Why Does Trump Love Tariffs?
Donald Trump’s love affair with tariffs goes against the grain of economic consensus. Almost all economists agree: tariffs are bad for economies. So why does Trump love them?
To understand Trump’s economic vision, you need to know two key players: Robert Lighthizer and Jamieson Greer. Lighthizer, Trump’s trade czar in his first term, championed the tariff-heavy trade strategy. This time, Greer steps into his mentor’s shoes as the U.S. Trade Representative.
Who are these men? What do they believe? And what does it mean for global trade?
The Economist’s Tariff Playbook
Economists argue tariffs disrupt the principle of comparative advantage. By making imports more expensive, they distort trade, raise prices, and reduce efficiency.
But that’s not the whole story. While tariffs shrink overall economic output, they also reshape the playing field. Some win, others lose—and the debate often overlooks the deeper social and geopolitical stakes.
Free Trade’s Hidden Cost
For decades, America pursued free trade with gusto, chasing cheaper goods and higher corporate profits. The result? De-industrialized towns, millions of lost jobs, and rising inequality.
Between 2000 and 2016 alone, the U.S. lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. For many of these displaced workers, the promise of “retraining” often led to low-wage service jobs, stripping them of economic stability and dignity.
Lighthizer’s Rust Belt Revolution
Lighthizer’s upbringing in Ashtabula, Ohio—a once-thriving industrial town turned symbol of economic decline—shaped his trade philosophy. He believed America’s trade policies should protect its producers, not just enrich consumers or corporations.
For him, tariffs weren’t about maximizing GDP. They were about revitalizing American industry and rebuilding the middle class.
The China Factor
Lighthizer viewed China as an existential threat to U.S. prosperity. From state-subsidized industries to intellectual property theft, he argued that China’s economic strategies flouted free-market principles.
Traditional economic models assume fair play. Lighthizer saw China’s practices—currency manipulation, forced technology transfers—as evidence of a long-term geopolitical chess game. Tariffs, in his eyes, were necessary to counterbalance this strategy.
More Than Dollars and Cents
For Trump and Lighthizer, tariffs weren’t just about economics. They were tools for negotiating trade deals, protecting strategic industries, and reducing dependence on adversaries like China.
But did the tariffs work? Research suggests mixed results. While they increased prices for U.S. households and sparked retaliatory measures, they also scored strategic victories, including opening new markets for American exporters and redefining trade priorities.
Rethinking Tariffs
So, are tariffs good or bad? It depends on what you value. If efficiency is your goal, economists are right—they’re a net negative. But if the aim is rebuilding industries, protecting workers, and rebalancing global power, tariffs start to look like a strategic necessity.
America’s trade strategy may not have delivered the economic revival Lighthizer envisioned, but it forced a global reckoning. As we face the next four years, his approach remains a controversial blueprint for how nations can wield trade as a tool of economic sovereignty.