“The trade deficit is huge. It stands at $235.6 billion — a 12.9 percent increase since 2023. EU countries impose an average 5 percent tariff on U.S. goods, while the U.S. imposes an average 3.3 percent tariff on European goods. Even worse, the EU collects a 10 percent tariff on car imports — that’s four times America’s 2.5 percent.”
…
“This has to change — and it can — but not through a tit-for-tat race to higher tariffs. Rather, we need to lower tariffs and observe symmetry. Ideally, EU-U.S. trade would be tariff-free. However, if that’s unachievable, tariffs should be, on average, 2 percent on both sides. That would create a huge stimulus for both economies, and it could be the basis and precondition for what is existentially necessary: a common trade strategy on China.”
…
“If Trump is serious about “America First,” there’s one thing he should come to terms with — it shouldn’t mean “America Alone.” More leverage at the negotiating table with China, a healthy U.S. economy without inflation, and a prosperous Germany that could turn around a stumbling EU would be in the interest of the American people and Europe.”
“The Trump administration’s massive federal cuts and swelling feelings of economic uncertainty helped fuel a recession-level spike in layoff plans last month, new data showed Thursday.
US-based employers last month announced plans to slash 172,017 jobs, a 103% increase from a year ago and the highest February total since 2009”
“Following swift market backlash, Trump on Wednesday announced a one-month reprieve for autos and auto parts from the sweeping 25 percent tariffs he levied one day earlier. In doing so, he signaled an openness to hearing appeals from other industries for additional exemptions to the Mexico and Canada tariffs. It’s a stark contrast to the approach he is taking with the American people, whom he is asking to shoulder the risk of higher prices as a result of the tariffs, in exchange for the promise of longer-term economic benefit.
“I don’t know what the administration’s plan is,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “If they’re using [tariffs] as leverage, seems to me it would be better to threaten them, negotiate and you put them on or not on.”
Together, the conflicting actions reflect the president’s dual impulses: longstanding sensitivity to stock market fluctuations — which he has long read as Nielsen ratings for his performance — and a love of tariffs as a primary instrument to get what he wants from foreign governments.
That tension is also reflected within Trump’s circle of advisers, who spent much of Wednesday debating whether and how far to mitigate the impacts of a trade war on American industries and consumers.
“It’s the greatest show on Earth. We’ll put tariffs on tonight, but tomorrow we’ll tell you we may negotiate and take them off,” a person close to the administration, granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations, told POLITICO. “But stay tuned, because you never know what tomorrow’s gonna bring.”
The self-inflicted economic uncertainty comes as Americans remain concerned about high prices, with polling showing that people don’t think the administration is doing enough to address the economy even as they are pleased with its performance on other issues. It also comes amid growing frustration on Capitol Hill, particularly among Republican senators from farm states, who fear the ripple effects from the tariffs on their local economies.
And it’s adding to confusion about whether the new tariffs on Canada and Mexico are truly aimed only at stemming the tide of fentanyl flowing across the U.S. border — a message Trump’s lieutenants have underscored far more firmly than the president himself — or reflective of the administration’s broader protectionist goals. The new tariffs, after all, are only a prelude to the more sweeping reciprocal tariffs the president has promised will take effect April 2 — and it’s unclear even to many of the president’s close allies what actions Canada and Mexico could take at this point to lift the tariffs entirely.”
“Part of his administration’s solution to the high price of eggs? More imports. As part of a $1 billion plan to combat the bird flu, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced..that it would seek to expand imports of eggs”
…
“A sudden constraint on supply—in this case, the bird flu—has pushed prices higher, and finding alternative suppliers might help ease the pain.
Now, someone in the White House might want to apply that same analysis to Trump’s plan for more tariffs on two of America’s biggest food suppliers.
Trump backed down from his threats to slap 25 percent tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico earlier this month, but at the time, he said those tariffs were merely delayed by 30 days.”
…
“Canada and Mexico accounted for 28 percent of all imports to the U.S. last year. If the costs of Trump’s tariffs are fully passed down the supply chain, consumers could be facing $225 billion in higher costs, according to an estimate by the American Action Forum (AAF). The energy and manufacturing sectors figure to be the hardest hit, thanks to the deeply integrated North American supply chains for products ranging from crude oil to critical minerals like cobalt and zinc.
Food prices would likely rise too. The U.S. imports more food than ever before, Bloomberg noted this week, and many of those imports come from America’s two neighbors. Mexico is America’s largest source of agricultural imports, according to the USDA. That includes 63 percent of U.S. vegetable imports and 47 percent of U.S. fruit and nut imports. All of that would be affected by the new tariffs.”
“President Donald Trump pledged Thursday to enforce his planned 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico starting March 4, after both were put on pause earlier this month.
“We cannot allow this scourge [of drugs] to continue to harm the USA, and therefore, until it stops, or is seriously limited, the proposed TARIFFS scheduled to go into effect on MARCH FOURTH will, indeed, go into effect, as scheduled,” Trump posted to Truth Social on Thursday morning.
Trump also promised to levy an additional 10 percent tariff on China starting the same date.”
…
“Trump has already imposed 10 percent tariffs on China after the leaders were unable to stave off a deadline earlier this month”
“The economic uncertainty created by Trump’s tariff threats has already warped markets and harmed the economy in ways large and small.”
…
“Uncertainty created by Trump’s trade policies reduced aggregate U.S. investment by as much as $47 billion in 2018, according to a 2020 study in the Journal of Monetary Economics.
The authors of that paper wrote that “all measures suggest that uncertainty about trade policy has recently shot up to levels not seen since the 1970s.” They concluded that “both higher expected tariffs and increased uncertainty about future tariffs deters investment.””
“These tariffs will protect American steelmakers and aluminum manufacturers from competition but at the expense of other American manufacturers that buy steel and aluminum to produce finished goods.
Unfortunately, there are a lot more jobs in the latter camp than in the former.”
…
“The Peterson Institute for International Economics calculated that the costs of Trump’s 2018 steel tariffs totaled about $650,000 per job created. If this is an economic development scheme for American manufacturing, it’s a pretty terrible one.
Farther downstream, consumers will be hurt too. When Trump hiked tariffs on steel and aluminum imports during his first term, those import duties translated into price increases of 2.4 percent for steel and 1.6 percent for aluminum, according to a 2023 study by the U.S. International Trade Commission.
That might not sound like a lot, but there are several reasons to expect a more significant hit this time around.
For one, Trump is now raising tariffs on both metals to 25 percent. His first-term tariffs were 25 percent on steel but only 10 percent on aluminum.
The impact of the steel and aluminum tariffs imposed during Trump’s first term was also blunted by the wide variety of carve-outs and loopholes that the administration created. Companies affected by the tariffs could apply for exemptions—and the process for deciding who got those breaks was, unsurprisingly, opaque and political.”
“The U.S. is the second-largest steel importer in the world, according to the International Trade Administration. In 2023, the U.S. imported 25.6 million metric tons of steel and exported a little more than 8.2 million metric tons. About half of the aluminum used domestically is imported and by global standards, the U.S. has a very small aluminum smelting industry. Steel and aluminum imports to the U.S. were valued at nearly $50 billion in 2024, per Bloomberg.”
…
“Imposing levies on steel and aluminum will increase costs for domestic energy projects (which will be passed on to consumers) while hamstringing America’s energy dominance. In recent years, high material costs (and burdensome regulations) have led to cancellations or price tag hikes for offshore wind energy, advanced nuclear power, and transmission line projects. Instead of building oil pipelines to the U.S., these trade barriers could also incentivize Canadian energy companies to invest in other markets, such as Japan, says Wayne Winegarden, an economist at the Pacific Research Institute, a free market think tank. “This really is one of the dumbest things we could be doing,” Winegarden tells Reason.
Importantly, these tariffs won’t accomplish Trump’s stated goal of “making America rich again.”
A study from the International Trade Commission found tariffs on steel (25 percent) and aluminum (10 percent) implemented during the first Trump administration decreased production and increased costs in downstream industries that use these materials by 0.6 percent and 0.2 percent, respectively. Total production in downstream industries was $3.5 billion less in 2021 because of these tariffs. The Tax Foundation estimates that repealing tariffs and their quotas would increase long-run gross domestic product by $3.5 billion and create thousands of jobs.”