Which sectors will Trump tariff in 2026?

Robert Lighthizer and Peter Navarro are potential senior trade advisors in a possible second Trump administration. Robert Lighthizer, who served as U.S. Trade Representative during the first Trump term, currently holds a distinguished fellow position at the America First Policy Institute's (AFPI) Center for American Trade ^{[^]}. Peter Navarro, another former senior trade advisor from the first administration, continues to contribute to discussions on future trade strategies ^{[^]}.

Robert Lighthizer specifically targets critical U.S. industrial sectors impacted by China. His recent statements and writings emphasize using tariffs to counteract China's economic practices, particularly in "critical sectors like high technology, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing" ^{[^]}. Lighthizer advocates for tariffs as a tool to "fix a rigged global trading system" and supports initiatives such as "Liberation Day" to re-evaluate trade relationships ^{[^]}.

Peter Navarro indicates a more aggressive approach, aiming for systemic trade restructuring. Navarro suggests a second Trump term would signify a "quantum leap" in trade policy to fundamentally restructure the international trade order ^{[^]}. While Navarro's proposals emphasize broad systemic change through tariffs, they generally align with Lighthizer's call for robust trade measures, though Lighthizer provides clearer articulation of specific industry targets related to U.S. competition with China ^{[^]}.

Critical Minerals are the top candidate for a Section 301 action. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) data, corroborated by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) findings, demonstrates an exceptionally high import concentration from China, with the U.S. exhibiting a 100% net import reliance from China for specific critical minerals ^{[^]}. This significant dependence points to potential market distortions or unfair trade practices by China, which are typical factors that initiate Section 301 investigations. While the pharmaceutical sector has also drawn attention for investigations into Chinese biotechnology firms ^{[^]}, the extreme concentration in critical minerals positions them as a primary focus for such actions.

Critical Minerals also present the strongest national security justification for investigation. Publications like 'Chained to China: Beijing's Weaponization of Supply Chains' highlight how China's extensive control over critical mineral supply chains poses substantial risks to U.S. national security, including its defense and high-tech industries ^{[^]}. Furthermore, the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicates that new export controls on these minerals exacerbate global supply concentration risks, impacting worldwide energy transitions and security ^{[^]}. The indispensable role these minerals play in defense, advanced technologies, and renewable energy, coupled with a heavy reliance on a single foreign source, directly supports a national security argument for a Section 232 investigation ^{[^]}.

According to 2024-2025 lobbying disclosure records, domestic steel corporations significantly fund lobbying for protectionist trade measures. The domestic steel industry is actively and heavily funding these efforts, particularly for tariffs. United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) is a significant corporate contributor, with detailed lobbying spending and activities focused on trade policy ^{[^]}. Nucor, another major steel producer, is also actively engaged in steel tariff lobbying, specifically noted for its Q3 2025 trade strategy supporting such measures ^{[^]}. These corporate efforts align with the broader "Steel Production" lobbying sector, which saw substantial federal influence spending in the 2024 cycle ^{[^]}.

Beyond individual companies, industry trade associations are key advocates for steel tariffs. Prominent organizations such as the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) ^{[^]} and the Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) ^{[^]} serve as crucial voices for the American steel industry, advocating for protectionist trade policies. Their lobbying efforts are directed at securing and maintaining tariffs on imported steel, which they argue protect American workers and the domestic industry from foreign competition ^{[^]}. The overall landscape indicates a "tariff lobbying explosion," with trade policy spending surging in 2025 ^{[^]}, contributing to the $92.4 million in federal influence spending attributed to tariffs across various issues ^{[^]}. These organizations consistently lobby in favor of tariffs on metals, a sector frequently targeted in protectionist trade discussions ^{[^]}.

Past EU and Canadian retaliations strategically targeted key U.S. exports. In previous trade disputes, the European Union and Canada consistently responded swiftly to U.S. tariffs, specifically aiming at crucial agricultural and industrial exports such as bourbon whiskey, motorcycles, and beef ^{[^]}. For example, the EU implemented import tariffs on Bourbon whiskey and Harley-Davidsons as part of a "$28 billion retaliation" against U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs ^{[^]}. These goods were deliberately selected to affect economically significant regions within politically critical U.S. states, with the EU specifically imposing "tariffs on produce from Republican states" ^{[^]}.

Future U.S. tariffs will likely provoke similar politically targeted countermeasures. Given this established pattern, any subsequent U.S. tariffs would probably trigger comparable politically motivated responses. Products like bourbon whiskey, primarily sourced from Kentucky, and motorcycles, which have strong ties to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, are significant candidates for renewed retaliatory tariffs. These exports, along with beef from agricultural states, represent industries that are vital to swing states, providing effective leverage points for political pressure in a re-election scenario ^{[^]}.

Project 2025 documents advocate for aggressive, broad tariff use. The official "Project 2025" Presidential Transition Project documents, particularly the "Mandate for Leadership" published by The Heritage Foundation, extensively discuss trade policy ^{[^]}. These documents advocate for the aggressive use of tariffs to protect American industries, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and counter unfair trade practices. They highlight the intent to expand tariff usage, referencing past applications and their potential for generating revenue and addressing trade imbalances. Furthermore, the documents broadly call for securing critical supply chains, including for critical minerals, to reduce reliance on foreign adversaries ^{[^]}.

Despite this, specific new tariffs for key sectors lack explicit timelines. A thorough review of the "Mandate for Leadership" reveals no explicit timelines or specific "First 100 Days" executive order drafts that precisely mention imposing new tariffs on pharmaceuticals, aircraft, critical minerals, wind turbines, or foreign films ^{[^]}. While the document outlines a general policy framework for using trade tools, it does not specify these industries as immediate targets for new tariffs within a drafted executive order or a dedicated "First 100 Days" agenda. Although the concept of a "reciprocal tariff" is discussed in hypothetical 2025 executive actions, potentially falling within the first 100 days of an administration, these external documents describe a broad mechanism to address trade deficits rather than explicitly listing the specific sectors mentioned for immediate new tariffs ^{[^]}.

Catalyst analysis unavailable.