The 1930s tariffs were designed to impose high tariffs on imports of manufactured goods and agricultural products, but low tariffs on imports of raw materials — a design that would reduce costs for U.S. factories, Mr. Gresser wrote in a blog post. Much of what Russia sends to the United States is energy products and other minerals.
For example, the US tariff on palladium, which is used in catalytic converters, would remain at 0 percent after the change, according to research by Mr Gresser. Tariffs on other major exports from Russia, such as king crab, uranium and urea, used in fertilizers, would also remain at 0 percent.
Rates would be slightly higher for other products such as raw aluminum alloys, birch-skin plywood, bullets and certain steel products.
Energy imports from Russia — which accounted for about 60 percent of what the United States imported from the country last year — would face slightly higher tariffs. But Biden announced this week that the United States would halt all shipments of Russian oil, gas and coal, a far more drastic measure.
Mr Gresser wrote that revoking Russia’s preferential trade status would impose some sanctions, “but not very significantly in most cases.”
“Nevertheless, it may be an appropriate symbolic and moral gesture, especially if many WTO members participate,” he wrote. “But as a policy measure specifically designed to impose economic costs, the energy import ban is the one with practical real-world impact.”
Russia or another country, such as China, can challenge the decision to strip Russia of its trading status by filing a case against the United States, the European Union or other countries with the World Trade Organization. But the International Trade Organization offers wide exemptions for actions taken to protect national security, and the United States and Europe could cite that reasoning in defense.
Reporting contributed by Catie Edmondson† Katie Rogers† Alan Rappeport and Liz alderman†
