Photo of Kate McNulty

Kate McNulty

Kate McNulty is a senior associate in the Washington office who helps clients navigate complex international trade and investment matters. She counsels companies, trade associations, and governments on U.S. trade and tariff measures, as well as implementation of responsive measures by foreign governments. She provides legal and strategic advice to clients on global policy issues and geopolitical risks, including assessing and mitigating reputational, economic, or physical risk to their businesses or investments. She advises clients on the application and use of international treaties—including free trade agreements (FTAs), bilateral investment treaties (BITs), and agreements under World Trade Organization (WTO) framework—to open markets and resolve disputes, also advising clients seeking to understand and engage with the negotiation and implementation of such agreements.

Kate also focuses her trade practice on U.S. anti-forced labor laws as well as business-related human rights matters, advising clients on the application and enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and Withhold Release Orders (WROs) issued by the U.S. government. She helps clients develop and implement strategies to mitigate supply chain risks, including by building compliance programs, developing due diligence procedures, and conducting risk assessments. She also advises clients on conducting human rights-related investigations and implementing related findings.

Kate has represented corporate clients in both commercial and investment treaty arbitrations, including under ICSID, ICC, UNCITRAL, and ICDR rules, and also represents clients in proceedings before U.S. administrative bodies and U.S. courts, including in trade remedy proceedings (AD/CVD).

She also maintains an active pro bono practice focused on international human rights and public international law. She has represented U.S.-funded media outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to secure the release of one of its journalists in a prisoner exchange with Russia. Her work also includes representation of the Clooney Foundation for Justice, the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights, and the Public International Law & Policy Group.

Contact:Read more about Kate McNultyEmail

On February 20, 2025, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) announced that it is seeking public comments on any unfair trade practices and non-reciprocal trade arrangements implemented by foreign trading partners. The comment period is currently open and the deadline for submitting comments is March 11, 2025.

According to the Federal Register notice, comments can be submitted through a portal accessible at https://comments.ustr.gov/s/, under docket number USTR-2025-0001. USTR will accept comments from any interested party, including businesses, individuals, and trade associations, among others. Interested parties are able to include business confidential information in their submissions, which will not appear in the public version of their comments.

USTR’s announcement also stated that the public comment process is not the only opportunity to provide information to the agency on these issues, and that USTR “welcomes ongoing engagement with and information from any interested party.”

This comment period offers a new opportunity for U.S. exporters to seek the Administration’s  potential support in eliminating foreign market access barriers. If you are interested in submitting comments to USTR as part of this process, Covington can assist in the preparation and transmission of these comments. We would also be happy to assist in crafting a broader strategy for engaging USTR and other relevant agencies on these or other trade-related issues.

Background

USTR’s launch of this public comment process follows the issuance of the “America First Trade Policy” memorandum by President Trump on his first day in office, which directed USTR to lead a review of unfair foreign trade practices and to recommend appropriate remedies. USTR also linked the comment process to President Trump’s “Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs” memorandum issued on February 13, which directed USTR and the Commerce Department to investigate “the harm to the United States from any non-reciprocal trade arrangements adopted by any trading partners” and to recommend actions in response. Covington’s alert on this memorandum is available here.

Scope of Requested Comments

USTR has invited comments on a country-by-country basis (or also on an economy-wide basis in the case of the European Union) regarding (i) “any unfair trade practice by a foreign country or economy”; or (ii) “any non-reciprocal trade arrangements.” USTR has defined unfair trade practices broadly, to include “policies, measures, or barriers that undermine or harm U.S. production, or exports, or a failure by a country to take action to address a non-market policy or practice in a way which harms the United States.” USTR has also requested that comments quantify the harm caused by such practices—ideally with a corresponding dollar amount—and to explain the underlying methodology used to calculate that figure.Continue Reading USTR Seeks Public Comment on Unfair or Non-Reciprocal Trade Practices

On February 1, President Trump issued three executive orders (“EOs”) imposing broad tariffs on U.S. imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, initially to be effective on February 4. Invoking Presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), the EOs expand the national emergency declared by…

Continue Reading Trump Administration Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico, and China

Alert December 19, 2024

As discussed in our prior client alert, President-elect Trump’s second term is expected to bring important changes to U.S. trade policy, including with respect to U.S. tariffs. Among the tools Trump may use to modify existing U.S. tariffs is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”), which provided the vehicle for imposition of tariffs against China under the first Trump administration. More recently, the Biden administration has initiated new proceedings under Section 301, while also modifying existing Section 301 tariffs against China. This alert provides an overview of Section 301, explores how Section 301 has been used by recent administrations to increase tariffs on imports from China, and surveys other Section 301 actions, including currently pending investigations. This alert also examines how a second Trump administration could reactivate or modify Section 301 tariffs that were previously announced, but have been suspended or terminated.

Overview of Section 301

Section 301 is an investigative tool under U.S. trade law that allows the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) to pursue unilateral trade retaliation against countries that impose unfair trade barriers against the United States. USTR may launch Section 301 investigations in response to the filing of a petition submitted by an “interested party,” or upon USTR’s own initiative. Once a Section 301 investigation is launched, the statutory deadline for completion is typically between 12 and 18 months. Under the first Trump administration, USTR often did not use the full period provided under the statute, instead completing certain investigations several months before the statutory deadline.

As part of the investigative process, USTR must request consultations with the foreign government whose conduct is at issue, and it will generally also solicit public comments and hold a hearing as part of its investigation. At the end of the investigation, USTR is authorized to impose duties or other trade restrictions where it has determined:

  1. that the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied;
  2. that an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country violates, is inconsistent with, or otherwise denies the United States the benefits of any trade agreement; or
  3. that an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.

Once imposed, Section 301 tariffs must be terminated after four years unless an extension is requested. As explained below, USTR under certain conditions can also modify existing Section 301 duties or reinstitute previously suspended or terminated Section 301 actions.Continue Reading Section 301 Tariffs and Proceedings: Recent and Potential Developments

November 25, 2024, Covington Alert

The inauguration of President Trump on January 20 is expected to bring important changes to U.S. trade policy that are likely to affect companies that supply international customers, or are reliant on global supply chains. As discussed in our prior client alert, international trade is expected to be a key focus of President Trump, who has repeatedly expressed a preference for using tariffs as a policy tool to create perceived leverage for dealmaking with international partners on both economic and non-economic issues. Recent announcements by the Trump transition team regarding cabinet and staff appointments reinforce the view that trade policy under a second Trump administration could involve significant unilateral U.S. action, including the imposition of substantial new tariffs and a hawkish stance toward China. These new tariffs could be implemented swiftly after Trump takes office, or could alternatively be subject to more extensive investigative and reporting procedures, depending on the legal authority invoked. New tariff measures, as well as other trade actions Trump has proposed, could lead to retaliatory responses by U.S. trading partners, including key U.S. allies. This alert explores how trade policy may be implemented by a second Trump administration, and considers how companies may prepare for and mitigate the risks associated with these developments.

Cabinet Nominations and Other Economic Appointees

In recent weeks, Trump has announced several cabinet and staff appointments for his second administration, including individuals responsible for implementing trade policy. Key among them is Howard Lutnick, chairman and CEO of a Wall Street investment firm and co-chair of Trump’s transition team, whom Trump has selected to be Secretary of Commerce. Echoing Trump’s own views, Lutnick has been a strong advocate for using tariffs as an industrial policy tool and bargaining chip to rebalance U.S. trade, though he has suggested tariff measures under a second Trump administration may be more “targeted” than the universal 10 to 20 percent tariffs proposed by Trump during his campaign. In announcing Lutnick’s forthcoming nomination, Trump noted Lutnick would lead the administration’s “Tariff and Trade agenda,” and that he would have direct responsibility over the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”). As USTR is a separate agency established by Congress within the Executive Office of the President to lead on trade issues, it is uncertain if the announcement was referring to informal oversight over USTR or a formal restructuring of the agency. Should Trump seek to consolidate USTR within or under the Commerce Department, he may face opposition from Congress, whose approval would be required for such a reorganization. Continue Reading Trade Policy Under a Second Trump Administration and Implications for Business

October 28, 2024, Covington Alert

The upcoming U.S. presidential election on November 5 will have important implications for U.S. trade policy that are likely to affect companies reliant on international supply chains. There are important differences in how former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris approach the use of trade tools to advance U.S. policies and priorities, including whether such tools should be deployed unilaterally, or as part of a collective action with U.S. allies.

For instance, a victory by Harris will likely signal continuity in the current approach of the Biden administration, in which trade has not been a central policy priority, but has instead taken a backseat to—and been used as a tool to support—other key policies on climate, technology, human rights, and industrial development. While a Harris administration is therefore unlikely to pursue new trade initiatives aimed at increased market access, a Harris administration may consider joint action with U.S. allies and likeminded trading partners, or at least be receptive to input from such partners in pursuing trade-related actions.

In contrast, trade is expected to take center stage under a second Trump administration, with unilateral action expected to be the preferred approach. Trump has repeatedly referred to tariffs as his policy tool of choice, and views tariffs as important in creating leverage for dealmaking with international partners on both economic and non-economic issues. Trump and his economic advisors also view the U.S. trade balance as an important measure of economic performance, and bilateral trade deficits are likely to face scrutiny and provoke potential action.

This alert explores certain key trade issues to be confronted by the next administration, assesses how each candidate may approach these issues differently, and considers how companies may prepare for and mitigate the risks associated with each candidate’s approach.

Divergent Approaches to U.S. Tariffs

While Congress has primary constitutional authority over tariffs and other trade policy matters, the President has broad authority to adjust tariffs and impose other import restrictions under certain statutes, without approval from Congress. The outcome of the U.S. election will determine to a great extent the importance that tariffs will play as a U.S. policy tool over the next four years.Continue Reading The Impact of the U.S. Elections on Trade and International Supply Chains

  • Mexico’s new political configuration gives current president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, and their party (Morena) ample margin to advance legislation (including constitutional reforms) starting in September when the new Congress is in place.
  • Sheinbaum will take office in October, leaving López Obrador a one-month window to use Morena’s new margin in Congress to implement policies he was previously unable to enact, including important constitutional reforms, such as a full overhaul of the Judiciary.
  • So far, Sheinbaum has voiced broad support for her predecessor’s policies. Markets (the dollar-peso exchange rate and interest rates) have thus far reacted negatively, reflecting a perception of increased political and regulatory risk, as well as a potential deterioration of the overall business environment.
  • Companies with business interests in Mexico, including those seeking to nearshore operations in response to U.S. trade measures, should closely monitor political developments in the country, and assess if their investments are adequately protected by an effective investment treaty.

The recent election resulted in an unambiguous win for president López Obrador and his Morena party. As his designated successor, Scheinbaum received 60 percent of the vote, allowing her to become Mexico’s first woman head of state. In addition, Morena also secured seven of the nine contested governorships, a qualified (two thirds) majority in the Chamber of Deputies (365/500 seats), and is just two seats shy of holding a majority in the Senate (83/128 seats). Morena also will hold a majority in 27 of the 32 state legislatures.Continue Reading Mexico’s Election Business Environment Implications

On September 8 and 9, top trade officials of the United States and the other Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (“IPEF” or “Framework”) partner countries—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam—launched formal negotiations in Los Angeles.

This marked the first in-person ministerial-level meeting since the IPEF launched on May 23, 2022 and follows three informal meetings since May 2022, the latest event being the virtual ministerial on July 26-27, discussed in detail in our previous post.

The Los Angeles ministerial involved intensive discussions on what to include in the scope of the Framework. Ultimately, the IPEF partners reached consensus on ministerial statements for each of the four IPEF framework pillars: Trade, Supply Chain, Clean Economy, and Fair Economy. All 14 IPEF partners have joined three of the pillars, and 13 joined the fourth—with just India opting out of the Trade pillar. While this near unanimous support for the four pillars is certainly a positive sign, the real work begins now.

This blog post summarizes how the ministerial statements characterize the four pillars and outlines next steps for the Framework and key remaining questions.

Takeaways from the Ministerial Statements

The ministerial statements confirmed the four pillars of negotiation and provided added clarity on the scope and content of each pillar. While the statements add little to the substance, they indicate a political commitment among the partners to the Framework.Continue Reading IPEF Partners Adopt Ministerial Statement and Negotiation Objectives

On July 26-27, 2022, the Biden Administration hosted a two-day virtual meeting with top trade officials from the 13 other partners of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (“IPEF” or “Framework”)—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. This was the first ministerial meeting since the 13 initial participants[1] agreed on May 23, 2022 to launch “collective discussions towards future negotiations” on the Framework. The IPEF currently focuses on four “pillars”: (1) Trade; (2) Supply Chains; (3) Clean Energy, Decarbonization, and Infrastructure; and (4) Tax and Anti-Corruption. Touted as a “21st century economic arrangement designed to tackle 21st century economic challenges,” the IPEF is said to offer what Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo calls a “innovative and flexible approach,” and is “internationally designed not to be a ‘same old, same old’ traditional free trade agreement.”

The Framework’s novel approach, however, has raised a flurry of unanswered questions. Key U.S. stakeholders, for instance, have questioned the Biden Administration’s decision not to discuss tariff reductions or market access as part of the IPEF negotiations. Concerns have been raised about the enforceability of any agreements concluded among Framework partners. Potential agreements within each pillar remain largely unknown or undisclosed, even though the Framework partners have spent months engaged in a “scoping exercise” to define the components of each pillar.

This latest ministerial meeting added little clarity. No joint statement was released at the end of the meeting, suggesting that more remains to be done before formal, text-based negotiations begin. But as negotiators approach the one-year anniversary of President Biden’s announcement of the initiative at the October 2021 East Asia Summit meeting, there is growing expectation of more concrete outcomes. The dates for the next ministerial meeting have not been formally announced, though informal reports speculate that the Framework partners may hold the next meeting in September 2022, possibly as the first in-person ministerial.

This alert outlines the scope and objectives of the IPEF’s four pillars, the progress to date and next steps, key remaining questions, and stakeholder reactions thus far.Continue Reading Biden Administration Hosts the First Indo-Pacific Economic Framework Ministerial: Updates, Outlook, and Remaining Questions

Background

As we previously reported, President Biden and Congress took steps in March 2022 to revoke Russia’s most-favored-nation (or “MFN”) trade status, known as Permanent Normal Trade Relations (“PNTR”) status under U.S. law.  As a result of these actions, the Suspending Normal Trade Relations with Russia and Belarus Act (“Suspending NTR Act”) entered into force on April 8, 2022, formally revoking PNTR status for Russia and Belarus.  Under the terms of the Act, imports into the United States of products from Russia and Belarus became subject to tariff rates set out in column 2 of the U.S. tariff schedule, rather than the column 1 rates that had previously applied.  Column 2 tariff rates are often higher—sometimes much higher—than MFN tariff rates in column 1, and as a result of this change, tariffs on U.S. imports from Russia increased from an average of approximately three percent to 32 percent.  In addition to implementing this immediate change in applicable tariff rates, the Suspending NTR Act also temporarily authorized the President, through the end of 2023, to increase even further tariffs applicable to imports from Russia and Belarus.

On June 27, pursuant to the authority granted under the Suspending NTR Act, President Biden issued Presidential Proclamation 10420, announcing that the United States would further increase tariffs applicable to certain categories of imports from Russia, worth approximately $2.3 billion annually.  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) recently issued guidance on these tariff increases, which will apply effective July 27, 2022.  This alert provides additional information on the forthcoming tariff increases, and discusses potential implications for importers of Russian goods.

Overview of July 27 Tariff Rate Increase on Certain U.S. Imports from Russia

Since revocation of PNTR status in April, products imported into the United States from Russia and Belarus have been subject to tariff rates set forth in column 2 of the U.S. tariff schedule.  Under the terms of Presidential Proclamation 10420, however, duty rates of 35 percent ad valorem will apply to 570 categories of Russian products in lieu of column 2 rates, beginning July 27, 2022.  These product categories have an estimated value of approximately $2.3 billion annually.  The Proclamation does not impact imports from Belarus, which will remain subject to column 2 tariff rates.Continue Reading Increased Tariffs on Certain U.S. Imports from Russia Effective July 27, 2022: What Companies Need to Know

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since entry into force of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) in July 2020, the United States has brought two known complaints against Mexico under the Agreement’s Facility-Specific Rapid Response Labor Mechanism (“RRM”), concerning allegations that workers at two different factories in Mexico were being denied their fundamental right to…
Continue Reading USMCA Labor-related provisions: An assessment after 20 months