Beyond Tariffs: Strengthening Anti‑Dumping Enforcement to Rebuild U.S. Manufacturing

President Trump’s trade agenda has centered on reversing the long-term erosion of U.S. manufacturing through tariffs and other measures to encourage reshoring. While targeted tariffs can play an important role, another critical — and often overlooked — lever is stronger enforcement and reform of anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws that protect domestic producers from predatory foreign pricing.

During my years in Congress I shared many of the concerns that have driven the administration’s trade policy. Over recent decades, production shifted to countries with lower labor, environmental and regulatory standards, allowing multinational firms to boost margins by importing cheaper goods back into the U.S. market. The consequences have been stark: industrial investment declined and communities built around manufacturing have struggled. Between 2000 and 2020 the United States lost roughly 5 million manufacturing jobs.

Why anti-dumping enforcement matters

Anti-dumping and countervailing duties are narrow, case-by-case tools designed to remedy unfair pricing or foreign subsidies that harm U.S. firms. These remedies are especially important to small and medium-sized manufacturers that cannot absorb long periods of predatory pricing. Yet in practice, even successful cases can be undermined by evasion: foreign producers reroute shipments through third countries, relabel products, or use other tactics to avoid duties and undercut U.S. competitors.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data underscore that the threat is growing: the number of anti-dumping and countervailing cases enforced by CBP rose from 540 in 2020 to 716 in 2024 — a 33% increase. China accounts for 26% of adjudicated cases since 2020, but violations also arise from a range of other countries, including South Korea, India, Japan and Italy. Despite the increase in cases, CBP collected approximately $2 billion in duty deposits and imposed only $80 million in penalties in fiscal year 2024, evidence that enforcement and deterrence remain uneven.

Barriers facing U.S. petitioners

Filing and enforcing an anti-dumping claim is costly and slow. Petitioners typically need specialized legal and investigative support, adjudication can take months or years, and orders are subject to annual reviews that add more time and expense. Proving dumping or evasion often depends on accessing non-public information that is difficult and expensive for private firms to obtain, which disproportionately harms smaller manufacturers.

Recommended next steps

• Use new CBP funding for targeted enforcement. Direct resources toward investigations of evasion, improved intelligence and stronger penalties to increase deterrence.
• Modernize Commerce procedures. Streamline case initiation, evidence-sharing and annual reviews to reduce time and cost for petitioners.
• Create an ombudsman for small and mid-sized manufacturers. An office in Commerce should help businesses identify possible violations, gather evidence, and navigate filings.
• Expedite processes for smaller petitioners. Establish accelerated timelines and simplified procedures for petitions from firms with limited resources.
• Restrict federal purchases of goods subject to active anti-dumping orders. Congress should consider prohibiting U.S. government entities and federal contractors from buying imports under such orders to avoid undermining relief efforts.
• Push for WTO rule updates. The World Trade Organization’s anti-dumping rules have not been substantially revised since the 1990s; the United States should lead efforts to modernize the framework for the 21st-century global economy.

Stronger enforcement and clearer, faster procedures will complement tariffs and other industrial policy tools, helping to restore fair competition and rebuild domestic production. If the administration pairs tariffs with robust anti-dumping enforcement and procedural reforms, American companies and workers will have a much better chance to compete on fair terms and regain lost ground.

About the author: Dan Lipinski served in Congress from 2005 to 2021.