What’s Old Is New: The Trump Administration Weighs a Section 232 Redux on Crude Oil Imports

May 15, 2020

Reading Time : 2 min

Over the past several months, softening demand and declining prices have wreaked havoc on domestic crude oil producers. Members of Congress and industry participants have pleaded with the Trump administration for relief, including from import competition.

Recent reports indicate that the Trump administration may decide to utilize Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to investigate whether crude oil imports threaten to impair the national security. Although it has invoked Section 232 far more than its predecessors, a decision by the Trump administration to investigate crude oil imports under Section 232 would align with steps taken by previous administrations.

I. Section 232

Section 232 authorizes the President to take action to address imports of articles that threaten to impair the national security. Prior to any presidential action, the U.S. Department of Commerce will investigate the effects of such imports on the national security. In so doing, Commerce will consult with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and appropriate officers of the United States, as well as hold a hearing. The DOD will also provide Commerce with an assessment of the defense requirements of the article subject to investigation. Within 270 days of initiating the investigation, Commerce must submit a report to the President disclosing whether such imports threaten to impair the national security and recommending action.

Within 90 days of receiving the report, the President must decide whether he concurs with Commerce’s finding and “determine the nature and duration” of any action to eliminate any threat to the national security. Upon making a decision, the President has “no later than” 15 days to implement the action. The President may take a broad range of actions to address the imports, including the negotiation of a trade agreement that limits or restricts imports of the article at issue.

II. Previous Investigations

Since its enactment in 1962, the current administration and its predecessors have initiated a total of 33 investigations pursuant to Section 232, two of which remain ongoing. These investigations have addressed a broad range of products, from watches to antifriction bearings, from automobiles to mobile cranes. Previous administrations have investigated petroleum and crude oil imports on eight separate occasions, most recently in 1999. Each of these investigations resulted in a finding that such imports threaten to impair the national security, though not every affirmative finding has resulted in the imposition of a trade restriction. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, Presidents Nixon, Carter and Reagan imposed various embargos and fees on the imports. But in the late 1980s and 1990s, Presidents Reagan and Clinton declined to impose any remedy.

III. What’s Next?

Since assuming office in 2017, the Trump administration has initiated seven investigations pursuant to Section 232, more than 20 percent of all such investigations initiated to date. Moreover, each of these investigations has concluded that imports of the articles at issue threaten to impair the national security. Bolstered by past practice, it stands to reason that an investigation of crude oil imports pursuant to Section 232 may pique the Trump administration’s interest, particularly as the COVID-19 outbreak and industry woes have resulted in double economic blows to domestic crude oil producers, their employees, and the communities across the United States that rely on them.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.