Tariffs on Imports From Canada and Mexico Are Still a Terrible Idea
And an increasingly unpopular one. Will Trump pay attention to the polls, if not the economists?

During a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, President Donald Trump acknowledged that Americans don't like high prices.
"We have to get the prices down," Trump told reporters. "The prices of eggs and various other things. Eggs are a disaster."
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 this week that it would seek to expand imports of eggs, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The U.S. is a major global supplier of eggs, so reversing those supply chains is not easy (and eggs are perishable goods, which makes it more difficult), but the maneuver is evidence that at least some members of the Trump administration grasp that prices are the result of supply and demand. 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. On Thursday, Trump posted on Truth Social that the tariffs on Canada and Mexico would be imposed on March 4 (along with more tariffs on imports from China).
If that's true—and it is nearly impossible to tell whether Trump's tariffs threats are legit or merely bluffs at this point—then Trump will be taking a big step away from his promise to "get the prices down."
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.
If Trump is hoping that Americans won't notice the consequences of higher tariffs, he's deluding himself. Polls and news reports indicate that consumers and businesses are already growing weary of Trump's tariffs, even before the higher costs hit.
Just 28 percent of Americans said they support tariffs on Canada, according to a poll released this week by Public First. Tariffs on Mexico are also unpopular, with just 35 percent of respondents supporting them.
Interestingly, the same poll found that Trump's tariffs on China are broadly popular—45 percent supported them, while 30 percent were opposed. That suggests Americans are more willing to tolerate trade policies targeting imports from China, a perceived antagonist. Trump, meanwhile, has focused most of his tariff threats since taking office on U.S. allies, including not just Canada and Mexico, but also the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Stephen Kent, spokesman for the Consumer Choice Center, says the poll suggests that imposing tariffs on America's allies could carry a political risk for Trump.
"This has a lot of potential to backfire on President Trump as his favorability gap shrinks," Kent said in a statement to Reason. "Americans certainly elected Donald Trump to reassert US strength around the world and to be extra pushy, but when only 28% of Americans express support for tariffs on Canadian imports it goes to show that American voters don't see Canada as being an opponent of any kind."
Hopefully, Trump will again back down from his threat to slap tariffs on America's neighbors and biggest trading partners. But even trade wars that never happen can have costs, and the uncertainty that Trump has unleashed on international trade is already having consequences.
Trade policy uncertainty has reached a record high, according to an index maintained by five economists and updated every month. Meanwhile, four American CEOs told Semafor on Thursday that Trump's eagerness to impose trade restrictions is hurting stock prices and reducing investments.
"What decision do you make? Do you want to go left or right?" Hassane El-Khoury, CEO of the Arizona-based ON Semiconductor Corporation, told Semafor. "Are we going to grow the business? Well, I don't know. Are there tariffs or not?"
The country will get a partial answer to that question next week. Right now, it doesn't look like it will be good news.
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
you know those goats who are like ... screaming goats?
I really hate it when people say "tariffs on Mexico" or "tariffs on Canada."
Say what they really are, which is "taxes on Americans who buy stuff from Mexico" or "taxes on Americans who buy stuff from Canada."
Because that's what they are. Taxes on us.
when levied.
Yes, this!!! And instead of saying that "there's a new tariff in town", they should say, "There's a new TAX in CLOWN-town"!
(The latest clown is colored ORANGE, by the way.)
As-if Domestic wasn't being taxed to death.
That's an argument a high schooler would make. It's such a simpleton hot take.
That's why it's amazing that people like you still don't get it.
Would Mexico and Canada be foolish enough to leave last month's meager concessions in place if Trump goes through with the tariffs? Are they foolish enough to make further concessions?
Those "concessions" were things they were going to do anyway. He just got them to do it a little faster and then claimed credit. He's a real politician now in the sense that if he sees a parade he runs to the front and acts like he's leading it.
Fuck Donald Trump
Will Trump pay attention to the polls, if not the economists?
Those economist sure are smart. Maybe we should get them to plan the economy! That way experts are in charge.
As opposed to an economy planned by politicians completely ignorant of economics?
Dude, economics is leftist. How do we know this? Well, anyone who disagrees with Trump is a leftist, and economists disagree with Trump. That means economists are leftists, and that makes economics leftist. Q.E.D.
Poor sarc.
A strawman worthy of sarc QB. There are only two solutions? Let the economist plan the economy or the pols? Trust the experts comrade!
I was contrasting what is now vs what you criticized. I didn't mean to imply there were no other alternatives.
I was critizing Boehm's appeal to authority. It is what people who can't articulate their own opinion do.
Oh, OK. I misinterpreted your valid criticism.
It is just as retarded as sarc as well as there are multiple different schools of thought with economists. The one common traits they all share is being consistently wrong as most rely on simplistic models with wrong assumptions.
That dumbass Adam Smith got his computer models all wrong. Yup.
All economists are consistently wrong? We know nothing of economics? Supply and demand: wrong? Smith, Mises and Rothbard: consistently wrong? Ian Fletcher: consistently wrong? JesseAz: consistently wrong?
He read a book about game theory that justifies what Trump is doing, so now he knows more about economics than any economist who criticizes Trump’s policies.
No, but at least they aren't thieves stealing from Americans while violating the constitution and founding principle of the USA.
Trust the experts! They'd never steal from us like Trump!
Yeah, if you think an economics degree inherently prevents you from being a dishonest thief, rather than just a more educated one, or that the principles of economics align with the principles of The Constitution, you really are a dunce.
Jonathan "Our lack of transparency is an advantage we have to exploit because of the stupidity of the American voter" Gruber is an economist.
Paul "The growth of the internet will slow because most people have nothing to say to each other" Krugman is an economist.
Not a cornerstone but rather a frequent touchstone of libertarian thinking is that if you need an economist to make your moral argument, you're doing it wrong.
Why in the world would anyone want to have a competent US egg market?
Complete foreign dependency for the WIN! /s
He doesn't need to listen to anyone.
He, unlike a certain other "president", can remember what happened when he imposed tariffs the last term.
Surely you remember the disastrous inflation of his first administration? (at least pre-Communist Chinese virus)
In 2016, the US inflation rate was 1.3%, in 2017 the inflation rate was 2.1%, in 2018 it was 2.4%, and in 2019 it was 1.8%
Speaking of "He who can't remember", a comparison,
Inflation rate by year:
2021: 7.0%
2022: 6.5%
2023: 3.4%
2024: 2.9%
Those numbers show that Biden did a great job curbing inflation after the covid global supply chain crisis.
Ya know like how Obama cut the deficit after EXPLODING it 3-TIMES what it was?
"Look Ma! After dumping a swimming pools worth of water on the floor *I* saved the day by shutting off the water I let run. I deserve a cookie!" /s
The only models worse than economic models are climate models.
I like how you equate tariffs targeted to specific industries with tariffs on everything from our biggest trading partners. Yeah totally the same.
Two days ago my local national chain grocery store had eggs at $6.29 a dozen, not on sale. Just over52 cents per egg. True, these are just plain old eggs in a styrofoam carton, not the left wing free range, organic, no antibiotics so the chicken get sick kind of eggs, but here is the value for those couple of quarters.
A single large egg contains around 75 calories, 6 grams of protein, 5 grams of fat, negligible carbohydrates, and is a good source of vitamins like Vitamin B12, Selenium, and Choline, with most of the nutrients concentrated in the yolk.
But are they laid by happy hens? Priorities matter!
Including; I don't care if the hens are happy, and it's my money.
Zelensky showed how wrong you are. After Biden kissed the world's ass we need someone to kick the world's ass. So does REASON want another $350 Billion so we can drag this war into the next life.
Z. said that he had no idea where $100 BILLION was. I care, you don't.
Let me make this very simple for everyone:
Ugh, buying my widget from Canada costs $5.
Hey, you know what, I can build that widget in America. We have everything we need. I can market that widget for $2.
...
OK, um, first, get the minimum wage and the gaia cults and the unions the f out of my face forever.
Wow, you know what, turns out I can sell that widget for $1 and still turn a profit!
Not rocket science. And I hope it's where Donnie T is going with all this.
If a Canadian widget costs $5, and you offer the same widget in the US for $2, your business will be dead in one production cycle because you clearly know nothing about business or about economics (they're not the same thing).
Assumptions & Solutions
Every proposition carries with it a set of assumptions. What are the assumptions upon which the Trump-Administration is levying tariffs? That doing so will not create economic chaos.
That assumption is based upon the assumption that if no one appears for the next auction of American debt, the Treasury simply will buy it. It's kind of like sending love-letters to yourself. Will doing so stabilize the markets? It's the bet that the folk in the White House are making.
Doing so, however, fails to address the more basic problem; namely, indebting the productive to buy the votes of the unproductive. What's the solution?
Excerpt from the novel, Retribution Fever:
“Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.” -H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Recall that in the first federal election only 31,000 Americans voted, all of them required to be male Caucasians and to own property — a democratic republic albeit one vulnerable to becoming bastardized into a republican democracy.
The Declaration of Independence set the tone for the founding of the Confederation, which set the stage for the founding of the Republic. Where within the Declaration of Independence does the word “vote” appear or any derivation thereof? Nowhere. Accordingly, it is only right and proper that those receiving federal "entitlements" relinquish their right to vote themselves others' wealth else kiss your country good-bye.
So the USDA “seeks to expand the import” of eggs. Why must these bureaucrats be involved? If someone wants to buy foreign eggs with THEIR money they should be free to do so