President Donald Trump has said that tariff is “the most beautiful word,” and he has done his best to unilaterally impose these duties to correct what he sees as exploitative trade imbalances. In February, the United States Supreme Court struck down most of Trump’s tariffs on major trading partners Canada, Mexico, and China, ruling that Trump exceeded his authority when instituting sweeping tariffs under a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Experts had told ARTnews that his tariffs would deeply affect the art industry, which breathed a sigh of relief after the Supreme Court ruling.
But true to form, Trump, who has tried again and again to impose these duties, wants another bite at the apple. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has launched an investigation, authorized by Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, into the economies of some 60 countries, aiming to discern whether their policies and practices fail to impose bans on the importation of goods produced with forced labor in such a way that would “burden or restrict US commerce.”
“For too long, American workers and firms have been forced to compete against foreign producers who may have an artificial cost advantage gained from the scourge of forced labor,” writes Greer. The Trade Representative is focused on manufacturing in some 60 countries, including China, the European Union, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Mexico, Japan, and India (together referred to as the “target countries”).
Several companies and associations involved in the international trade of art and antiquities weighed in before today’s deadline for comment, calling for works of art to be exempt from any tariffs that might be imposed as a result of Greer’s investigation. Those offering comment include the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD); the British Antique Dealers Association; CINOA, the Brussels-based Confédération Internationale des Négociants en Œuvres d’Art (International Confederation of Dealers in Works of Art); Heritage Auctions; and the Society of London Art Dealers.
“Works of art are, by definition, not manufactured ‘goods’ made via industrial-scale processes,” writes AAMD executive director Christine Anagnos, on behalf of the organization’s more than 225 members. “They are not fungible or interchangeable products in the nature of mass-produced goods. Rather, works of art are singular creations that convey meaning and embody cultural expressions. They are often the product of creators who were active decades, if not centuries, ago, rather than in current times. Works of art are scarce, frequently existing in the form of a single example.” Imposing tariffs would in any event not aid in resolving trade imbalances or promote US interests in cultural and informational exchange, she adds.
Museums specifically as well as the broader American art market would be harmed by tariffs, Anagnos adds.
“Imposing tariffs, duties, or other penalties on works of art originating from any of the Target Countries also promises to harm U.S. museums and their patrons by making the acquisition of works of art more costly,” she writes. “For example, a U.S. museum or collector wishing to bid on a Japanese work of art at a London auction will face competitive disadvantages in comparison to bidders from other nations that do not impose import duties on such objects. Moreover, those who own works of art and wish to sell them will be incentivized to place them for sale at auction houses, dealers, or galleries in foreign countries, rather than in the United States, thus diminishing the U.S. art market, historically the largest in the world.”
Heritage’s chief operating officer, Sam Spiegel, points out that the markets for the works of art, rare coins, sports cards, comics, entertainment memorabilia and other categories that it auctions are “global in nature and rely on the free cross-border movement of unique, non-replicable objects,” adding that “Imposing tariffs on such material would cause substantial harm to U.S. businesses, collectors, and cultural institutions while providing no corresponding benefit to domestic manufacturing.” Spiegel points out a century’s worth of precedent for “the duty-free movement of cultural property.”
“These categories consist of unique, historical, and artistic objects that are finite and non-replicable, with no ongoing production and no supply chain that can be reshored or protected through tariffs,” writes Spiegel. “Accordingly, imposing tariffs on these categories would not advance the objectives of the contemplated Section 301 tariffs—there is no domestic industry to protect, no unfair manufacturing practice to compensate, and no mechanism by which tariffs on these items would stimulate new U.S. production.”
