USTR Greer stated that costs from tariffs seldom reach consumers and expressed scepticism towards economists’ predictions regarding tariff inflation, noting there was no inflation during Trump’s first term.
He asserted that Wall Street analysts often misjudge job losses, suggesting they resist any changes to the existing system.
Potential Ban On Uranium Imports
The Commerce Department is contemplating the necessity of a section 232 critical minerals investigation and is open to discussions about a potential ban on uranium imports from China.
Greer’s remarks provide a direct challenge to the widely held view that tariffs inevitably push up prices for end-users. His reference to the previous administration’s trade actions implies that cost pressures often expected by economists did not emerge in ways predicted during that period. By highlighting this absence of broad inflationary impact, he’s pointing to what he sees as resilience in the domestic pricing chain — namely, that businesses did not pass these charges down the line as aggressively as once feared.
On employment, Greer’s tone pivots. He asserts that some financial analysts overstate downside labour risks, perhaps to safeguard status quo arrangements that benefit established sectors tied into outdated flows of trade and supply. In this framing, fear-based predictions around job cuts could be more rooted in protecting entrenched business models than in the actual outputs of new policy.
Rhetoric And Market Positioning
Turning to the Department’s current review, the possibility of invoking Section 232 on critical minerals speaks volumes about the direction of upcoming trade enforcement. That this type of probe is under consideration at all suggests the administration is willing to use national security-based tools to scrutinise the sourcing of raw materials. It’s not a tool used lightly, and the minerals in question — key to everything from defence to tech manufacturing — are vital for long-term strategic autonomy.
Moreover, their readiness to discuss restrictions on uranium tied to Chinese exporters brings nuclear fuel supply chains into direct view. Unlike prior discussions focused on technology or semiconductors, this is about the base inputs of a power source underpinning civilian energy and military infrastructure.
For those of us assessing positions in the short-term contracts or broader options space, it’s not about fresh tariffs right now. It’s about what signals are being sent through rhetoric and review. If Washington begins elevating security-linked material sourcing above global price efficiency, we must ask where cost differentials might start to widen — especially around high-input sectors and manufacturers whose production models depend on uninterrupted material inflows.
There’s also likely to be a ripple in futures markets connected to industrial metals, particularly those with tight supply chains or limited non-Chinese processing capacity. Price support could emerge from even the threat of disruption.
We should monitor volatility over the next several sessions, particularly in commodities with exposure to Sino–US exchange routes. Near-term positions may need adjusting to account for asymmetric information flows — not everybody reacts when hearings begin, but many move once a policy stance hardens. Timeframes matter.
It also matters that we pay attention to how pricing models have behaved under earlier trade barriers. While Greer dismisses inflation fears based on past data, cost dynamics today depend on different supply links and domestic inventories — fewer players may now be able to fill shortfalls, especially since inventories have been leaner lately and supply chains slower to react.
Market hedging around raw inputs could intensify, meaning we may encounter widened bid-ask spreads and sharper premium moves on out-of-the-money contracts. From our side, raising alertness around low-volume contracts in affected sectors might benefit those seeking early positioning rather than late reaction.
Pressure may not come all at once, but early positioning can be more cost-effective than adapting once markets price in the full weight of restricted flows. Keep watch on miner equities, too — policy cues like these can push capital in directions not currently priced into volatility curves.
