Biden's Top Trade Official Just Admitted Tariffs Haven't Changed China's Behavior
Katherine Tai said tariffs were "leverage" against China, but now she admits that China hasn't made "any changes to its fundamental systemic structural policies."

While campaigning for the presidency in 2020, Joe Biden criticized then-President Donald Trump's decision to slap tariffs on a wide range of goods imported from China. Once getting into the White House, however, Biden has maintained those tariffs—and even added to them.
Asked in 2022 about that apparent contradiction, Biden's top trade official said the administration was unwilling to draw down Trump's tariffs because they were crucial "leverage" that could be applied to China.
"The China tariffs are, in my view, a significant piece of leverage—and a trade negotiator never walks away from leverage," U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said at that time. The Biden administration, she added, was seeking to turn that "leverage into a strategic program that will strengthen American competitiveness and defend our interests in a global economy in which China will continue to play."
More than two years later, and nearly four years after Biden took office, what has that supposed leverage accomplished? Tai provided the answer to that question this week during an interview with Bloomberg.
"We really haven't seen the [People's Republic of China] make any changes to its fundamental systemic structural policies that would make sense for us to provide any relaxation," Tai told reporter Eric Martin for his Supply Lines newsletter.
In fact, Tai noted that there aren't any ongoing negotiations between the U.S. and China right now—but don't worry, she's still insistent that the tariffs are useful for…something. "At the moment we are not negotiating anything with the PRC on trade," she told Martin, "but one day we may be back at the table, in which case these tariffs will be useful as leverage, right?"
In summary, Tai's position seems to be that American businesses and families must continue bearing the cost of the Trump-Biden tariffs even though those tariffs have plainly failed to achieve their primary policy goal (changing China's behavior) because there's a chance that someday, somehow, that might make a difference.
This is superstition masquerading as thoughtful policy making. Tai is acknowledging that the benefits of the tariffs are entirely hypothetical—but, of course, the costs are very real! The Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports cost American consumers and businesses more than $200 billion in higher taxes from the start of Trump's trade war through March 2024, according to calculations by the Tax Foundation.
Tai's admission that the tariffs haven't worked is at least a brief moment of economic clarity. It's also one supported by data. Trump originally promised that his tariffs would cause "thousands of companies" to leave China, but researchers at the University of Kansas and the University of California, Irvine, found that the overall number of multinational firms operating in China actually increased during 2019, the first full year of Trump's trade war.
Additionally, the promises that China's government made as part of the so-called Phase One trade deal Trump inked in 2020 never materialized. For those keeping score at home: Tariffs also did not grow the economy, did not reduce America's trade deficit, and did not boost manufacturing jobs.
When the Biden administration inherited Trump's trade war, it promised more competent management—but delivered a continuation of the status quo as tariffs slowed America's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pushed prices higher in the year after the pandemic ebbed. It wasn't new management that was needed, but a new approach to the flawed idea that tariffs can be useful for anything besides generating revenue from taxes paid by Americans.
Tariffs don't work as trade leverage, as even Tai is now admitting. That was true when Trump was president, it was true while Biden was president, and it will be true if Vice President Kamala Harris—who says there is not a single thing she would change from the Biden administration—gets a chance to run the show next year.
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
'Katherine Tai said tariffs were "leverage" against China, but now she admits that China hasn't made "any changes to its fundamental systemic structural policies."'
She then logged into to her secret CCP account and awaited further instructions.
Ok, but how is JD Vance wrong about this?
Meanwhile in China…
No substantial structural changes.
"Biden's Top Trade Official Just Admitted Tariffs Haven't Changed China's Behavior."
Well, duh.
Communist ruling elites never change their policies...unless it's to oppress their people even more.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/us-china-trade-deal-intellectual-property-protection-benefits-beijing.html
They did when they believed the threats.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-tariffs-biden-symbolic-industrial-overcapacity-rcna172215
They don't when they don't believe the threats.
Are you saying tariffs work if Trump is president, but not if Biden is?
Nothing works when Biden is “president”.
Probably true, but we'll never know for sure.
I'm trying to figure out if there's a word in that sentence you couldn't put it sarc quotes.
I’m saying an action only works if the threat is believed and enforceable. There is a famous Teddy Roosevelt quote regarding this.
But for some of you the world started in 2016 with Trump.
When you have Bidens own measures being called symbolic.... but hey. You do you. Simple minds, simple thoughts, always Trump.
Are you saying tariffs work if Trump is president, but not if Biden is?
I’m saying an action only works if the threat is believed and enforceable.
So, no to the Trump question?
It is like talking to a magic 8 ball whose entire response system revolves around Trump.
When Obama promised Russia he had more flexibility after the election…
When state kept ignoring violations of the Iranian nuclear deal…
When the apex of dem foreign policy is saying “dont”
Even when democrats try to appear tough like passing funding for ev batteries that can not be used in China, they immediately fund companies in China with those funds.
The entire green energy agenda relies explicitly on China as they don't allow mining or manufacturing here.
The head of China foreign trade a decade or so back discussed the long term Chinese trade strategy. It basically was drug economics. Get America and the west addicted to subsidized manufacturing to destroy their industrial base, begin to own the political power. Then we have covid and see the costs of this dependency. A year later democrats are hooked again on this dependency.
Nobody believes, especially China, that democrats or Biden are threats to their economy. They keep defending, glorifying, and subsidizing their economy. There is no threat from what Biden does. Just like Russia isn’t threatened, Iran isn’t threatened, etc.
There is no backing threat to actually leverage China when it is democrats doing it. Decades of history going back to giving China nuclear tech under Clinton. Chinese spies in many Democrat offices.
But we already know your simplistic response. Trump. It is all you can apparently think.
You started off by posting two links. One that credits Trump for a trade deal (with whatever threat you’re talking about not being mentioned) while the other says Biden’s tariffs don’t matter.
Then when someone asks if it’s all about Trump you insult them and get all pissy.
You made it all about Trump in your original post, numbskull.
Simple minds, simple thoughts, always Trump.
Ironically you're both proving it here in the thread. Despite multiple clear explanations.
I get you’re too dumb to understand even after the explanation.
In one case China acted on tariffs and further threats because they believed the threat.
Under Biden the tariffs are called symbolic with lots of exemptions and federal funds going directly to China.
I get it. You’re retarded.
I can use other examples, as I stated in my prior reply. But you and QB apparently have only a shared solitary brain cell.
Using a single example showing how leverage is obtained through believable action is not making it all about Trump. It is giving an example.
Fucking retards here.
In one case China acted on tariffs and further threats because they believed the threat.
Oh Do you mean when Trump had to subsidize farmers $28 billion because of their lost revenue?
And now a non sequitur. Thought we were talking about China’s actions.
Is this where I bring up 300B in yearly theft to counter your non sequitur?
You’re really struggling today.
The farmer subsidy was in response to China's action of counter tariffs.
While stupid, that money went to American farmers, if I’m not mistaken. Versus the Biden Administration smacking China on the hand saying “naughty, naughty”, then shoving a wad of bills in the other hand.
In one case China acted on tariffs and further threats because they believed the threat.
Nothing in the article said anything about China being threatened. The article was about a trade deal, and you gushed praise all over The Donald for it. Which is curious because in the past you mock and deride trade deals as being "managed trade" and attack anyone who you think supports them.
Using a single example showing how leverage is obtained through believable action is not making it all about Trump. It is giving an example.
Giving two examples, one YAY TRUMP and the other BIDEN SUCKS is indeed making it all about Trump.
You can't be this fucking dumb. The deal was struck to end tariffs imposed prior to the deal. You truly are fucking ignorant aren't you.
Here is my comment.
They did when they believed the threats.
They don’t when they don’t believe the threats.
Links removed. Mouth the words dumbass.
The comment gives two examples of how perceptions of the leverage works. Examples. To prove the assertion.
God damn.
Nothing in the article indicated what you are saying. As far as I’m concerned you’re engaging in a typical ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy.
Especially because Trump is now saying that tariffs are the best thing ever, and he’s going to raise them just because they're so awesome.
So, yes?
Congrats. You're on sarcs level. Hope that's what you're going for.
In the context of the last 8 years, that seems to be borne out.
In the context of overall trade/foreign policies? I don’t think it matters who it is as long as the other world leaders believe we’ll make good on our threats. So the exact opposite of what the last two Democrat (maybe 4) administrations did.
I have 1 question and 1 point of rebuttal.
Above you said that Biden threatens with one hand and subsidizes with the other. What are you referring to? The green energy subsidies?
I will concede Trump got results with his trade war, but all bad. I agree with this article that we had no increase in US manufacturing, only an increase in the price of consumer goods. We got counter tariffs which resulted in another step toward leftist economics; farmer subsidies (wealth transfer and federal economic planning) and some China lip service concessions which they never followed through with.
While it's easy and I think correct to blame Biden for the lack follow through and inflation I don't think we can assume anything would have been different if Trump was reelected. Biden essentially adopted Trump’s China policy in fact so...
We paid the price of Trump’s trade war. When do we reap the benefits?
Katherine Tai said tariffs were "leverage" against China, but now she admits that China hasn't made "any changes to its fundamental systemic structural policies."
What are the "fundamental systemic structural policies" that the tariffs are seeking to change?
Yeah, I thought the ideas was to stimulate domestic manufacturing.
China just announces more real estate controls and greater spending to stabilize markets and growth, they just announced new taxes (more rigorous enforcement of existing taxes) on gains on investments made abroad*. Either I’m (via nth-hand news sources openly available to the public) way out in front of a Top Trade Official of the Biden Administration about 'substantial structural changes', Boehm’s a moron, or both.
*Which, since it doesn’t target goods and doesn’t specifically attempt to benefit the natives, everyone equally, it’s just domestic regulation and not an evil, anti-free trade tariff.
You mean you can't make foreign governments change their behavior by raising taxes on your own people?
>You mean you can’t make foreign governments change their behavior by raising taxes on your own people?
The only way it could even conceivably be possible is if the
tariffstaxes paid by the American importers are high enough to price the products out of the market.Domestic taxes good. Taxes on foreign goods bad. Summation of sarcs entire economic system.
That's boneheadedly stupid. Domestic taxes? All taxes are domestic because we, domestic consumers, pay them.
Yes. You are boneheadidly stupid. You rage about 50B in tariffs, then say we need higher domestic taxes, while saying nothing about the 1.5T in regulatory increases on domestic markets.
You ignore 300B which increases domestic prices while raging with spittle at 50B in tariffs.
You would trade a dollar to get a quarter because it is shinier.
I don’t rage about tariffs you idiot. I say they’re stupid because raising taxes on me doesn’t force other governments to do things. I’ve never said we need higher “domestic taxes” whatever that means. I’ve said that cutting taxes while increasing spending is irresponsible. Something you defend with attacks. As far as regulatory costs go, when the subject comes up on its own, as opposed to being used as a red herring by liars like you, I’m all for getting government out of the economy whenever possible. Not sure what you mean by “domestic prices,” especially since tariffs increase prices paid domestically. And dollar coins are shinier than quarters.
Fuck man. Can’t you even pretend to be a honest person who argues in good faith? Just once?
*rubbing temples*
Again, without making a defense of the effectiveness of any tariff on any particular finished good, the idea is that you put a tax on an imported product which makes the price more competitive with the ostensibly more expensive domestically produced product, or make it so whatever savings ACME Widgets is achieving by using Uyghur slave labor evaporate and then can use the domestic labor force instead.
Again, even unreasonable people can agree to disagree on the effectiveness of such ‘taxes/tariffs’, but shouty man in his pajamas pointing to a product and saying, “you just made it more ‘spensive… that’s all you did” is not the counter argument to tariffs. The counter argument to tariffs is “If the rise in prices did not result in any meaningful change– either to
cloud computerforeign government’s subsidies and dumping or domestic manufacturing sector, then the tariff probably didn’t work!”Even if the tariffs “work” they increase prices.
If the tax makes the domestically produced product more competitive by negating comparative advantage, it still costs more to the domestic consumer.
If the tax forces ACME Widgets to build a factory here, again by negating comparative advantage, it still costs more to the domestic consumer.
All tariffs do is raise prices. You know that there’s a word economists use when overall prices increase? You know what it is? Inflation. Yes, tariffs result in inflation.
Even if the tariffs “work” they increase prices.
Correct.
If the tax makes the domestically produced product more competitive by negating comparative advantage, it still costs more to the domestic consumer.
Yes, to the fully employed consumer who lives in a functioning economy and isn't living in a tent on the side of the freeway, but can at least get his flat screen teevee for $30 less than had it been produced in a factory in Mayberry.
If the tax forces ACME Widgets to build a factory here, again by negating comparative advantage, it still costs more to the domestic consumer.
That's correct... the product produced in Country X with slave labor, heavily subsidized by Country X has been denied the *checks previous Reason articles* $1 of profit on $15 of economic activity, moving that $15 of economic activity and $1 of profit to Mayberry.
All tariffs do is raise prices. You know that there’s a word economists use when overall prices increase? You know what it is? Inflation. Yes, tariffs result in inflation.
Inflation is when the value of your dollar decreases in relation to the products being sold which, or better stated a decrease in purchasing power which, to the consumer appears to be higher prices.
Yes, to the fully employed consumer who lives in a functioning economy…
Ahhh, employment. That means subsidizing the employment of people doing jobs that are more cheaply done elsewhere by forcing consumers of those products to pay higher prices. I don’t like the tradeoff, personally.
That’s correct… the product produced in Country X with slave labor, heavily subsidized by Country X…
You say slave labor so loosely, as if it’s common. It’s not. Also, what’s the problem with stuff we buy being cheaper because Country X makes its taxpayers pay for part of it? I say thanks! Subsidize away!
Inflation is when the value of your dollar decreases in relation to the products being sold which, or better stated a decrease in purchasing power which, to the consumer appears to be higher prices
That’s what I said. Tariffs cause inflation.
Targeted tariffs, by definition, don’t cause inflation.
Taxes the people pay *ONLY* if they willfully chose to buy from the rotten foreign government that needs to change its behavior.
Paying the Union of States government who's very purpose for existing is to ensure justice in international trade/affairs.
He thinks all goods come from China and doesn’t understand supply shift.
Nobody will ever stop buying the cheap Chinese shit he fills his studio apartment with.
We don’t buy from governments. We buy from people. And trade is not a competition between nations because there are no winners or losers. It’s a system of mutually beneficial exchange. And our government does not exist to ensure international justice. Fuck. There’s so much wrong with that comment.
Perhaps if you weren’t so hostile to learning about economics, math, history, logic, civics, and everything else, your comments wouldn’t be so damn stupid.
The people who have their IP and IRAD stolen are a small cost for sarcs benefits.
50B >>>> 300B in sarc world.
Domestic regulatory costs don't matter. Sarc learned the word economics so he knows.
You just said Trump ended that with his super-amazing trade deal. Make up your mind. The rest of your comment is childish nonsense.
"so damn stupid"
^As the "so damn stupid" self-projects.
Do tell us; Why did the 13-colonies (pre-states) create a Union in the first place then?
Do you think communist governments is all about trading with private entities and State-owned corporations are a big no, no to communism?
Do tell us; Why did the 13-colonies (pre-states) create a Union in the first place then?
Mutual defense, protection of individual liberty, and free trade.
Do you think communist governments is all about trading with private entities and State-owned corporations are a big no, no to communism?
I don't know what that word salad means. Maybe if you put some bleu cheese dressing on it it might smell worse.
"Mutual Defense" from what?
Do you think a Union of Guns is required for free-trade?
I know, I know: You don't know what that means.
It's becoming quite a noticeable habit of yours to play dumb every-time you're faced with a requirement to think beyond parroting BS propaganda.
“Mutual Defense” from what?
King George?
Do you think a Union of Guns is required for free-trade?
Free trade and capitalism require property rights, and so far the best way to protect them is by giving guns to people in government so they can enforce (notice that part of the word is ‘force’ meaning that it requires force, which is what government is) property and contracts. Also merchant vessels are glad that navies exist to respond to pirates.
I know, I know: You don’t know what that means.
?
It’s becoming quite a noticeable habit of yours to play dumb every-time you’re faced with a requirement to think beyond parroting BS propaganda.
I guess, if you think things like economics, logic, math, civics, history, and thinking in general equate to BS propaganda.
King George is long gone so the Union should dismantle?
- Maybe it didn't because of ... "rotten foreign government that needs to change its behavior."
"so they can enforce property and contracts"
- also know as a trade-treaty.
Importers want Union Justice in their international trade.
They just want Domestic to pick up 100% of that bill for them.
Don’t play dumb sarc.
It’s patently obvious he’s saying that trade with people in communist controlled countries IS buying from a government. Because, you know, the government owns all the means of production in communist places like China.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/manufacturing-output
Funny. There seems to be a pretty significant $500 Billion increase in 4-years right around the Trump Administration until Democrats shut down the entire nation over a cough.
But, but, but "Top Trade Official" says......
Top economic officials have been amazingly dumb under Joe. One of them didn't even know what the BLS was.
You accidentally showed that manufacturing output is at an all time high.
Whoops.
How about that - maybe the Tax-Exempt importing wasn't so great after all.
Can someone who is slightly less-retarded than TJ translate that comment into something I can understand?
LMFAO... From the guy who constantly says Tariffs are just a Tax.
"What do you mean 'Tax-Exempt' importing. I don't get it! How retarded." /sarc
Is English your second language?
It is for you when your BS is detected.
Tariffs all just get passed along to the final consumer. Trump, Biden, Washington, it doesn't matter which administration, tariffs are just another way to raise taxes.
Or a way to Cut Domestic-Corporate Taxes without losing revenue.
Which are also paid by the final consumer in the end.
Indeed. The [Na]tional So[zi]alist BILL has come home to roost.
Moving all production to China in an effort to avoid that bill doesn't get that BILL paid for. It just grows China and leaves the USA dependent, broke and helpless.
Maybe if we just tarrif harder?
But a consequence of...
Maybe if [WE] just SPEND harder.
Guess those 'Guns' didn't make sh*t after all.
Well if the administration top trade official says so. JFC.
Boehm, backing the Biden/Harris economy officials is the hill you want to die on?
The same people that said "What Inflation?" "Don't trust your eyes?" "it's transitory" "it's Trump's fault " not in office for 3 years
Go watch some Jared Bernstein clips. The economic advisor that doesn't know more than a 4 yr old economics. It is the scariest clips you will ever see
Hey, Boehm have you heard that Cuban is explaining what unrealized gains are to Harris. You know Harris wants to tax them but doesn't even know what they are.
So yeah, Biden top officials, only the dumb believe them
"a trade negotiator never walks away from leverage"
Our government should under no circumstances be negotiating trade of any kind among United States producers, consumers or foreign governments, foreign consumers or foreign producers. Everything after that is simply abuse of power by our government and our officials.