Executive Order 13797, signed on April 29, 2017, created a new Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy within the Executive Office of the President. This office was granted broad authority to develop and coordinate trade and manufacturing policy across all federal agencies, with direct reporting lines to the President. The executive order effectively centralized trade policy decision-making in the White House, bypassing traditional departmental structures and congressional oversight mechanisms that had historically governed such decisions.

The establishment of this office placed significant policy-making power in presidential hands, directly affecting American manufacturers, workers, importers, retailers, and consumers. Companies engaged in international trade faced uncertainty about policy direction, as the new office could coordinate tariffs, trade negotiations, and manufacturing incentives with minimal external constraint. Workers in manufacturing sectors were promised renewed focus on domestic production, while consumers faced potential price increases from tariff policies the office could recommend or coordinate.

This action represents the foundational infrastructure for the trade expansion that would define subsequent years. The 2017 office establishment presaged the administration's later attempts to expand Section 301 trade war powers permanently and maintain national emergency declarations on trade deficits through 2026. By creating this coordinating body early in the administration, the President consolidated control over trade policy in ways that enabled the unilateral tariff actions that followed. The pattern demonstrates a systematic effort to concentrate executive authority over trade matters away from Congress and departmental expertise.

No major legal challenges directly blocked the office's creation, though the broader trade actions it coordinated later generated litigation and congressional criticism. The office's existence and authority to coordinate policy remained largely insulated from courts, even as specific tariff implementations faced legal scrutiny. Reversal would require either a subsequent executive order dissolving the office or legislative action reasserting congressional authority over trade policy through statute, though such moves became increasingly difficult as the office entrenched itself within presidential decision-making structures.