US Tariffs and Australia: A Protection Case Study for the HSC

Protection comes up in HSC Economics almost every year. 2025 Question 28 asked students to analyse how different methods of protection affect firms and government in Australia. 2019 Question 28 asked about protectionist policies and their effects on both Australia and the global economy. The examiners' complaint on the 2025 question was that responses explained the methods without analysing them, and lacked application to the Australian context.

The US tariffs of 2025 and 2026 fix that problem. They are the largest shift in American trade policy in generations, they hit Australia directly, and they illustrate almost every concept in the protection dot points. This guide covers what happened and how to use it.

A warning first: the rates have changed several times and could change again. The figures below are current to early October 2026. Check DFAT's US tariffs page before relying on any specific rate.

---

What happened

Date	Event	Effect on Australia
March 2025	US tariffs of 25% on steel and aluminium under Section 232 (national security)	Australia, exempted in 2018, was not exempted this time
2 April 2025	"Liberation Day": tariffs on almost every country under emergency economic powers	10% on Australian goods, the lowest rate applied
June 2025	Steel and aluminium tariffs raised to 50%	Applies to Australian exports
November 2025	Executive order exempts hundreds of agricultural products, including beef	Australian beef exempted from the 10%
20 February 2026	US Supreme Court rules the emergency powers law does not authorise tariffs	The 10% tariff falls
24 February 2026	Temporary 10% surcharge on nearly all imports under Section 122, limited to 150 days	Australia back at 10%
24 July 2026	Surcharge expires; replaced by Section 301 tariffs tied to forced labour import bans	12.5% on most Australian goods

The Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminium and copper were not affected by the Supreme Court ruling, and they remain at up to 50%. Goods covered by them are excluded from the 12.5% tariff, so they are not taxed twice.

---

Why Australia ended up at 12.5%

The July 2026 tariffs cover 60 of the United States' trading partners and almost all its imports. Countries that have adopted or committed to a ban on importing goods made with forced labour face 10%. Countries that haven't face 12.5%. The US Trade Representative placed Australia in the higher band because it has no US-style import ban. China, Singapore and South Korea are also at 12.5%. India, by contrast, is at 10%.

Trade Minister Don Farrell called the tariffs unjustified and inconsistent with the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, and said Australia's laws on modern slavery are among the strongest in the world. The government argued there was no credible evidence that Australia's approach burdens US commerce.

Beef and gold are exempt, which matters, because they are two of Australia's largest exports to the US.

---

How exposed is Australia?

Directly, not very. The United States took about 5% of Australia's goods exports in 2024. Including services, it was Australia's third-largest export market in 2024-25, at 8.4% of total exports. Compare that with China, which takes around 29%.

Australia also runs a trade deficit with the United States. The US sells Australia considerably more than it buys. That undercuts the original "reciprocal" logic of the 2025 tariffs, which was aimed at countries with large trade surpluses against the US, and it is why Australia was given the minimum rate in April 2025.

The indirect exposure is larger, and it is the more important point for an essay. Australia's biggest risk from US protection is not the tariff on its own exports. It is what US tariffs do to China and to world growth. The IMF's July 2026 outlook warned that trade tensions could reignite if trade diversion pushed more economies into raising tariffs. Lower Chinese growth means lower demand for iron ore and coal, a weaker terms of trade, and lower export income, which is a far bigger effect on Australia than a 12.5% tariff on a few billion dollars of goods.

---

Using it in a protection question

Methods of protection

The episode gives you examples of most methods. The Section 232 and 301 measures are tariffs, taxes on imports that raise their domestic price. The national security justification for Section 232 and the forced labour justification for Section 301 show that the stated reason for protection is often different from the economic reason. And the exemptions for beef, gold and many farm products show that tariffs are rarely as broad in practice as they are in the announcement.

Effects on firms

Work through the winners and losers, because that is what analyse wants.

US steel and aluminium producers gain: protected from imports, they can raise prices and output. US firms that use steel and aluminium as inputs lose, facing higher costs, which makes them less competitive. US consumers pay higher prices.

Australian exporters to the US face lower demand, since their goods are now dearer in the US market, or lower margins if they cut their prices to absorb the tariff. Steel and aluminium exporters face the largest hit at up to 50%.

Australian firms competing with imports from China could face a different problem: trade diversion. When the US makes Chinese goods more expensive in its own market, some of those goods are sold elsewhere at lower prices, including in Australia. That is good for Australian consumers and for inflation, and bad for Australian firms competing with those imports.

Effects on government

The US government collects tariff revenue, though some of it may have to be refunded on the tariffs the courts struck down.

The Australian government faces a policy choice. In April 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the tariffs "totally unwarranted" but ruled out reciprocal tariffs, and the government funded peak bodies to help affected industries find new markets. Not retaliating is the textbook economic answer: a retaliatory tariff would raise prices for Australian consumers and firms without reducing the US tariff. Diversifying markets reduces dependence on any one trading partner.

The diagram

Draw the standard tariff diagram from the US side. The tariff raises the domestic price above the world price, domestic production rises, consumption and imports fall, the government collects revenue, and two deadweight loss triangles appear. Then explain that for Australia, the effect is a fall in demand for its exports to that market. Our diagram guide has the tariff diagram with every area labelled.

---

Using it in a global economy question

For the Topic 1 questions on protection and the global economy, the episode has three bigger implications.

The first is the weakening of the rules-based trading system. The WTO's most-favoured-nation principle says a member should not discriminate between trading partners. Country-specific tariffs, set at different rates for different countries, cut directly across it. When the largest economy in the world sets tariffs this way, it weakens the incentive for others to follow the rules.

The second is retaliation and fragmentation. Some countries responded with their own measures, others with negotiated deals. India's US tariff went from 50% to 18% to 10% in less than a year, partly through negotiation. The result is a world trading system that is more fragmented, with more bilateral bargaining and less predictability.

The third is uncertainty as a cost in its own right. A firm deciding whether to build export capacity can't plan around tariffs that change every few months. Lower investment in trade-exposed industries reduces world output even when the tariffs themselves are modest.

---

A paragraph you could use

Here is the episode turned into evidence for a judgement, the way the top band wants it:

The 2025 and 2026 US tariffs show that the direct effects of foreign protection on Australia are modest while the indirect effects are significant. The 12.5% tariff applied to most Australian goods from July 2026 affects a market that took only about 5% of Australia's goods exports in 2024, and beef and gold, two of the largest exports to the US, are exempt. The larger risk runs through China: US tariffs on Chinese goods reduce Chinese growth and demand for Australian iron ore and coal, weakening the terms of trade and export income. Australia's decision not to retaliate is consistent with the gains from trade, since a retaliatory tariff would raise domestic prices without lowering the US tariff, but it leaves Australia relying on market diversification and negotiation rather than any direct means of influencing US policy.

---

The background that helps

Our syllabus notes cover the theory this case study plugs into: protection methods and effects, Australia's free trade and protection policies, and international economic integration. And the India case study shows how the same tariffs played out for a developing economy.

---

Sources: DFAT and Trade and Investment Queensland tariff updates (2026); US Trade Representative Section 301 determination (July 2026); US Supreme Court, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 2026); ABS and DFAT trade data; IMF World Economic Outlook update (July 2026).