Cortez Masto urges no energy tariffs
- Senator Catherine Cortez Masto pressed USTR Jamieson Greer on April 29 not to slap new tariffs on oil and gas imports from allied countries. - Her warning zeroed in on Section 301 probes that could hit suppliers like Norway, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and Canada as fuel costs climb. - The fight matters because Trump’s broader tariff strategy is shifting toward Section 301 after earlier blanket tariffs were struck down.
Energy tariffs are the kind of policy idea that sounds abstract until it shows up on a gas station sign. That is basically the point of Catherine Cortez Masto’s new warning. On April 29, she told U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer not to put new tariffs on oil and gas imports from allied and partner countries, arguing that the administration is flirting with a direct hit to fuel prices at exactly the wrong moment. The immediate trigger is a new set of Section 301 trade investigations that could become the legal path for fresh tariffs after earlier blanket tariffs were knocked out in court. (cortezmasto.senate.gov) ### What did she actually do? She sent a letter to Greer asking the administration to back away from language in the current Section 301 investigation that could treat imported oil products from friendly countries as unfair trade. Her argument is simple — if the U.S. taxes fuel imports from allies, Americans still pay more, even if the policy is dressed up as trade enforcement. (cortezmasto.senate.gov) ### Why are oil and gas even in this? Because the administration’s March 2026 Section 301 investigations are unusually broad. They target “structural excess capacity” in manufacturing across 16 economies, and the Federal Register notice set hearings for late April into early M(cortezmasto.senate.gov)ine. (federalregister.gov) ### Which countries is she worried about? She names some very specific ones. Norway, Japan, and South Korea are described as major U.S. liquefied natural gas trading partners and allies. Her letter also points to Norway and Malaysia as examples in the Federa(federalregister.gov) are countries the U.S. already leans on. (cortezmasto.senate.gov) ### Why now? Because fuel prices were already under pressure. In a separate March 16 statement, Cortez Masto and other senators said oil had risen above $110 a barrel and gas prices had jumped 16% after the start of the Iran conflict tied to Trump’s military strikes and disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz. Her new message is basically: if prices are already running hot, don’t add a tariff on top. (cortezmasto.senate.gov) ### Is this just a Nevada political message? Partly, sure — Nevada drivers feel gas spikes fast. But the argument is broader than that. Her letter says Americans are already paying billions more per week for fuel and cites a Joint Economic Committee estimate that the average family paid nearly $1,200 in tariff costs in 2025. She is trying to frame energy tariffs not as a trade lever but as an inflation tax. (cortezmasto.senate.gov) ### Why does Section 301 matter so much? Because it is becoming the administration’s fallback tool. The Senate release says these new investigations are being used to replace blanket tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court. So this is not just a one-off fight over oil. It is part of a bigger contest over whether the White House can rebuild a tariff regime through a narrower, more legally durable channel. (cortezmasto.senate.gov) ### What is the real stakes question? Whether the administration treats allied energy imports as strategic supply or as tariffable leverage. If it chooses the second path, the catch is that the cost does not stay at the border. It moves through refiners, distributors, and then(cortezmasto.senate.gov)ld not punish rivals first — it would punish drivers first. (cortezmasto.senate.gov)
