Perez, the USTR spokesperson, said the future of tariff exclusions related to bicycles would be “addressed in the coming days.”
Although US States rarely exert much influence over US foreign policy, I would hope that the cities and states offering ebike subsidies would make the argument that instituting the tariffs for ebikes would basically be a one-directional taxpayer fund transfer to the federal coffers, simultaneously undermining the purpose of the subsidies, while also not having anywhere near the desired effect toward foreign manufacturers.
Whereas the same doesn’t really apply to electric automobiles, as the feds have their own subsidy program for those, so the burden of tariffs is shared across states and the federal government.
To be clear, this isn’t a legal argument, and the authority of the US Trade Representative to impose tariffs on e bikes is undisputed. But rather, it’s a policy and pragmatic argument, since shifting money between subdivisions of the country does zilch for foreign trade relations.
Although US States rarely exert much influence over US foreign policy, I would hope that the cities and states offering ebike subsidies would make the argument that instituting the tariffs for ebikes would basically be a one-directional taxpayer fund transfer to the federal coffers, simultaneously undermining the purpose of the subsidies, while also not having anywhere near the desired effect toward foreign manufacturers.
Whereas the same doesn’t really apply to electric automobiles, as the feds have their own subsidy program for those, so the burden of tariffs is shared across states and the federal government.
To be clear, this isn’t a legal argument, and the authority of the US Trade Representative to impose tariffs on e bikes is undisputed. But rather, it’s a policy and pragmatic argument, since shifting money between subdivisions of the country does zilch for foreign trade relations.