With the clock ticking on the 90-day pause in President Donald Trump's tariff and trade war, it's time for the president to answer some questions.
After all, when the president systematically uses economic nationalism in public discourse, he shapes people’s minds—regardless of whether his statements are intended for political negotiations or reflect deeply held beliefs. And people’s minds have consequences. Furthermore, even if economic nationalism is used primarily to pressure concessions from trading partners, the likelihood of reaping the intended benefits hinges on the veracity—or lack thereof—of the core arguments. If the terms of exchange do not produce beneficial outcomes, the conclusion can only be that the entire premise was bogus and that harmful political and economic consequences will ensue. Here are some questions requiring answers.
How does President Trump square his contention that the U.S. trade deficit is the result of unfairly high barriers to U.S. imports when in 2023 the weighted average tariff on U.S. imports was 2.9% worldwide, a small figure considering that $33 trillion worth of merchandise is traded globally? By comparison, the average weighted U.S. tariff on its trading partners was only slightly lower (2.2%)?
While there are indeed non-tariff barriers to trade, the most important may be government requirements to purchase goods and services only from domestic suppliers. Is President Trump aware that the United States is among the world’s chief offenders in this regard—with U.S. “Buy American” policies covering hundreds of billions in government purchases every year?
During his first administration, President Trump renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—which subsequently became the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). If forcing trading partners to negotiate new Trump-style trade deals is the way to get rid of the U.S. trade deficit, why is it that the U.S. trade deficit with its North American partners nearly tripled under USMCA, from $88 billion in 2017 to $235 in 2024?
Is President Trump aware that in 2023 the average tariff on U.S. exports to China, India, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam—five countries that account for a large share of the U.S. trade deficit with the world—was just 6.2%, much lower than the 10.6% tariff Washington leveled on them? And regarding South Korea, America’s sixth largest trading partner, does he realize that since 2020 there have been no industrial or agricultural tariffs impeding the flow of U.S. exports to that country?
The recent trade deal between the United States and the United Kingdom has been touted as an example of the kind of deals the administration aims to cut in the next weeks and months. Is President Trump aware that the weighted average tariff the U.K. levied on non-agricultural U.S. exports before the recent “deal” was 0.5%? If so, how is the deal a major improvement?
President Trump accuses some U.S. trading partners of levying a heavy “value-added tax” (VAT) on imports from the U.S. He is right, but is he aware that the same tax is applied to those countries’ domestic products—meaning the VAT has no practical effect on the competitiveness of U.S. products?
President Trump is now planning to collect 100% tariffs on movies that are not made in America. How is he planning to define “Made in America,” since most American movies shot (entirely or partially) abroad come back to the United States for post-production purposes, a process involving multiple industries employing countless U.S. workers?
In light of all this, the trade “deals” that presumably will be announced in the near future—including the recent tariff rollback negotiated with China—are highly unlikely to change the game. They won’t eliminate the trade deficit and they won’t repatriate industries and jobs that have migrated to places where production costs are less onerous.
Or is President Trump betting that his electoral base will be satisfied by seeing the rest of the world bend a knee to the United States in negotiations that fulfil his “America first” promise—regardless of the final outcome?
