Commerce Seeks Comments in Section 232 Investigations on Critical Minerals, Trucks

Late yesterday, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) released pre-publication copies of notices requesting public comment in two recently initiated investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232). The first investigation concerns processed critical minerals and derivative products, pursuant to an Executive Order issued by the President last week that now appears to have a narrower focus than originally indicated. The second investigation addresses medium- and heavy-duty trucks for the transport of goods, as well as their parts and derivative products.

Each investigation was formally initiated on April 22, 2025, and comments in each investigation are due by May 16, 2025.

Processed Critical Minerals & Derivatives

In an April 15, 2025, Executive Order, the President directed Commerce to undertake a Section 232 investigation into processed critical minerals and derivative products. Commerce’s notice defines subject materials consistent with that Executive Order, but appears to narrow the scope of covered Derivative Products:

• “Critical Minerals” are those included in the S. Geological Survey’s 2022 list, and encompasses “any subsequent such list.” Uranium is also separately included.
• “Rare Earth Elements” are characterized as a “subset of critical minerals” for purposes of this investigation and encompass elements identified by the S. Department of Energy’s 2020 list. As in the Executive Order, Commerce states that it will include “any additional elements that either USGS or DOE determines in any subsequent official report or publication.”
• “Processed Critical Minerals” (PCM) are defined in terms identical to the Executive Order, e., critical minerals that “have undergone the activities that occur after critical mineral ore is extracted from a mine up through its conversion into a metal, metal powder, or a master alloy.”
• “Derivative Products” continues to include “all goods that incorporate processed critical minerals as inputs.” However, a materially narrower list of examples is provided, , “semi-finished goods (e.g., anodes and cathodes) as well as final products (e.g., motors, batteries, radar systems, wind turbines and their components, and advanced optical devices).”

Importantly, the following products named in the Executive Order as examples of Derivative Products are absent from the definition in Commerce’s notice: “semiconductor wafers,” “permanent magnets,” “electric vehicles,” smartphones,” and “microprocessors.” As Cassidy Levy Kent observed at the time, these now-omitted products had appeared to overlap with preexisting Section 232 workstreams.

Whereas the Executive Order set out tailored topics for inquiry beyond what is specified in the statute, Commerce’s notice identifies these same topics as those on which it is “especially” interested in receiving comment:

1. Identify U.S. imports of all PCM and derivative products incorporating such PCM, and break out the dollar value of such imports by country of export;
2. Identify foreign PCM and derivative product import sources by percent and volume, the specific types of risks associated with each source by country, and which source countries are “of significant risk”;
3. Analyze distortions caused by predatory economic, pricing, and market manipulation practices used by countries that process critical minerals exported to the U.S., including the effects on domestic investment and the viability of U.S. production, and assess how such strategies and practices permit such countries to maintain their control over the critical minerals processing sector and distort U.S. market prices for derivative products;
4. Analyze derivative product manufacturers’ PCM demand, in the United States and globally, including the extent to which such manufacturers’ PCM originate from countries identified under #2 and #3;
5. Assess risks in global PCM and derivative product supply chains;
6. Current and potential capabilities of the United States to process critical minerals and derivatives.

This distinguishes the focus of the PCM and derivatives comment exercise somewhat from other recent Section 232 inquiries, although it remains worth considering whether to propose how any ultimate remedy might be structured, particularly with respect to derivative products.

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks, Parts, and Derivatives

Commerce’s Section 232 investigation into trucks was self-initiated, rather than having been directed by an Executive Order. It covers imports of medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, and medium- and heavy-duty truck parts, and their derivatives. The covered trucks are defined as “motor vehicles for the transport of goods” with a gross vehicle weight over 10,000 pounds. This gross vehicle weight cutoff suggests that this Section 232 investigation is not intended to overlap with other existing U.S. duties on imports of light trucks. Covered truck parts are “the individual components and systems of medium- and heavy-duty trucks, including engines and engine parts, transmissions and powertrain parts, and electrical components.” A definition of “derivative” is not provided.

The topics identified for public comment here are materially the same as those identified in recent Section 232 investigations into semiconductors and pharmaceutical products:

1. Current and projected U.S. demand;
2. S. production capacity and the feasibility of increasing U.S. capacity;
3. The role of foreign supply chains, particularly of major exporters, in meeting U.S. demand;
4. The concentration of U.S. imports from a small number of suppliers and the associated risks;
5. The impact of foreign government subsidies and predatory trade practices on U.S. medium- and heavy-duty truck industry competitiveness;
6. The economic impact of suppressed prices due to unfair foreign trade practices and state-sponsored overproduction;
7. The potential for export restrictions by foreign nations, including the ability of foreign nations to weaponize their control over medium- and heavy-duty trucks and parts; and
8. The impact of current trade policies on domestic production, and whether additional measures, including tariffs or quotas, are necessary to protect national security.

What Comes Next

The statute provides Commerce 270 days to conclude each of these investigations and transmit a report to the President — but Commerce may move faster in one or both investigations should it wish to do so.

Thereafter, the President has up to 90 days to determine whether imported products subject to each investigation threaten to impair U.S. national security and determine a response, as well as a further 15 days to implement any such actions. Again, however, the President may determine to move more quickly.

As for what remedy may ultimately result, Section 232 actions under the second Trump Administration have thus far resulted in 25% tariffs for on steel and steel derivative products, aluminum and aluminum derivative products, and automobiles and automobile parts. There is no guarantee that the new investigations will have comparable outcomes.

Preparing Your Supply Chains

Cassidy Levy Kent’s attorneys, economists, compliance experts, and licensed customs brokers are ready to help companies sort through the latest changes and develop strategic responses. Cassidy Levy Kent has extensive experience counseling clients to plan compliant supply chains that manage tariff risks, and we routinely assist with preparing and filing comments for consideration in Section 232 investigations. Our team’s deep familiarity with trade law and policy enables clients to adapt and stay ahead of the curve.