The Trade Guys Podcast: Export Controls, Section 232 Tariffs, and the Commerce Budget – A Deep Dive with Kate Coren

Episode Date: April 13, 2026
Host(s): Scott Miller and Bill Reinsch
Guest: Kate Coren, Deputy Director, CSIS Economics Program; Former Acting Director, Office of Technology Evaluation, BIS, U.S. Department of Commerce
Theme: The episode centers around new developments in U.S. export controls, specifically the MATCH and STRIDE Acts for multilateral alignment, recent Section 232 tariffs, and President Trump's budget request for the Commerce Department.

1. Overview of the Episode

This episode brings trade experts Scott Miller and Bill Reinsch together with Kate Coren, leveraging her recent experience at the Bureau of Industry and Security to demystify:

• Legislative efforts to align U.S. export controls with allies (MATCH and STRIDE Acts)
• New Section 232 national security tariffs on metals and pharmaceuticals
• The context and implications of President Trump's budget for the Commerce Department

They dive into the mechanics, business impacts, policy rationale, and political realities driving these issues, with an eye toward how each might reverberate through the global trading system and U.S. domestic priorities.

2. Key Discussion Points & Insights

A. Export Control Alignment – The MATCH and STRIDE Acts

(00:46–15:52)

MATCH Act (Making Advanced Technology Controls Harmonized):

• Purpose: Address unlevel playing field for U.S. vs. allied companies (especially in semiconductor manufacturing equipment) and close gaps for both sales and servicing to Chinese entity-listed fabs.
  • Problem 1: U.S. firms are strictly banned from providing any equipment to certain Chinese fabs, while allies (mainly the Netherlands and Japan) can sell less sensitive or legacy gear.
  • Problem 2: U.S. firms can't service equipment in blacklisted fabs, whereas allies can—a competitive and national security issue.
    • “US firms can’t provide servicing to existing equipment inside entity listed fabs, but ally firms, mainly Netherlands and Japan, can and do.” – Kate Coren [04:11]
    • Servicing represents a significant revenue stream, e.g., $1 billion for ASML (Netherlands).

Challenges with Multilateral Cooperation:

• Difficulty harmonizing controls due to different legal frameworks and heavy business interests (e.g., ASML’s 33% sales to China in 2025).
  • “There are different legislative frameworks and authorities...and there’s also large business interests.” – Kate [06:33]
• Incremental achievements since 2022, but large gaps remain.
• MATCH Act is highly prescriptive: first seeks voluntary ally cooperation, but threatens to assert extraterritorial controls if alignment isn’t achieved.

Technical Terms:

• DUV (Deep Ultraviolet Immersion Lithography): A generation below EUV, still highly advanced and primarily from non-U.S. firms (ASML, Japan).
  • “EUV...is the most advanced...only ASML makes...DUV is a step down, but still highly sophisticated.” – Kate [08:46–09:20]

Feasibility & Risks:

• Is it viable to extend controls over DUV? China has already stockpiled a lot of DUV equipment, including domestically-made variations.
• Risks: Strained U.S.-ally relations, guaranteed Chinese retaliation, and incentives for allies to engineer out U.S. content to avoid jurisdiction.
  • “You’re paying a fairly high cost... strong retaliation from China if this were to go into effect...designing out US technology...would be extremely complex and expensive.” – Kate [10:19–12:33]

B. Legislation Quality & Policy Strategy

(12:33–15:52)

• Early congressional product with ambitious press releases but few details—current draft is “about 16 pages long.”
  • “It has a great name and a wonderful press release and a somewhat disappointing draft bill...” – Scott [12:33]
• Kate suggests using threat of expanded controls as bargaining leverage (“we’ll drop that if you align”), rather than leading with confrontation.

C. Bilateral and Systemic Risks

(15:52–18:54)

• Skepticism over success: Formerly permitted exports are difficult to claw back, and extra-territorial measures risk accelerating China’s self-reliance and retaliation.
• U.S. and China are “converging” on policies encouraging technological autarky.
  • “We are trying to prevent them from getting our stuff, and they are trying to pressure their companies not to use our stuff...” – Bill [16:12]
• Chinese tit-for-tat: especially cutting off critical minerals, a vulnerability as alternative supply chains are years away.

D. Section 232 Tariffs: Metals & Pharmaceuticals

(18:54–29:10)

Metals: Steel, Aluminum, Copper

• New rule: Any imported product where covered metals make up >15% of weight faces a flat 25% tariff on the full value.

  • Designed to simplify compliance, but effect on U.S. manufacturing is ambiguous.
  • “If your metal content is under 15%...there’s no steel tariff...If it’s more than 15%,...you’re just going to pay a flat 25%.” – Bill [20:20]

• Biggest change: “Downstream” tariffs now affect parts/components (e.g., auto parts), not just raw metals.

  • Raises costs for manufacturers (esp. autos), aims to encourage reshoring but with limited evidence of success.
  • “So what we have done is make making cars more expensive. ...the point of it is to persuade companies to reshore and do their manufacturing here.” – Bill [23:23]

• Ironic moment: Trump’s own ballroom reportedly using imported steel.

  • “Apparently Trump’s Ballroom is going to be using foreign steel.” – Bill [23:42]

Pharmaceuticals

• Section 232 tariffs introduce 100% duties on drugs made abroad unless producers establish U.S. facilities or enter bilateral/MFN agreements.
  • Attempt to reduce reliance on foreign (esp. Chinese) pharma and lower prices; exceptions dilute impact.
  • “There’s 100% tariff on imported drugs made by companies that refuse to have U.S. production or refuse to commit to U.S. production.” – Scott [25:46]
• Contradicts goal to lower drug prices; domestic production likely to be costlier.
  • “If you commit to building a factory here, you get a deal...the unknown is is that going to raise or lower drug prices.” – Bill [27:34]

E. Commerce Department Budget and BIS

(29:10–34:06)

• President Trump’s budget proposes a 10% cut in non-defense discretionary spending—but a $250 million (91%) boost to BIS (Bureau of Industry and Security).
  • Money slated for more enforcement agents and Section 232 investigations.
  • “[BIS] would get $250 million plus up, which is really a huge amount for a tiny, chronically underfunded agency.” – Kate [32:26]
• Worry: Enforcement and investigation get attention, but insufficient boost in analytic/research support could undermine effectiveness.

3. Memorable Quotes & Key Moments

• “US firms can’t provide servicing to existing equipment inside entity listed fabs, but ally firms, mainly Netherlands and Japan, can and do.” – Kate Coren [04:11]
• “Controlling services is an important element of any kind of a control program because...the machines eventually will...break down.” – Bill Reinsch [05:29]
• “There are different legislative frameworks and authorities...and there’s also large business interests.” – Kate [06:33]
• “You’re paying a fairly high cost... strong retaliation from China if this were to go into effect.” – Kate [10:19]
• “So what we have done is make making cars more expensive. ...the point of it is to persuade companies to reshore and do their manufacturing here.” – Bill [23:23]
• “Apparently Trump’s Ballroom is going to be using foreign steel.” – Bill [23:42]
• “It’s an axiom: You mess with the market and there are unintended downstream consequences every single time.” – Bill [25:34]
• “The [Commerce] Department is the Department of Miscellaneous...everything you didn’t know where to put, you put it at the Commerce Department.” – Bill [30:06]

4. Timestamps for Key Segments

• Export Controls – MATCH/STRIDE Acts: 00:46–15:52
• Congressional Strategy & Legislative Drafting: 12:33–15:52
• Bilateral Cooperation, Chinese Retaliation: 16:12–18:54
• Section 232 Tariffs: Metals & Pharma: 18:54–29:10
• Commerce Department Budget, BIS Funding: 29:10–34:06

5. Tone, Style, and Usefulness

Scott and Bill mix deep policy expertise with accessible, sometimes wry Washington insight ("talking out of both sides of your mouth is a basic employment skill"), guiding listeners through complex trade mechanics without jargon overload. Kate Coren provides an insider’s breakdown, cautious optimism, and practical policy advice. The episode is ideal for both seasoned trade watchers and newcomers who want authoritative, plainspoken context for ongoing U.S.–China trade, industrial policy, and regulatory maneuvering.

For more detail or episodes, visit csis.org/podcasts.