Donald Trump

Trump Has Little Latitude to Change Trade Policies…So Far

Bush and Obama tried tariffs, and got smacked down. But will a more determined protectionist rally legislators and public opinion to his side?

|

So long, suckers! ||| Morning Consult/Politico
Morning Consult/Politico

Over at Bloomberg Politics, Sahil Kapur has a useful piece detailing congressional unease at President-elect Donald Trump's recent rhetoric about slapping a 35 percent border tax on U.S. companies that offshore production and then try to sell their stuff back to America. In keeping with most coverage of Trumpian tweets, Kapur doesn't get to Question 1 of my 5-Step Process for Playing Defense Against Trump's Bad IdeasWhat could President Trump actually do?—until paragraph 21:

Legally, Trump does have some unilateral powers to tax particular goods that cross the border, but not entire companies' products, said Gavin Ekins, a research economist at the right-leaning Tax Foundation. "In reality, a tariff doesn't quite work that way," he said. "But you can tax a class of goods. It's possible to say 'I'm going to put tariffs on heavy trucks within this time range.'"

Ekins said Trump will likely face legal challenges and may need buy-in from Congress and the World Trade Organization to make his plans stick. "He can technically do this but there's going to be push-back in many ways if he does," he said. "He's extremely constrained in what he actually can do in the very end."

Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the pro-trade Peterson Institute For International Economics, said Trump has broad authority to apply import restrictions under national-security exceptions, but he argued that going after entire companies' products would be "unprecedented" and could "backfire along a number of different dimensions." […]

He cited one example: "In 2009, the Obama administration imposed restrictions on Chinese tires. In response, they hit restrictions on U.S. poultry products, in particular chicken feet, a Chinese delicacy that we exported a lot of."

Trump wouldn't be the first president to unilaterally pursue protective tariffs.

In March 2002, for example, George W. Bush slapped tariffs of as much as 30 percent on steel imports to protect the ailing domestic industry, after his administration concluded that trading partners were engaging in predatory practices known as "dumping." The move faced international push-back, and 21 months later Bush abandoned the tariffs under threat of a trade war with Europe.

My first post-financial crisis cover. ||| Reason
Reason

So even though Trump ran a far more explicitly protectionist campaign than Barack Obama did in 2008, he will be constrained by the Constitution, by U.S. law, international treaties, the potential for bilateral retribution (though he'd certainly be less gun-shy about entering into such conflicts), and by the GOP-led Congress. Kapur's piece, in fact, is largely a collection of hold-on-there quotes from congressional Republicans, such as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarty ("I don't want to get into some type of trade war"), Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker ("I'm not much of a tariff-oriented individual"), and Rep. Jusin Amash (R-Mich.): "Maybe the slogan should be #MakeAmericaVenezuela."

So the question soon becomes, Might Congress change its mind?

On the yes-it-damn-well-might front, comes this shock of a poll this week from YouGov, showing 57 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of conservatives (compared to 38 percent of independents and moderates, 33 percent of Democrats, and 31 percent of liberals) agree with Vice President-elect Mike Pence's appallingly inaccurate statement that "The free market has been sorting it out and America has been losing." The poll additionally showed that 73 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of conservatives agreed with "imposing stiff tariffs or other taxes on U.S. companies that relocate jobs," 78 percent of Republicans think it's proper to "offer tax breaks or incentives to individual companies to keep jobs in the U.S.," 75 percent of Republicans think it's Jim dandy for the federal government to "negotiate with individual private companies on a case by case basis," and 71 percent say it's fine to "offer government contracts to individual companies to keep jobs in the U.S."

As Allahpundit pointed out over at Hot Air, some of the partisan breakdown of these numbers can be attributed to the party that holds the White House (Democrats hated free trade during the George W. Bush presidency, for example). But still,

the share of Republicans who view free trade mainly as an opportunity hasn't been above 57 percent in the past 15 years. The number began to decline during the Bush years, in fact, not the Obama years, and was below 50 percent by 2008. The highest level it's reached since then is a mere 52 percent. For most of the past five years, there's been a double-digit gap between Democrats who see free trade mostly as an opportunity and Republicans who do.

Politicians, especially in the House of Representatives, respond to incentives. Yes, there are scores of pretty hardcore free-market types in the House GOP caucus, but their number used to include, among others, Mike Pence. Trump changing the calculus of how politicians can succeed in this country is certain to affect their choices.

Speaking of which, even if Trump will never get Justin Amash to sign onto a 35 percent punitive tariff, he might not have to, if he rallies enough Democrats to his side. As the president-elect's fellow NAFTA-hater Bernie Sanders recently tweeted, "If Trump is serious about helping the middle class, we'll work with him." Hillary Clinton, to name another prominent Democrat, ran commercials during the Olympics about punishing U.S. companies that dare relocate abroad. The idea is broadly popular, if economically daft.

When both major parties have officially lost their minds on a core economic issue, that can paradoxically lead to some dynamic possibilities amid the wreckage of realignment, though we are surely getting ahead of ourselves:

The action in front of us right now is that congressional Republicans are trying to channel Trump's tariff enthusiasm into broader corporate tax reform they hope won't include tariffs per se (though it might occasion a pretty drastic overhaul of the way taxes and goods come in and out of the country). Tax reform is a sludgy business, so look for new President Trump to make some kind of targeted use of his tariff power, and then see how the public, the Congress, and the world reacts, probably in that order. Those who seek to forestall the re-escalation of global tariffs after a several-decades-long reduction have their work cut out for them.

Advertisement

NEXT: Second Amendment challenge to New York state stun gun ban

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So even though Trump ran a far more explicitly protectionist campaign than Barack Obama did in 2008, he will be constrained by the Constitution, by U.S. law, international treaties…

    Hails of riotous laughter!

    …the potential for bilateral retribution (though he’d certainly be less gun-shy about entering into such conflicts), and by the GOP-led Congress. Oh. Good points Matt.

  2. Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s appallingly inaccurate statement that “The free market has been sorting it out and America has been losing.”

    O.M.G.

    1. Ask Robert Ringer. He’s a radical libertarian, yet he says in any transaction there’s a winner & a loser. There’s a reasonable sense in which he’s correct: that if you compare the gains in trade between them, one is getting more than the other. Businesspeople know that you can drive a good bargain or a bad one.

      1. It’s like when you buy something, then find out you could’ve gotten it for less. You were satisfied, but you still lost the difference = what you could’ve saved. So there’s a sense in which both parties gain, and an equally valid sense in which one gains & the other loses, based on the same facts.

        1. Sometimes we even refer to a merchant’s charging a higher price than the merchant was willing to sell at as being cheated.

          So why could Pence not simply mean that Americans have been getting bad bargains in deals w foreigners?

          1. So why could Pence not simply mean that Americans have been getting bad bargains in deals w foreigners?

            Perhaps I missed the context, but wasn’t he simply talking about employment being outsourced? The free market has been sorting it out and America has been losing [manufacturing jobs]

          2. Because, Bob, he did not say it. If he meant it, well, he could have said it, or upon realizing the cock-up, he could have corrected himself.

      2. He’s a radical libertarian, yet he says in any transaction there’s a winner & a loser. There’s a reasonable sense in which he’s correct: that if you compare the gains in trade between them, one is getting more than the other.
        That’s because he is an idiot who has only heard of zero-sum games. Hardly radical. Mainly idiot.

  3. Hitler had little latitude to annex the Sudetenland.

    Boom. Nailed it.

    1. Midetenland es Sudetenland.

  4. With the Trump Presidency Looming, Women Are Getting IUDs While They Still Can

    “”I’ve considered getting an IUD a couple of times, but birth control in the pill form has always worked for me,” says Sarah Nolan, a Duke graduate student. “It’s weird to have this very personal decision made for me due to circumstances very outside of my control.”

    “Nolan will turn twenty-six one month after Trump takes office. She’ll be forced off her parents’ health insurance and on that of her employer.

    “”Right now I’m on the birth control pill, which is great, and it’s free to me through my parents’ health insurance every month,” she says. “I don’t have to do an economic calculation every time I go to pick up my prescription; it’s just there as part of my health care system. In a few months, I might have to put a monetary value on it?how much is that convenience of a birth control method that works for me worth in terms of dollars? Do I have those funds in my monthly budget? It might not end up being all that much, but if you add up a twenty- or thirty-dollar copay each month over a year, it starts to seem more significant.””

    1. Well, if you think 20 or 30 dollars a month is a lot, wait until you start paying for your own health insurance under Obamacare, bwahahhaahhaaa!

    2. IUDs are way better than pills

  5. shock of a poll this week from YouGov, showing 57 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of conservatives (compared to 38 percent of independents and moderates, 33 percent of Democrats, and 31 percent of liberals) agree with Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s appallingly inaccurate statement that “The free market has been sorting it out and America has been losing.”

    So, lefties think what? Free market hasn’t been sorting it out in the first place? America hasn’t been losing? They all of a sudden found Adam Smith?
    Or did they not give a fuck about statement and just look who said it? If so, why would it be a ‘shock’?
    Likewise, if you told Republicans Obama had said that, I bet you lose at least 15 percent of ‘agree’.

    1. This. Principals > Principles.

  6. Rep. Jusin Amash (R-Mich.): “Maybe the slogan should be #MakeAmericaVenezuela.”

    Zing! Amash, you magnificent bastard!

    1. Amash now has 6.2 million lefty followers on Twitter.

      1. They might want to wait til his next couple tweets. #DicksoutforAmash

      2. Of course, they agree with the sentiment of making America into Venezuela, they just think he was being literal.

  7. You know who else wanted to put up tariffs to keep American businesses in the US?

  8. Trump will get whatever tariffs he wants. The congressional Republicans are basically a rubber stamp. All that remains is Republicans posing as libertarians to fart out some turd-principle wrapped in chrome.

    Time to blame Hillary based on what she would have done to regulate some coal CEO’s right to inject some of that black gold into miners’ lungs.

    Because free markets

  9. “””international treaties”””

    What treaties?

    NAFTA is not a treaty, nor are the other dozen or so such laws. They could not get the 2/3 vote in the Senate so they went around the Constitution and passed these by simple majority vote in Congress

  10. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought afterearning 18,513 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a littleover.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly layouts..it’s realy thesimplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making overhourly.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  11. til I looked at the receipt four $6371, I didnt believe that…my… mom in-law could trully receiving money in there spare time at their computer.. there friends cousin has done this for under 15 months and as of now paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a new Infiniti. navigate to this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  12. my friend’s ex-wife makes $79/hour on the internet. She has been unemployed for five months but last month her payment was $13079 just working on the internet for a few hours. check

    ==================================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  13. Brianna. true that Kathryn`s st0rry is impressive… I just received themselves a Jaguar E-type from bringing in $5324 recently and-over, ten-k this past-munth. it’s definitly the coolest work Ive ever done. I started this 3 months ago and straight away started to bring home minimum $81.. per/hr. straight from the source

    ==============> http://www.homejobs7.com

  14. Liam. I agree that Carl`s bl0g is cool… I just got a great new Honda since getting a cheque for $9458 thiss month and just a little over 10/k this past-munth. without a doubt its the most financially rewarding I’ve ever had. I started this six months/ago and almost immediately started earning at least $75, per hour. go now

    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.