Both Trump and Biden Are Promising More Tariffs
Yes, trade tariffs cause higher prices. Trump never understood that, and now Biden apparently has forgotten it.

A distressing amount of deliberate amnesia swirls around American trade policy these days—affecting not only the two men cynically pandering to voters in the presidential race, but also the experts who really ought to know better.
"I think that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked," U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai told reporters during a mid-May press conference at the White House.
Tai later walked back those remarks, but they were telling nonetheless. Of course that link hasn't been debunked! The U.S. International Trade Commission concluded in a report released just last year that U.S. consumers and businesses "bore nearly the full cost" of the various tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump. Numerous other studies published in recent years have come to the same conclusion: Tariffs are taxes on Americans, and they artificially raise prices.
Indeed, if tariffs didn't raise prices, they would be utterly ineffective. The entire purpose of a tariff is to shift consumer behavior away from politically disfavored goods—such as imports from China—toward domestic-made items that would otherwise lose out in a free market of price competition.
That's a fact President Joe Biden used to know but has now conveniently forgotten. "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China," Biden argued in June 2019. "Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs."
Perhaps Biden needs to retake Econ 101, too. In May, the White House announced new tariffs on electric vehicles (E.V.s), advanced batteries, heavy machinery used at ports, and basic medical equipment such as syringes and rubber gloves.
The tariffs targeting E.V.s are particularly confusing for the Biden administration, which has invested a lot of political capital (and tax dollars) in getting Americans to ditch internal combustion–based transportation. If you want widespread adoption of new technology, artificially hiking the prices of E.V.s is a strange way to do it. It appears that protectionism for American automakers is ultimately more important to the president than reducing emissions.
Trump, meanwhile, is promising even more tariffs if voters return him to the White House. In various interviews this year, Trump has promised to impose a 10 percent tariff on all imports to the U.S. and a 60 percent tariff on goods from China.
When he cranked up tariffs in 2018, Trump at least tried to claim there was some national security basis for doing so. Now he's effectively admitting it's naked protectionism, repeatedly calling the idea "a ring around the county" that would keep out foreign competition.
Regardless of the rationale, it will be American consumers and businesses bearing the cost. An analysis by the Tax Foundation found that Trump's proposed 10 percent tariff would be equivalent to a $300 billion tax increase. As with any tax increase, the tariff would sap economic growth and reduce employment—because you can't make as much stuff when everything is more expensive. Assuming other countries would also raise trade barriers in retaliation, the final toll would be more than 825,000 jobs lost, according to Tax Foundation Senior Economist Erica York.
Causing the prices of all imported goods to increase is a bad idea at any time, but a particularly bizarre one when polls show inflation is the top economic concern for many Americans. Various estimates suggest Trump's proposed new tariffs would cost the average American family more than $1,500 annually. Expect some of those higher costs to hit your pantry, because 60 percent of the fresh fruit consumed by Americans is imported, as is 99 percent of all coffee and more than 70 percent of seafood.
Even if tariffs were effective at spurring domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition—a dubious claim, but one that tariff advocates often make—how is artificially jacking up the price of food that doesn't grow in America going to help anyone?
Six years after Trump started ratcheting tariffs higher, there is scant evidence that higher import taxes on Americans have changed China's behavior on the world stage—which was the original aim. Nevertheless, the two major party presidential candidates are competing to out-tariff one another, preferring political pandering over economic principles and empirical evidence.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Tariffs to the Left of Me, Tariffs to the Right."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The tariffs targeting E.V.s are particularly confusing for the Biden administration, which has invested a lot of political capital (and tax dollars) in getting Americans to ditch internal combustion–based transportation. If you want widespread adoption of new technology, artificially hiking the prices of E.V.s is a strange way to do it. It appears that protectionism for American automakers is ultimately more important to the president than reducing emissions.
And yet, according to Boehm's opening drivel, Trump is the idiot... while Joe's just an "elderly man with a poor memory".
Various estimates suggest Trump's proposed new tariffs would cost the average American family more than $1,500 annually.
Then it's a good thing that Trump's tax cuts gave back at least as much money to the average American family, effectively offsetting the negative economical effects of his foreign policy. At least that's what TDS-afflicted Jake "CNN" Tapper told us after the 2020 debate, where he deboonked Joe's lies regarding those tax cuts. Or was Jake lying to us all... for Trump's sake?!?
How much was it estimated Joe's regulatory and inflationary policies cost tax payers. A few thousand?
Plus bidenflation..
Honestly, while I don’t like tariffs or any other form of taxation they also aren't really that high on the list of concerns right now. I get that Reason is globalist, but their obsession over tariffs ignores the actions of other countries and makes a poor case for their outrage
This. It isnt even in the top 10 of costs consumers face. But you would think it is most responsible based on the number of articles here.
You're right. I would presume that most libertarians, including myself, would first and foremost be against the illegitimate, immoral and unconstitutional income tax. All forms of income taxes, be it on labor or capital. Then all other forms of wealth, property, estate and inheritance taxes, with the obvious exception of a land value tax aka the "least bad tax". Then all forms of social "security contributions", since the worst I could accept as a compromise would be a personal saving/investment scheme (so not PAYGO), kinda like the Singaporean CPF. But tariffs? I doubt it would even make the top10 on my list...
Get it. Tariffs are the worst cost ever. Sure it is half of even the theft for the prison reform you guys advocate for regarding shop lifting. But it is your windmill.
But it is especially odd given your concerns with EVs which are heavily subsidized by government to create an artificial market. Yes, China even receives EV subsidies. It got so bad the House forced a no funds go to China amendment in the last green energy bill. Somehow the dollars still ended up there.
But with half of EV owners regretting the decision to buy EV, we should ignore the market would be almost non exoststent without government subsidies and market manipulation. So let's focus only on tariffs against the subsidized market. Like we do for all green energy pogroms. We have our windmill. Let's tilt at it.
If you oppose regressive taxes that harm poor people in order to protect overpaid union jobs, then you hate America.
Besides that, LOOK AT THE RED HERRING! OVER THERE!
Really stale. Get a new act.
Poor sarc...
Amazing how Republicans and conservatives now go into full attack-dog mode when someone criticizes taxes. Here I thought the left was the defender of taxes. Can't tell the difference when it comes to tariffs.
Probably due to your limited mental capacity.
You’ve literally been stanning for increased taxes for months lol. Need the links?
Literally you claiming tax cuts need to increase because of the deficit.
Youre just a leftist piece of shit like Jeff. Raging hypocrite too.
There's no point in having a conversation with you because you're too stupid to understand the difference between taxes for revenue and taxes to influence behavior, too stupid to understand that the Laffer Curve doesn't mean all tax cuts increase revenue, and too stupid to understand that tax cuts that don't increase revenue increase the deficit if they're not paired with spending decreases.
You're a fucking moron.
Poor sarc.
The problem is government coercion not tariffs.
Yes, trade tariffs cause higher prices.
We're really sticking with this argument... we're just dug in like a tick, I see.
And sure, Biden is just haplessly "continuing" Trump tariffs. We're gonna keep running with that one?
Ok, I got one for you, "Trump is continuing Reagan's tariffs, change my mind."
Income taxes also raise prices and more importantly leave you with less money in the first place to buy goods.
More tariffs and less income taxes, please.
I would agree if these tariffs were for revenue. But they’re not. Their purpose is to influence behavior. Ideally they would bring in no revenue at all because people would choose to forgo the artificially expensive imports and buy the protected domestic goods instead.
They are for revenue though, they bring in lots of revenue. I agree though that tariffs should be thoughtfully applied, I assume they're not and won't be. Always lots of room to quibble and improve on the particulars.
When I said "these tariffs" I was referring to protectionist tariffs. Their purpose is to raise prices and get people to buy domestic. That is very different from revenue tariffs where they want people to buy the stuff.
What matters is the effect of the tariffs, not so much the intent or what you deem the intent to be. And a primary effect of these tariffs has been a lot of revenue.
If you’re talking about revenue generation as opposed to protectionism, I don’t see tariffs as any better or worse from a libertarian perspective than income taxes, property taxes, or sales taxes. I think you could make a case for having a tariff to pay for some military spending rather than as general revenue — ideally a company importing its oil on tankers should be the one paying for having those tankers protected by the US Navy, not the company producing oil by fracking in South Dakota. But for that to work, the tariff would have to be on imports *and* exports.
I'm not a libertarian, and defining a "libertarian perspective" is like nailing jello to the wall.
With that said, I would think sales taxes and tariffs and the like are better than income taxes or ad valorem (property) taxes, because they are much more voluntary (not fully so, but very distinguishable from the others).
Aside from that, I'm against "protectionism" generally, about 90% but not 100%. The various exceptions set forth by Adam Smith make sense to me: for one example, if you hammer and nearly destroy your domestic industry with taxes and staggering regulatory burdens, then it makes sense to offset that with a tariff. (Of course removing the domestic burden would be a better option if possible). As Smith put it:
"It will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign industry for the encouragement of domestic industry, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. This would not give the monopoly of the borne market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country, than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it."
Your point is reasonable. My standard for taxation is that it should be tied as closely as is reasonably workable to costs imposed. Prior to electric vehicles getting popular, the gas tax was one such. You tend to cause more wear and tear on the roads when you drive more and when you drive a heavier vehicle, both of which generally correlate with how much fuel you use. Not perfect, but much better than the government tracking how many miles people drive and where, at one extreme, or taking it out of income tax, at the other.
How many times does it need to be said: this is not the age of the Democratic Leadership Council, or the Atari Democrats, or whatever you want to call "Democrats who think trade is good." This is the age of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I don't like Trump's protectionism, but the Democrats are no better.
I'd rather have massive tariffs than continue to build supply-chain reliance in China right up to the moment where they declare war on us.
Sorry to disappoint the purists who would prefer a choice that doesn't actually exist.
It’s ok. The chinese have already worked around the tariffs. They’ve setup chinese-owned factories in vietnam and mexico. The mexican ones work especially well because there are already trade agreements with mexico. We’ll be able to get the same cheap low-quality chinese crap at low prices. The labels will just show made in mexico or vietnam instead. It will be same exact stuff. China did this quickly, because they had already been moving manufacturing to vietnam in order to further reduce labor costs. They had to do this because too many chinese workers were getting too wealthy, and china has only so many prison labor camps and enslaved weegers.
I suppose trump could declare the trade agreement with mexico null-and-void by executive action, but it was his administration that made the most current agreement, so he probably won’t do that.