By Rogé Karma
Tuesday, March 04, 2025
If you were setting out to design a trade policy that
would harm the American economy while undermining political support for its
leadership, you might come up with something like the tariffs that Donald Trump
just imposed on Canada, China, and Mexico.
The new tariffs will raise prices for American consumers,
weaken the American auto industry, and prompt severe retaliation from America’s
top trading partners. With respect to China, a case can be made that tariffs
would promote U.S. national security and domestic industry if they were
targeted and well designed. But Trump’s blanket 20 percent tariff on all
Chinese imports is neither. Meanwhile, the 25 percent tariffs on Canada and
Mexico are utterly incomprehensible. There is no grand economic vision, geopolitical
strategy, or even political logic behind them. International trade, like all
areas of public policy, is a game of weighing costs versus benefits. Trump’s
tariffs are the rare policy that might turn out to represent nothing but cost.
The most widespread and direct effect of the new tariffs
will come in the form of inflation. Tariffs, which are literally a tax on
imported goods, are often passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices,
and Mexico, Canada, and China together account
for more than 40 percent of U.S. imports. Yale’s Budget Lab estimates
that the new tariffs will cost the average household anywhere from $1,600 to
$2,000 a year.
Those higher costs will disproportionately affect the
specific items that American consumers pay the most attention to. Survey after
survey has shown
that discontent with the broader economy in recent years has been driven more
by high grocery prices than any other category of spending. Mexico is the
largest exporter to the U.S. of fruits, vegetables, alcoholic beverages, and
sugar, and Canada is the top exporter of meat, grains, baked goods, and cooking
oils.
In theory, American farms could ramp up production to
offset some of those higher prices. But that process could take months or
years, and will be made all the more difficult by Trump’s deportation
agenda—nearly half
of the agricultural workforce is composed of undocumented immigrants—as well as
the tariffs themselves, which will raise
the costs of foreign fertilizer and farming equipment, on which domestic
producers rely heavily.
The primary economic case for tariffs is that they shift
demand toward domestically produced goods, which, in theory, should boost
American industry. “I would just say this to people in Canada or Mexico: If
they’re going to build car plants, the people that are doing them are much
better off building here,” Trump told
reporters at the White House when he announced the new tariffs yesterday
afternoon.
That may come as a shock to, well, the American auto
industry. The Big Three car companies have practically begged
Trump not to go through with the tariffs. Canada and Mexico produce more than
half of the individual car parts that American automakers import every year to
assemble their vehicles in the U.S., including
multiple components for which there exist literally no American suppliers. A
recent report found
that the new tariffs could raise the cost of a full-size SUV assembled in North
America by $9,000 and a pickup truck by $8,000. American automakers “should not
have their competitiveness undermined by tariffs that will raise the cost of
building vehicles in the United States and stymie investment in the American
work force,” Matt Blunt, the president of the American Automotive Policy
Council, which represents the Big Three automakers, said
in a statement yesterday. And automakers aren’t alone here. A broad survey
of U.S. manufacturers found that the industry was already experiencing higher
costs and lower employment in anticipation of the new tariffs.
The full economic cost of the tariffs will hinge on how
Mexico, Canada, and China respond. Last month, Beijing placed 10 to 15 percent
tariffs on American energy and car exports; today, it added chicken, wheat,
corn, soybeans, dairy, and other food products to the list. Canada has also announced
that it will apply 25 percent tariffs on $30 billion worth of American goods
and extend them to $125 billion worth of goods in three weeks. (Mexico has yet
to respond with measures of its own but has said it will do so soon.) These
retaliatory measures will make it harder for American producers—the ostensible
beneficiaries of tariffs—to sell their products abroad.
The official justification for the tariffs is to force
Canada and Mexico to address
the supposed “extraordinary threat” posed by illegal immigration and fentanyl
trafficking at America’s borders. This is a transparent pretext to allow Trump
to declare a “national emergency” that empowers him to impose tariffs
immediately and unilaterally. Last year, the Canadian border was responsible
for just
0.2 percent of the fentanyl seized by U.S. border authorities and 1.5 percent
of illegal border crossings. Meanwhile, illegal immigration at the southern
border has plummeted since early 2024 to near-record lows, leading Trump
himself to declare,
“The Invasion of our Country is OVER.” The amount of fentanyl seized at the
southern border fell
by about 20 percent last year, and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has
presided over a major anti-cartel crackdown since taking office in October.
Usually, when elected officials implement foolish
policies, they do so because they believe the political upside outweighs the
substantive downside. What makes Trump’s tariffs so unusual is that the
politics of them also appear to be terrible. Trump promised to impose major
tariffs during the campaign, and so he might feel that failing to follow
through would undermine his credibility. But voters consistently cited
inflation, not trade, as the single most important issue in the 2024 election,
and Trump also made promises to lower prices. Now he seems to be going out of
his way to break them.
A month ago, when Trump decided to postpone the Mexico
and Canada tariffs just before they were set to take effect, I argued
that they were never anything more than a hollow threat. I now know I was
wrong—but I still don’t understand why a president would follow through on a
policy likely to generate so much political backlash for so little gain.
The question now is how long the new restrictions will
last. Perhaps a swift political backlash in response to rising prices will
compel Trump to find a new pretext to declare victory and get rid of the
tariffs promptly. Or perhaps the president will not only keep the tariffs in
place but also open up new frontiers in his trade war. Trump has already announced
plans to levy reciprocal tariffs on all countries that currently impose any
kind of trade barriers on the U.S.—a policy that the Budget Lab estimates
would cost American consumers up to $3,400 a year—as soon as April 2. Until
yesterday, I would have said there’s no way that would happen. Now I’m not so
sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment