WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., asked the Trump administration to consider tariff exemptions for four Alabama companies in the wake of “Liberation Day” in April 2025, despite publicly expressing support for the president’s tariff agenda, according to an email obtained by a national newspaper and described in a recent opinion piece by that paper’s editorial board.
On Tuesday, Britt affirmed her general support for President Donald Trump’s economic policy and defended her strategy of using her leverage as a senator to help carve out relief for Alabama companies. The newspaper’s editorial board called it a “tariffs for thee, exemptions for me” approach.
Britt’s Response
Britt does not see it that way.
“I certainly support President Trump with regards to actually getting us on a level playing field,” Britt said in an interview responding to the article. “In the interim, you have to make sure that you are going eyes wide open to what’s happening in our state and what’s happening across the country, and how we can make sure that people aren’t penalized for the components only being made somewhere else.”
The distinction Britt draws is between the objective of a tariff policy and its transitional effects. A tariff intended to bring manufacturing back to the United States imposes costs immediately on domestic manufacturers that rely on inputs with no current domestic source — a gap that takes years to close, if it closes at all.
The Email
In an opinion article published Monday, the editorial board wrote that an email from the senator’s legislative director showed Britt had asked the U.S. Trade Representative’s office for tariff exclusions on “four pressing issues” involving TNT Fireworks, Novelis, Kronospan and Airbus, all of which have an Alabama presence.
“Each fit within the mold of bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. and ensuring we have sufficient cost-effective inputs to allow that,” the email, dated April 15, 2025, reads.
The email was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request to the USTR.
Her Public Position
Britt has publicly supported Trump’s tariffs, criticizing the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in February that the president did not have authority to issue unilateral emergency tariffs.
“What the media won’t tell you is that President Trump’s tariffs work, and that’s why even the Biden Administration left them in place,” she wrote on social media at the time. “Today’s ruling was disappointing, but as @POTUS made clear, we are not going to return to the status quo of allowing American jobs and manufacturing to be sidelined in exchange for cheap junk from foreign adversaries.”
The Fireworks Argument
For TNT Fireworks, based in Florence, Britt asked the USTR to exempt fireworks from the tariff policy because “there is no domestic firework manufacturer, and over 99% of firework products are produced in China.”
That argument is the clearest illustration of the logic at work. A tariff designed to encourage domestic production cannot encourage domestic production in a category where domestic production does not exist and no company has announced plans to start. In that situation the tariff functions purely as a cost increase on the American distributor and, ultimately, the consumer.
Why These Four Companies
The four named companies represent a meaningful share of Alabama’s industrial employment and investment.
Novelis operates aluminum rolling and recycling facilities and has been expanding in Alabama. Kronospan manufactures wood-based panel products. Airbus assembles commercial aircraft in Mobile, where its final assembly line has operated for more than a decade and where it has announced successive expansions.
Aircraft assembly in particular depends on a globally distributed supply chain — components manufactured across multiple continents converge at a final assembly line. A tariff on those components raises the cost of aircraft built in Mobile by American workers.
The Broader Question
The tension the editorial board identified is a real one in trade policy, and it is not unique to any single legislator. A member of Congress representing a manufacturing state has both a policy position on trade generally and a constituent-service obligation to companies employing people in that state.
Defenders of the approach argue that exclusion processes exist precisely so that broad policy can be adjusted where it produces outcomes contrary to its own goals, and that advocating for constituents through an established administrative channel is the ordinary work of a senator.
Critics argue that a policy requiring case-by-case exemptions for well-connected companies distributes its costs unevenly, advantaging firms with effective representation in Washington over those without, and that a legislator publicly defending a policy while privately seeking relief from it presents an inconsistency voters are entitled to weigh.
This article reports on a public official’s stated positions and does not constitute an endorsement of any position. Readers can review the senator’s public statements and voting record through official congressional sources.