On February 10, 2025, President Trump issued two proclamations—Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States and Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States—expanding Section 232 tariffs. The proclamations eliminated all country exemptions, ended product-specific exclusions, and revoked General Approved Exclusions (GAEs). Aluminum tariffs increased from 10% to 25%, and unidentified additional downstream steel and aluminum products would be subject to tariffs. However, the full scope of these expansions would remain unclear until annexes identifying subject derivative products are released.

On February 14, 2025, the White House released annexes identifying the derivative steel and aluminum products that will be subject to Section 232 tariffs of 25%, beginning as early as March 12, 2025, extending the existing Section 232 tariffs (which previously covered only primary steel and aluminum mill products), to now include a broad range of downstream manufactured goods—some of which are quite far removed from the raw materials at the heart of the Section 232 “national security” justification.

The lists of covered “derivative products” are extensive and may capture trade volumes equal to or greater than those affected by the original 2018 tariffs on steel and aluminum mill products. Importers now face a complex regulatory landscape, as the tariffs apply differently depending on product classification. Where a derivative article is classified outside of HTS Chapters 73 (steel) and 76 (aluminum), the 25% tariff is assessed only on the value of the steel or aluminum contained in the product, raising significant valuation and compliance challenges.

Scope of the New Tariffs

The derivative products list in the Steel Proclamation covers an expansive range of manufactured steel products classified in HTS Chapter 73, including:

• Structural steel products, such as sheet piling, bridges, bridge sections, towers, and prefabricated structures
• Fasteners and hardware, including tube and pipe fittings, nails, screws, nuts, and bolts
• Household and industrial steel items, such as cookware, sinks, stoves, and metal furniture
• Construction materials, including scaffolds, containers, pressure tanks, stranded wire, and cables
• Miscellaneous steel articles, such as sewing needles, springs, grinding balls and rods, and metal lamps

In addition to these 155 tariff lines in Chapter 73, a dozen additional products in HTS Chapters 84 and 94 will also be subject to tariffs based on their steel content. These include bulldozer blades, parts of escalators and elevators, backhoe and front-loader attachments, plows, steel shelving, modular steel building units, and brass lighting fixtures.

The derivative products list in the Aluminum Proclamation is equally expansive. While 18 of the affected tariff lines fall under Chapter 76, meaning the full value of these products will be subject to the 25% tariff, an additional 104 tariff lines across HTS Chapters 66, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 94, 95, and 96 will only be taxed on their aluminum content. Among the covered products are:

• Household and kitchen items, including cookware, tableware, nails, tacks, staples, and furniture brackets
• Industrial components, such as pneumatic cylinders, pumps, and motors
• Consumer goods, including skis, tennis rackets, roller skates, baseball bats, and archery equipment
• Electronic and mechanical parts, such as computer parts, machine brushes, semiconductor manufacturing machines, welding equipment, auto parts, and water heaters

Notably, derivative steel products from Turkey will be subject to a 50% tariff, rather than 25%, even though primary Turkish steel remains at 25%.

Valuation and Compliance Considerations

For products classified outside Chapters 73 and 76, importers must determine and document the steel or aluminum content to correctly assess the tariff. The White House’s notice directs importers to provide CBP with “any information necessary” to establish the metal content of covered goods. CBP has been “authorized and directed to publish regulations or guidance implementing this requirement as soon as practicable”, but until such guidance is issued, importers must develop methodologies for valuation.

A notable exception applies where an importer can demonstrate that a derivative article was made abroad with steel that was “melted and poured” in the U.S., or aluminum that was “smelted and cast” in the U.S.. In such cases, no tariff will be owed on the finished good. However, this places a significant burden of proof on importers, who must trace and document the raw material’s domestic origin.

Potential for Legal Challenge

The threshold question is whether these tariffs can be challenged. A previous legal challenge to Section 232 tariffs on derivative articles in PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, 59 F.4th 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2023), cert. den., 144 S. Ct. 345 (2023), was unsuccessful. In that case, the U.S. Court of International Trade initially ruled that the President exceeded statutory deadlines, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the timing restrictions applied only to initial tariff actions, not to subsequent modifications. The Federal Circuit found no procedural defect in the expansion of Section 232 tariffs to derivative products and upheld their legality.

However, the derivative products at issue in PrimeSource were almost entirely composed of steel or aluminum (e.g., nails and auto body stampings), and were not far removed from the original mill products targeted under Section 232. The new proclamations target derivative articles that are further downstream (e.g., stoves, tennis rackets, computer parts, machine components). This raises questions about the scope of Section 232’s “national security” justification, as these products bear little connection to the domestic steel and aluminum industries that the tariffs are purportedly designed to protect. Might a court find that these products are too attenuated from the raw materials at the heart of the Section 232 justification to fall within the President’s authority? Unlike the derivative products in PrimeSource—largely direct extensions of steel and aluminum mill products—many of the newly targeted goods incorporate steel or aluminum only as one of many components in a finished product. The further downstream a product is from its base metal inputs, the less direct the connection to the alleged national security risk that Section 232 is meant to address.

A court could scrutinize whether extending these tariffs to highly finished consumer and industrial goods represents a permissible modification of an existing Section 232 action or whether it constitutes an entirely new policy decision that should require a fresh national security investigation under 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b). If a new challenge were brought against these latest expansions, litigants could argue that items such as electronic components, consumer appliances, or sporting goods have no meaningful nexus to the domestic steel and aluminum production that Section 232 purports to safeguard.

At a minimum, this highly expansive tariff action raises the question of whether the President’s Section 232 authority has any meaningful limitations once an initial determination of national security risk is made. If downstream derivative products can be indefinitely added without a new investigation, it could signal the President has near-limitless discretion under Section 232—an outcome the courts should not endorse.

Next Steps for Importers

Although some of the President’s tariff proposals remain theoretical (such as the “reciprocal tariff” concept), the Section 232 framework has been in effect for over six years, and these new derivative tariffs are likely to take effect as scheduled. With March 12 fast approaching, importers should:

• Conduct an immediate review of the annexed tariff lists to determine whether their products are covered.
• Evaluate supply chain exposure, particularly for products classified outside Chapters 73 and 76, where steel/aluminum content valuation will be required.
• Gather origin documentation for U.S.-melted and -poured steel or U.S.-smelted and -cast aluminum to qualify for tariff exemptions.
• Monitor CBP guidance on compliance and valuation requirements.
• Assess potential mitigation strategies, such as supply chain restructuring, tariff engineering, or legal challenge opportunities.

We are closely monitoring developments and are prepared to discuss the new tariffs and potential strategies to mitigate their impact. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to a Neville Peterson professional.