logo
Trump Must End Dodd-Frank's Backdoor Tariffs Blocking Critical Minerals & Impoverishing Congo

Trump Must End Dodd-Frank's Backdoor Tariffs Blocking Critical Minerals & Impoverishing Congo

Forbes19 hours ago
Amid controversies over tariffs and their effects, one particularly destructive barrier to trade has gone overlooked: restrictions on 'conflict minerals' that exacerbate poverty in the developing world, undermine U.S. access to rare earth metals and critical minerals, and hand a competitive edge to China in control of the global supply of these critical minerals.
Ironically, this trade barrier was not erected by President Donald Trump. It came from legislation hailed by many Democrats now critical of Trump tariffs. Nor did it come from legislation particularly geared to trade. Rather, this obstruction of trade was a last-minute insertion into the Dodd-Frank financial regulation overhaul signed by President Barack Obama 15 years ago in July 2010.
Dodd-Frank's Section 1502 targets the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which has recently been a focus of the Trump's administration's strategic plans to access rare earths and other critical minerals to ensure a steady supply not reliant on China. The DRC has one of the richest mineral supplies in the world but is plagued by violence from warlords and militias, including a July 27 attack on a Catholic church that left at least 49 worshipers dead.
The Trump administration's African diplomatic team has made headway in striking a deal with the nation in which the U.S. would provide security assistance to the DRC government in its fight against warlords in return for U.S. access to critical minerals within the country. But any such deal would likely be threatened by Section 1502, effectively a prohibitive backdoor tariff on many U.S. companies trying to access the DRC's resources.
This Dodd-Frank provision forces publicly traded companies in the U.S. to disclose if any of their products contain 'conflict minerals' mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and nine adjoining African nations. Under the law, firms listed on U.S. stock exchanges must audit their supply chains and disclose if their products contain even traces of four designated minerals—gold, tantalum, tin and tungsten—that might have been mined in areas controlled by warlords.
The provision was sold as a way to protect Congolese residents from warlords who profited from the mining and sale of these minerals, with little effect on U.S. consumers and producers. Yet the rule has ended up increasing poverty and violence in the DRC while depriving the U.S supply chain of access to critical minerals needed for everything from smartphones and laptops to medical equipment.
The big problem is that companies often face insurmountable difficulties when trying to trace the origins of tiny components of their products. As the Wall Street Journal reported, manufacturers spent about $709 million and more than six million man-hours attempting to trace their supply chains for conflict minerals in 2014. After all this expense, 90% of those companies still couldn't confirm their products were conflict-free.
As a result of these burdens in auditing the supply chain, many companies simply left the DRC and Congo region altogether and sourced materials elsewhere. As David Aronson, an acclaimed journalist who has written about the region for more than three decades, put it in testimony to Congress, 'the law imposed a de facto embargo on mineral production that impoverished the region's million or so artisanal miners.'
Among the lingering effects of the de facto embargo are reductions in education, health care, and food supply. These woes stem both from the sharp increase in unemployment of the region's miners and – as noted by Aronson in his testimony and in a New York Times op-ed he wrote -- the sharp reduction in mining company planes that also brought food and medicine to the region that occurred after U.S firms left. A study in the Journal of Law and Economics in 2016 found that the mandate from the Dodd-Frank provision increased infant mortality in the affected Congo regions by at least 143 percent.
And the warlord situation didn't improve and in fact may have worsened because of the Dodd-Frank provision. An October report to Congress from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found 'no empirical evidence that the rule has decreased the occurrence or level of violence in the eastern DRC, where many mines and armed groups are located.' The GAO also found that 'the rule was associated with a spread of violence, particularly around informal, small-scale gold mining sites, … since gold is more portable and less traceable than the other three minerals.'
The poverty and violence that soared due to Dodd-Frank's effects also gave China the perfect entry point into the Congo region. With limited options, the DRC government agreed to China's offers over the past 15 years of building infrastructure in return for granting China access to its minerals.
Now, as China has failed to deliver promised infrastructure improvements, the DRC is looking for a new deal with the U.S that will focus on boosted security and trade rather than aid. But any such deal will likely fail as long as Dodd-Frank's burdens on U.S. companies accessing the minerals continue. As the GAO notes, the rule's near-insurmountable burden – that 'many mines are located in remote, potentially insecure areas, and coordinating teams to visit and inspect them is difficult' – remains standing as a trade barrier.
Fortunately, the Dodd-Frank provision allows the president to waive its mandate for two years if he deems such a waiver to be in the interest of national security. President Trump, as part of his goal of U.S. resurgence, must make use of this waiver to reduce China's influence and increase U.S. access to the region's minerals. Then, he should call on Congress to end this trade barrier by repealing Dodd-Frank's Section 1502.
It's time for the president and Congress to remove this backdoor tariff from Dodd-Frank that puts China first and the U.S. and DRC last.
John Berlau is Senior Fellow & Director of Finance Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of the book George Washington, Entrepreneur: How Our Founding Father's Private Business Pursuits Changed America and the World.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New Poll Shows Top 2028 Presidential Candidates in Swing State
New Poll Shows Top 2028 Presidential Candidates in Swing State

Newsweek

timea few seconds ago

  • Newsweek

New Poll Shows Top 2028 Presidential Candidates in Swing State

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new poll by Emerson College Polling released on Friday shows potential 2028 Republican and Democratic presidential contenders picked by North Carolina primary voters. Why It Matters Early polls in crucial swing states like North Carolina have gained significance as potential contenders for the 2028 presidential election begin to emerge. Even with the election still a few years away, polling can offer insight into candidate viability, voter sentiment, and evolving party dynamics, particularly after the pivotal 2024 election cycle. North Carolina, often considered determinative in recent presidential contests, could offer a bellwether for national trends as both major parties consider their direction and platform for 2028. What To Know In the Emerson College survey conducted from July 28 to 30, of 1,000 North Carolina registered voters, Vice President JD Vance is leading the Republican nomination with 53 percent among likely Republican primary voters—well ahead of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with 7 percent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio with 5 percent. Vance jumped 7 points from a previous survey taken in June by Emerson. In the Democratic field, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was the top choice among likely primary voters at 17 percent, followed by former Vice President Kamala Harris at 12 percent and California Governor Gavin Newsom at 10 percent. The survey shows 24 percent are undecided. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, with separate credibility intervals for primary subgroups. Harris, meanwhile, announced this week that she is not running for California governor in the next cycle, fueling speculation she is considering another presidential run. In an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Thursday, the former vice president said she thinks the political system is "broken" and does not want to be in it right now. She added she would always "be part of the fight" though. Friday's poll also shows that 40 percent of the swing state voters say their family's finances are worse off than one year prior, 32 percent say they are about the same and 28 percent say they are better off now. Former Vice President Kamala Harris and then Vice President-elect, JD Vance can be seen departing the White House ahead of the Inauguration of then President-elect Donald Trump on January 20 in Washington, D.C. Former Vice President Kamala Harris and then Vice President-elect, JD Vance can be seen departing the White House ahead of the Inauguration of then President-elect Donald Trump on January 20 in Washington, D.C. Photo byWhat People Are Saying Political science professor at Columbia University Robert Y. Shapiro to Newsweek via email Friday: "The Democratic primary polling is much too early and all we are seeing is name recognition for past presidential candidates and ones in the news lately in a visible way. On the Republican side, DeSantis and Rubio are damaged goods as past losers in the past Republican primaries in 2016 and 2024. Vance is on the rise by virtue of being Vice President and visible when he echoes or advocates more strongly Trump's MAGA positions and what Trump—and he—have done. He has not been defeated in any past major election so untarnished in that respect." What Happens Next Major candidates are not expected to announce their 2028 campaigns until after the 2026 midterm elections, in keeping with recent electoral cycles. However, the field of likely contenders is potentially taking shape as politicians such as Buttigieg, Newsom, and others make public appearances and pursue national media opportunities. Vance's strong polling position places him at the forefront of Republican prospects.

Why Trump's newly announced tariffs aren't a done deal
Why Trump's newly announced tariffs aren't a done deal

Politico

timea few seconds ago

  • Politico

Why Trump's newly announced tariffs aren't a done deal

THE LAW ON LIBERATION DAY — On Thursday, Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs against U.S. trading partners that will go into effect next week. The announcement came on the same day that an appeals court grappled with the question of whether Trump's tariffs are even legal. Indeed, there is a strong argument that the tariffs are illegal and unconstitutional. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which on Thursday held oral argument on two major tariff challenges — one from a group of small businesses and the other from a coalition of twelve states led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield — seems like it may ultimately agree. Rayfield was pleased with how it went. 'If you were an outside observer watching the hearing and you had to pick a party to stay in the shoes of, I think you would prefer to be in the state's shoes after Thursday's hearing,' Rayfield said in an interview with POLITICO this afternoon. That seems to be the consensus among close observers. 'Federal appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned President Donald Trump's authority,' POLITICO's Kyle Cheney and Doug Palmer wrote. Reuters put it similarly, while the Associated Press reported that the judges 'expressed broad skepticism' toward the government's arguments. The New York Times' account said that Brett Shumate, the lawyer arguing for the government, 'at times faced an icy reception.' This is not that surprising if you have been following this legal saga closely. The Constitution explicitly gives the power to impose tariffs to Congress. Congress has passed several trade laws that provide the president with the power to impose tariffs in certain circumstances, but they do not grant the sweeping and unreviewable power that the Trump administration has claimed — and indeed requires in order to support Trump's tariffs as a legal matter. Meanwhile, the statute that has actually been invoked by the Trump administration — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — has never been used to impose tariffs over the course of the nearly half-century that it has been on the books, and it makes no mention of tariffs in the text. It was in fact passed to limit the president's emergency economic powers. On top of that, the key case cited by the government in its favor does not actually support their position (usually a bad thing). Thus far, two lower courts have ruled against the administration on this issue — a unanimous three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal district court judge in Washington, D.C. Both rulings have been stayed pending appeal. Thursday's argument concerned the first of those rulings and was conducted in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. If the government loses in the Federal Circuit, it is still possible that the Supreme Court's conservative justices could agree to hear the case and ultimately rule in Trump's favor. On the merits, that outcome would be hard to square with the conservative majority's stated commitment to textualism as a mode of statutory interpretation, as well as the major questions doctrine that was developed in recent years by the conservative justices, who used it in 2023 to strike down much of the Biden administration's student-loan forgiveness effort. In the student-loan forgiveness case, the conservative justices relied crucially on the fact that the program was estimated to cost taxpayers roughly $500 billion, according to a budget model from the University of Pennsylvania. They concluded that this warranted a particularly rigorous and stringent mode of statutory interpretation. The estimated cost to taxpayers in that case pales in comparison to the estimated cost for Americans resulting from Trump's tariffs, according to a model at Yale University. That model currently estimates that Trump's latest tariff framework will result in an average per household income loss of $2,400 this year alone, that it will result in a 0.5 percentage loss in real GDP this year and next year, and that the economy will lose nearly half a million jobs by the end of 2025. None of this has stopped the administration from plowing forward. At this point, the administration may be hoping for a victory at the Supreme Court (assuming they lose at the Federal Circuit) or, perhaps, simply planning to do as much as they can to advance their tariff policy before a day comes when it is definitively thrown out by the courts. They have already been aided in this regard by the Supreme Court, intentionally or otherwise. In mid-June, the two businesses that prevailed in federal district court in Washington asked the Supreme Court to short-circuit the appeals process and take the case up immediately for review. 'In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process (even on an expedited timeline),' the companies' lawyers wrote. The companies' request was far from crazy, particularly given the fact that the conservative justices have moved quickly in a variety of major court challenges to the Trump administration's actions since Trump's inauguration. Three days later, however, the Supreme Court denied their request, with no explanation. Perhaps not coincidentally, those expedited rulings have favored the Trump administration, while in the case of Trump's tariffs, a critical mass of conservative justices may ultimately be compelled to rule against Trump — if, that is, they actually adhere to the interpretive and constitutional principles that they claim to follow. In the meantime — and as the administration has been struggling in the courts to defend its policy — the Trump administration is evidently moving forward undeterred. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at akhardori@ What'd I Miss? — Trump demands firing of BLS chief after soft jobs report: President Donald Trump called for the ouster of the head of the Labor Department's statistical arm this afternoon after the latest monthly jobs report came in well under expectations. 'I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY,' Trump wrote in a social media post. 'She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.' Trump reprised prior accusations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics under Commissioner Erika McEntarfer surreptitiously put out overly rosy jobs numbers at the tail end of the Biden administration that were subsequently revised in order to influence the election. Economists have roundly dismissed these claims as a misunderstanding of the agency's revision processes. — Huckabee, Witkoff visit US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation amid global outcry: Senior U.S. officials visited a distribution center for the American-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation today, pledging to report back to President Donald Trump about the foundation's operations and devise a plan to address starvation in the strip amid growing global outcry over the humanitarian crisis. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and special envoy Steve Witkoff made a rare trip to Gaza today amid heightened pressure — including from within MAGA circles — to reconsider the administration's support for Israel's war on Hamas and intervene in Gaza's hunger crisis. — Corporation for Public Broadcasting shutting down: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced today it was shutting down its operations after President Donald Trump rescinded funding for the nonprofit, which it used to support public radio and TV stations around the country. The CPB — which was established by Congress decades ago as an independent nonprofit — said it will begin 'an orderly wind-down' after Trump signed a measure last month to claw back $1.1 billion in grants appropriated to CPB over the next two fiscal years. — Ghislaine Maxwell transferred to less restrictive prison after DOJ meeting: Days after sitting down with one of the highest-ranking members of the Justice Department, Ghislaine Maxwell has been transferred to a less restrictive minimum security federal prison camp in Texas, her attorney said. Maxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus said today she had been moved to Federal Prison Camp Bryan, a facility for female inmates in Southeast Texas. He declined further comment. Until this week, Maxwell, the onetime girlfriend of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, had been serving a 20-year sentence for her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking crimes in Florida, at FCI Tallahassee, a low-security prison. — Trump, escalating war of words with Russia's Medvedev, mobilizes two nuclear submarines: President Donald Trump said today he mobilized two nuclear submarines 'to be positioned in the appropriate regions' in response to threatening comments by Russia's former president Dmitry Medvedev. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was taking that action 'just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Medvedev on Thursday referenced Russia's nuclear capabilities amid an escalating battle on social media sparked by Trump's latest efforts to increase economic pressure on the Kremlin in hopes of reviving diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine. AROUND THE WORLD RAISING THE BAR — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni reacted with fury today as the EU's top court raised the threshold for member countries to reject asylum-seekers. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said EU nations may only create national lists of safe countries outside the bloc if they fully justify their assessments with public sources. According to the court, a country can only be considered 'safe' for repatriation if 'the entire population' is protected across all regions. Meloni called the court's decision 'surprising' and a power grab by EU judges. 'Once again, the judiciary, this time at the European level, claims spaces that do not belong to it, in the face of responsibilities that are political,' she said. SLOVENIA STEPS OUT— Slovenia became the first EU country to ban all weapons trade with Israel, citing the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The government also prohibited the transit of weapons to or from Israel through Slovenia, the administration in Ljubljana said in a statement Thursday. Slovenia said that it decided to act independently from the EU, as 'due to internal disagreements and disunity,' the bloc is unable to take action against Israel. Though the European Commission proposed partially suspending Israel's association agreement with the EU this week, member countries have yet to agree on it. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP WEEKEND WARRIORS — Under the threat of Chinese invasion, more and more Taiwanese civilians are signing up for civil defense classes. US intelligence predicts that China will be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027 as China builds up its aircrafts and warships. Armed with airsoft guns that fire plastic pellets, men and women train on the weekends in converted garages and empty warehouses to prepare a civil resilience. Beyond armed defense, officials and private organizations have amped up drills for attacks on critical infrastructure and cyberattacks. Yian Lee reports on the 'soft militarization' of Taiwanese civilians for Bloomberg. Parting Image Jacqueline Munis contributed to this newsletter. Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.

Trade War Turmoil, Rising Unemployment Send Markets Diving
Trade War Turmoil, Rising Unemployment Send Markets Diving

Bloomberg

timea few seconds ago

  • Bloomberg

Trade War Turmoil, Rising Unemployment Send Markets Diving

For anyone who was around on 'Liberation Day' in April, market reaction to US President Donald Trump's overnight tariff fusillade —replete with new levies, new targets and new delays —was predictable. But it wasn't just Trump's latest spray of trade threats that sent markets diving to their lowest point in months. As Trump's initial 90-day self-imposed delay of 'reciprocal' tariffs comes to an end, and in the aftermath of gross domestic product data showing the economy slowing, there was fresh bad news for the president on Friday. Grim employment numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) appeared to hammer another nail into the coffin of what had been a few years of record US employment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store