CBAM has drawn its sharpest official US attack since the definitive regime began on January 1, 2026. On August 12, Andrew Puzder, the US ambassador to the EU, wrote in a Financial Times op-ed that the mechanism is a tariff "by a different name" and accused Brussels of a "double standard". On August 13, the European Commission rejected the characterization, with spokesperson Louise Bogey saying the EU's "regulatory autonomy remains non-negotiable". The exchange matters most to EU importers gauging political risk to the mechanism and to US-origin trade flows: CBAM is now argued over inside the US-EU trade dispute, and Brussels has signalled it will not be traded away.
What Puzder wrote in the Financial Times
Puzder wrote that CBAM is a tariff "by a different name", that Brussels applies a "double standard" by protesting US steel and aluminium tariffs while "erecting protectionist barriers", and that the mechanism "shields" EU producers. The op-ed itself sits behind the Financial Times paywall; its key lines were reported by InsideTrade and by the Institute of Export and International Trade. Per InsideTrade, the central sentence reads: "The EU calls CBAM a climate measure keyed to steel and aluminium content, but a tariff is a tariff even by a different name." The parallel is deliberate. The EU has protested the US national-security duties on steel and aluminium, and those two metals sit at the center of CBAM's sector scope.
The carbon price gap behind the charge is measurable. On August 12, the December 2026 EU Allowance contract closed at €81.91 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent ($94.49), nearly three times the $33.42 price of the December 2026 California Carbon Allowance, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. The United States has no federal carbon price, so US exporters have no domestic carbon cost to deduct from a CBAM liability. What that gap means for US producers and their EU customers is covered in the CBAM USA guide.
Certificate price alerts and the regulatory changes that matter. Get weekly updates on what happens regarding anything CBAM-related. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
We store only your email address for these alerts. Privacy policy
How the Commission responded
On August 13, Commission spokesperson Louise Bogey said CBAM "is non-discriminatory, WTO-compatible, and applies equally to all third countries based on verified embedded emissions, irrespective of origin". According to S&P Global Commodity Insights, whose report Eurometal republished, Bogey stated: "The commission does not share the characterization of CBAM as a tariff." She added: "We therefore do not agree with comparisons with unilateral tariff measures." The rebuttal came paired with two signals: the EU's "regulatory autonomy remains non-negotiable", and Brussels remains open to engaging trading partners on how the mechanism is implemented.
The design difference the Commission points to is structural. A tariff taxes goods by value or volume at the border. CBAM is a certificate-based mechanism linked to the EU ETS price: importers surrender certificates proportional to verified embedded emissions, priced in 2026 at the quarterly average of EU ETS auction clearing prices, and the cost falls to zero for zero-emission goods regardless of origin. In 2026 the mechanism also applies to only 2.5 percent of embedded emissions, mirroring the 97.5 percent free allocation EU producers still receive under the ETS. Whether that design holds up as WTO-compatible is the question the EU's legal defense is built around.
Three days that pulled CBAM into the trade dispute
Between August 12 and August 14, CBAM moved from background irritant to named target inside the US-EU trade framework talks. The sequence and its sources are summarized below.
| Date | Development | Reported by |
|---|---|---|
| July 1, 2026 | EU-US tariff deal enters into force, with a 15% US import duty on most EU goods | S&P Global Commodity Insights |
| August 12, 2026 | Puzder calls CBAM a tariff "by a different name" in a Financial Times op-ed | InsideTrade |
| August 13, 2026 | Louise Bogey rejects the tariff characterization; regulatory autonomy "remains non-negotiable" | S&P Global Commodity Insights |
| August 14, 2026 | The US presses the EU on non-tariff commitments under the trade framework; the EU pushes back | Euronews |
On August 14, per Euronews, the dispute widened beyond CBAM. The US pressed the EU on non-tariff commitments under the trade framework agreed last year, naming the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, and CBAM among the regulations it considers burdens on US commerce. A US government document stated: "The United States will take any actions necessary to address unreasonable burdens on US commerce absent a solution." Puzder posted on X: "Now it's time for the EU to deliver." Commission spokesperson Arianna Podesta answered: "We have been very clear and consistent on the fact that neither our rules framework nor our regulatory autonomy are up for negotiation." No source reports any EU offer touching CBAM, and neither side has stated what the talks will change.
Where the legal fight actually stands
No US WTO dispute against CBAM exists; Russia's case remains the only formal challenge, and an op-ed does not change that. The United States has taken no legal step against the mechanism at the World Trade Organization. The single pending challenge is WTO dispute DS639, Russia vs the EU, which covers both CBAM and the EU ETS. The EU blocked Russia's first panel request on July 24, 2026, a procedural step available only once: under WTO procedure, a second panel request cannot be blocked the same way. Puzder's op-ed is a political document, not a filing, which is why it shifts the risk picture for sentiment rather than for law. It is nonetheless the highest-profile official US attack on the mechanism since the definitive regime took effect.
What importers should take from the exchange
The exchange signals planning certainty: the Commission will not soften CBAM inside the US trade framework talks, so importers can budget their 2026 and 2027 obligations on the rules as written. Three practical readings follow.
- Compliance obligations on US-origin goods are unchanged. Imports of US steel, aluminium, fertilizers, and the other covered goods still require an authorized declarant, verified embedded emissions data, and certificates ahead of the first annual declaration due September 30, 2027. The EU CBAM guide covers the full obligation chain.
- The Commission is executing, not pausing. On August 14 it published ten guidance documents for the definitive period, and the Q3 certificate price is tracking six to eight euros above Q2, the number certificate budgets need.
- Outside Washington, the direction of travel runs the other way. The UK launches its own CBAM in January 2027, Canada is studying one, and a lengthening list of governments are building or weighing their own mechanisms; Australia opened a review in August that could produce one.
The open questions are procedural: whether Washington escalates from op-ed to WTO filing, whether Russia submits a second DS639 panel request, and whether the trade framework talks produce any published commitment that names CBAM. On all three, the sources report no movement yet. Until one of them moves, the operative fact for compliance planning is the one Brussels stated on August 13: the mechanism applies as written, equally, to every third country.