Trump's Tariffs

by Eduardo del Buey

Trump’s Tariffs

In politics, many follow the art of not saying much to avoid pitfalls.

Recently, Thomas L. Friedman wrote in the New York Times that “if you are confused by President Trump’s zigzagging strategies on Ukraine, tariffs, microchips, or a host of other issues, it is not your fault. It’s his”.

The result is what you see today: a chaotic mix of fluctuating tariffs announced by the President on April 2^nd, inconsistent support for Ukraine, erratic cuts to government departments and programs, and threats to allies and enemies alike.

These are compounded by contradictory directives all executed by cabinet secretaries and staff united by a fear of being criticized by Elon Musk or Trump if they deviate from whatever current or new policy emerges unfiltered from social media feeds.

It seems that many senior Republicans are proceeding cautiously regarding the tariff issue, as it embodies everything Republicans have traditionally opposed.

That same April 2^nd, the Senate voted 51 – 48 against tariffs on Canada. 4 Republicans joined 47 Democrats in this vote against Trump’s policy.

Other Republicans have expressed opposition to the tariffs as an economic tool.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) made several such comments over the past week.

“What I’m willing to do is give the president some latitude to try and accomplish the objective he seeks to get done here,” Thune said after Trump’s speech to Congress last week.

“I’m obviously in a different place on [tariffs],” he added Monday. “But I’m hoping that the tariffs, when they achieve their stated objective, will be temporary in nature.”

Thune added Tuesday, "I’m not a big fan generally of tariffs, unless there’s a reason,” while wagering that markets were responding to “uncertainty” about how long the tariffs would last.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) aka “Foghorn Leghorn” has repeatedly cited his worry about the impact of tariffs, even wagering that Trump might ultimately back off.

“I think if the tariffs do start to cause inflation, I think the president will back away from them,” Kennedy predicted last week, adding that “the thing [people] expect the president to fix is high prices.” (Tariffs almost always cause some inflation.)

And they’re hardly the only ones:

“I am hopeful these tariffs will be a short-term step to encourage negotiations rather than a long-term measure that could lead to retaliatory actions impacting Indiana’s ag sector,” Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) posted on social media.

“When we start losing, you back off. There’s such a thing as strategic retreat,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) said. “At the end of the day, I think we have more leverage than any other nation. But we gotta be smart and we don’t have all the leverage.”

“Hopefully things will settle down,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said after Trump last week paused many of the tariffs for one month. Cornyn cited other Trump policies that could fuel growth, while adding that “markets prefer stability rather than uncertainty.”

But nowhere in those comments is an affirmative case for the tariffs — just an affirmative case for shaking things up.

Indeed, very few Republicans are proactively weighing in on tariffs.

The whole Republican Party seems to be in wait-and-see mode, its members not wanting to own the tariffs themselves but also not wanting to directly undercut the president.

The idea seems to be that Trump can be prevailed upon to back off if the worst does come to pass.

Can he?

Trump has long been a tariff evangelist — it’s one of his oldest and most consistent political views, even as he’s changed course on many others — although he is talking like someone who’s in it for the long haul.

Even his more die-hard supporters, like FOX News’s Peter Doocy, appear alarmed by the current tariff wars.

Doocy took up the cudgel in a recent White House briefing that made it abundantly clear that he's deeply displeased with the Trump-inflicted economic downturn.

"We also expect the White House to try to reassure folks who are sitting there looking at their 401(k)s going down and down and down," Doocy said.

"This is a White House that came in trying to get federal workers to retire by the hundreds of thousands. But it's tough to argue that you should retire if your retirement accounts are getting throttled which is what is happening right now," he continued.

"So we expect, we hope, for answers to all of these curiosities any minute," he added.

Some 51% of registered voters oppose Trump’s tariffs while 38 % support them.

But will more moderate Republicans, journalists, and opinion makers tolerate the economic and financial fallout that tariffs will bring?

Will the American public stand to see their retirement savings funds – tied to the stock market – reduced significantly at a time when the social welfare net is being cut?

Of course, lawmakers could reclaim the power over such levies that Congress has ceded to the presidency over the years. The Constitution, after all, grants Congress authority over tariffs.

If they start discussing this seriously, you’ll know they’ve lost patience and are genuinely fearful.

In this context, a robust counter-response to American tariffs by many affected countries appears to be the most effective method for exerting the greatest influence on Trump: the reactions of American citizens, businesses, and investors.

However, Canada and Mexico present a unique case—they are exempt from the significant 10% across-the-board tariff and reciprocal tariffs, yet they still encounter 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles.

In this case, I would suggest that Canada’s response should be managed cerebrally rather than viscerally.

In my view, Canada should avoid imposing additional retaliatory tariffs that might incite further reprisals from the Trump administration. Instead, I believe it should pursue negotiations for a new CUSMA, as the U.S. seems committed to maintaining the current trilateral agreement.

The recent conversation between Prime Minister Carney and President Trump seemed to create a positive atmosphere for ongoing dialogue.

Canada should concentrate on creating a national industrial strategy, establishing a domestic free trade market, and, following the election, emphasizing national unity with the provinces, opposition parties, and the private sector to tackle current and future challenges – some of which could be existential.