Manufacturers across the country scored a major legislative victory when the House of Representatives narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) on May 22, 2025. This comprehensive package contains powerful pro-growth tax provisions that will help drive American manufacturing forward—fueling innovation, job creation, capital investment, and competitiveness. Now, as the Senate prepares to take up its version of the bill, manufacturers must speak with one voice.
Your voice is needed now. Contact your Senators and urge them to support—and strengthen—the pro-manufacturing tax provisions included in H.R. 1.
The bill, retroactive to January 1, 2025:
• Raises Bonus Depreciation to 100% through 2029
• Allows for full expensing for R&D with no amortization through 2029
• Restores 163j Interest Deductibility (EBITDA standard) through 2029
Other key elements of the House-passed bill include:
• Permanent Section 199A Deduction with an increased 23% deduction rate
• Expanded Section 179 Deduction to $2.5M, with phase-out at $4M
• Enhanced Estate and Gift Tax Exemption, set at $15M and indexed for inflation
• Expanded 529s, allow Pell Grants for short term programs, make 127s permanent
These provisions are essential to keeping American manufacturers competitive, especially in a time of economic uncertainty and global competition.
The Senate is expected to move quickly, aiming to pass the legislation by July 4. Several Senators have expressed interest in making these pro-manufacturing provisions even stronger—and more permanent—but they need to hear from you.
Take action today: Contact your Senators by clicking here and tell them to support manufacturers by passing a robust tax package that includes full expensing, pro-investment provisions, and permanent relief for small and medium-sized businesses.
Together, we can ensure that the U.S. remains the best place in the world to build, create, and grow.
Trump Administration Doubles Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum Imports
President Trump has officially doubled tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, raising the rate from 25 percent to 50 percent under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The new tariff level took effect on June 4, 2025, and is part of the administration’s broader effort to boost American manufacturing and address what it describes as persistent unfair trade practices by foreign producers.
The tariff hike was announced through a presidential proclamation and accompanied by a White House fact sheet highlighting the need to reinforce the domestic industrial base amid changing global market dynamics and ongoing national security concerns. The administration pointed to findings by the Department of Commerce, which concluded that the previous tariff rate was insufficient to counteract challenges facing U.S. steel and aluminum producers, including rising imports, global overcapacity, and aggressive pricing tactics by foreign competitors.
The 50 percent tariff now applies to all aluminum and steel articles as well as the metals in the derivative products. However, the new measure refines how tariffs are calculated by applying the increased rate only to the value of the aluminum or steel content in imported articles covered by Chapters 73 and 76 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Previously, this valuation method was used only for derivative articles outside those chapters. The remaining non-metal components of such products will be subject to other applicable duties, including tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). One Voice and others have raised repeated concerns about applying tariffs only to the material and not the finished product. The Trump administration in May created a process to add more downstream products to the tariff list to help offset some of the impact on users of steel and aluminum.
The proclamation also alters the order in which tariffs are applied when multiple trade measures are involved. Under the new system, Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum now take priority over IEEPA tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico related to border and fentanyl-related measures.
The United Kingdom has been granted a temporary exemption from the increased tariff rate. However, this exemption is subject to review and may change after June 9.
EPA Delays TSCA Reporting Deadline for 16 High Priority Chemicals
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on June 9, 2025, that it is extending the deadline for manufacturers and importers to report unpublished health and safety studies under Section 8(d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The deadline for all 16 targeted chemicals is now extended to May 22, 2026.
These chemicals—many of which are used in metalworking machinery, and as degreasers, sealants, or coatings on metals—include industrial staples such as benzene, styrene, hydrogen fluoride, vinyl chloride, bisphenol A, and others. The original rule, finalized December 12, 2024, required the submission of unpublished studies on health, safety, environmental effects, and population exposures to inform TSCA’s risk evaluation and management.
Initial amendments in March 2025 had staggered deadlines—Vinyl Chloride submissions were due June 11, 2025, and the remaining chemicals by September 9, 2025. The new one year extension harmonizes the deadline for all substances, aiming to give companies more time while the EPA develops clearer guidance on submission formats and confidentiality protections.
According to the Federal Register notice, this additional time is “prudent,” allowing the EPA to ensure that quality data are received and used in its TSCA mandated chemical prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management processes.
Trump Administration Withdraws Climate Guidance from NEPA Reviews
On May 28, 2025, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) formally withdrew its interim guidance on the consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews. Originally issued in January 2023, the guidance was intended to help federal agencies assess climate impacts when evaluating major federal actions.
The withdrawal is part of the Trump administration’s broader deregulatory push under Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, which seeks to accelerate and streamline the federal permitting process.
This move follows CEQ’s February 25, 2025, interim final rule repealing its NEPA regulations and instructing agencies to revert to their own NEPA procedures. Federal agencies are now expected to revise or develop their individual NEPA processes, with updates due by February 19, 2026. In the meantime, agencies are directed to continue using their current NEPA practices, provided they align with the NEPA statute and the new executive order.
The withdrawn guidance had recommended that agencies limit their environmental reviews to “reasonably foreseeable” impacts—potentially narrowing climate and environmental considerations. It also advised agencies to exclude environmental justice analyses from NEPA reviews unless specifically required by law.
Supreme Court Narrows Scope of NEPA Environmental Reviews
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled to limit the scope of environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), holding that federal agencies are only required to consider the direct and immediate environmental impacts of infrastructure projects—not broader upstream or downstream consequences.
The decision came in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, a case centered on an 88-mile rail line proposed to transport waxy crude oil from Utah’s Uinta Basin to national rail networks. The Court found that the federal Surface Transportation Board was not obligated to evaluate the environmental impacts of oil drilling (upstream) or refining (downstream) when assessing the rail project’s environmental impact.
The justices reversed a prior ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which had required broader environmental analysis. Writing for the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized NEPA’s limited procedural role:
“NEPA requires agencies to focus on the environmental effects of the project at issue. Under NEPA, the Board’s EIS did not need to address the environmental effects of upstream oil drilling or downstream oil refining. Rather, it needed to address only the effects of the 88-mile railroad line. And the Board’s EIS did so.”
Kavanaugh added that “NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock,” underscoring that the law’s intent is to inform—not impede—federal decision-making. The ruling is expected to ease the permitting process for major infrastructure and energy projects by narrowing the environmental impacts agencies must consider during NEPA reviews.