could countries potentially challenge this approach at the World Trade Organization [WTO]?\nWell, they could. And there could be some dispute settlement cases under [the United States, Mexico, Canada trade agreement] as a result of these bargaining decisions.\nOn the WTO front, though, the WTO literally doesn’t work anymore. There are no negotiations. There’s no dispute settlement because the appellate body has been rendered inoperable by Trump in his first term.\n[Context note: In December 2019 the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism, was effectively crippled when the Trump administration refused to approve new Appellate Body judges. Without enough members to form a quorum, appeals stalled, leaving trade disputes unresolved and stripping the WTO of its ability to enforce rules.]I don’t think the Trump administration is particularly worried about countries going to the WTO. They may go to the WTO, and they may win their cases at the panel stage, which is the first stage of a WTO dispute settlement. But at the second stage, there’s nothing happening. The appellate body can’t consider cases because there’s no members of the appellate body that are currently authorized to make decisions. So, I don’t think the Trump administration is particularly worried about that.\nWhat we have now is the OK Corral. It’s the law of the jungle, kind of like we had in the 1930s. Look how that worked out.\nResponses have been lightly edited for clarity and length.","kind":"highlight","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":false,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":0,"need_auth":false,"code":"91000000","status":"200"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false},"APP":{"userAgent":"Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)","isDev":false,"isTTM":true,"tenantId":"TBGLOBAL","deviceId":"web-server-community-laohu8-v3","version":"4.36.2","shortVersion":"4.36.2","platform":"web","vendor":"web","appName":"ttm","isIOS":false,"isAndroid":false,"isTiger":false,"isTHS":false,"isWeiXin":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"isWeiBo":false,"isQQ":false,"isBaiduSwan":false,"isBaiduBox":false,"isDingTalk":false,"isToutiao":false,"isOnePlus":false,"isHuaWei":false,"isXiaomi":false,"isXiaomiWebView":false,"isOppo":false,"isVivo":false,"isSamsung":false,"isMobile":false},"href":"/m/news/2607818080","isCrawlerRequest":true}