Foreign media reports that the Trump administration recently included deforestation in the Amazon rainforest of Brazil in its trade investigation and used this as a basis to advance a new round of tariffs. The article points out that this does not signify a shift in the White House's stance on climate issues, but rather an attempt by the US to find new legal grounds to exert pressure on foreign trade after existing tariff tools have failed.

Section 301 investigation includes deforestation allegations

The Office of the United States Trade Representative announced this month that it is launching investigations into the trade practices of several countries under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and imposing new tariffs on dozens of major trading partners. Brazil is subject to an additional 12.5% import tax, based on six practices including preferential tariffs, barriers to the ethanol market, and illegal deforestation.

The article mentions that Brazil owns approximately 60% of the Amazon rainforest. The US claims that illegal logging and deforestation activities are often accompanied by unfair labor practices, leading to lower costs for related products and thus impacting competition. The US Trade Representative's office, in its investigation, alleged that Brazil failed to enforce its environmental laws, but the documents did not directly focus on climate change.

Tariff tools face substitution pressure

The article argues that the background to this round of Section 301 action is that the US Supreme Court rejected the tariff measures originally implemented by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Subsequently, the government used Section 122 to introduce temporary tariffs for a maximum of 150 days with a maximum tariff rate of 15%, but these measures will expire on July 24.

In this context, Section 301 is seen as a more likely path to retain tariffs in the long term. Marc Busch, a professor of government at Georgetown University, told Fortune that the Trump administration's options are dwindling, making it all the more crucial to justify new tariffs.

The article questions the true objective.

Busch argues that including deforestation in the Section 301 investigation of Brazil is more like packaging various accusations to justify higher tariffs, rather than reflecting the true priorities of the United States regarding environmental issues. The article also mentions that Trump had previously imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil due to the legal proceedings against former President Bolsonaro, already straining trade relations between the two countries.

He further pointed out that another contradiction lies in the fact that the United States has consistently opposed the EU's Zero Deforestation Regulation. This regulation requires companies to prove that commodities such as soybeans and timber do not originate from deforestation land. The United States and several countries, including Brazil, have previously criticized this type of certification as difficult to measure and costly to audit.

The article argues that the US's current pressure on Brazil over illegal deforestation is essentially a similar tactic to its past criticisms. The core issue isn't whether Trump has changed his stance on climate change, but whether the White House is using environmental and labor issues to find new leverage for its existing hardline trade policies.