A Trade War Will Reduce American Exports Too
It's obvious that tariffs will harm American companies that import goods. But the losses don't end there.

On the eve of the next expected escalation of President Donald Trump's trade war with the world, consider the plight of America's orange juice producers.
America exports a lot of orange juice to Canada—because we have an obvious comparative advantage when it comes to growing citrus fruit. In 2023, Canada bought $281 million worth of fruit juice from the United States.
In Trump's flawed way of looking at trade, that would mean America is somehow ripping Canada off, but this is actually a great deal for everyone involved. Canadians get orange juice that they can't produce on their own. America's orange growers and juicemakers get a larger market for sales. And lots of other people on both sides of the border make a buck by hauling, warehousing, stocking, and selling all that juice.
A trade war means all those people lose—the Canadians and the Americans. Orange juice is one of the products Canada has included in its package of retaliatory tariffs, and that's one of the reasons why orange juice prices have declined recently.
Much of the discussion about Trump's tariff proposals focuses on the impact they will have on imports. That's understandable since the most immediate and direct effect of tariffs is to raise prices for American businesses and consumers buying goods from abroad. But, as the orange juice example illustrates, the Trump administration's trade war will also harm American businesses that primarily export goods.
The impact of tariffs on exports is less direct than on imports, but no less serious. It happens in multiple ways. American industries—like orange farmers, to continue that metaphor—will face higher prices for inputs, such as farm equipment and fertilizer (much of which comes from Canada). Those same industries will have to deal with smaller export markets and less demand for their goods. Higher costs on the front end, lower prices on the back end.
"Counterintuitively, placing a tax on imports is economically like placing a tax on exports," explained Erica York and Nicolo Pastrone in a policy paper for the Tax Foundation last year. As they point out, economists estimated that Trump's 2018–19 tariffs resulted in about a quarter of U.S. exporters facing tariffs levied against their goods.
This time around, Trump is threatening a much broader trade war, which likely means much more retaliation against American exports in return.
One of the primary motivations for Trump's trade war is the president's concern about America's trade deficit—that is, the fact that America imports more than it exports. That discussion often omits a crucial detail: America exports more than ever before. In 2024, the U.S. exported $3.2 trillion worth of goods, a record high even as the trade deficit increased.
Trump imagines that tariffs will curtail imports and bring the trade deficit into balance. But that's unlikely because his trade war will diminish American exports—not just orange juice but many other products as well.
"More exports not only reduce deficits but also bring broader economic benefits through higher-paying jobs and greater innovation," wrote Shannon O'Neil, a senior vice president and director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, in Bloomberg last month. "Yet in a world of global supply chains, boosting exports means upping imports as well. Widespread tariff hikes will also hold back US-based exporters."
Trump and his allies have framed this trade war as a zero-sum game in which either America or its trading partners must win while the other loses. That's fundamentally wrong. Trade makes both sides better off.
Equally important: Limiting trade harms both the buyers and the sellers.
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
Don't worry. I'm sure that Trump will dole out subsidies and tax breaks to businesses harmed by retaliatory tariffs, and his defenders will praise him for it. Wouldn't be the first time.
Plus, tariffs are literally good cuz trump did em.
A central planner like Donnie thinks if tariffs reduce demand then prices will fall - benefitting US consumers. Meanwhile businesses will just "adjust" for lower profits.
"Trump is an economic ignoramus" Reason commenter
Do you know little Democrats have learned from 2015-2024? They're calling Nina Jankowicz to testify on how we have too much free speech. I'm not joking.
Their going to raise their already much higher tariffs that don't allow US sales to still not allow sales. Did you think this through Eric?
There is a reason they are defending their current advantages. Now why don't you be honest and talk about the countries currently working on lowering their tariffs due to reciprocity? Or would that hurt your ignorant narrative?
Drunky Brewster agrees with Eric.
I can't wait for the pearl clutching article tomorrow when we know rates. Do you think Eric will have a heart attack or just be in the fetal position?
..so buy?
Yeah, buh bye.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
No Taxation without Representation!
When Trump refuses to execute laws passed by Congress he's upholding the Constitution.
When Trump wages lawfare with unconstitutional laws it's ok because it's the law, and most importantly it's ok because Democrats did it first.
Heads he wins, tails we lose.
By the way, can you prove that you complained when Democrats did it first? Doesn't matter because no proof is good enough. You didn't complain when Democrats did it first, which makes you a hypocrite. That invalidates your criticism and makes whatever Trump does ok.
For the millionth time, you defended democrats when they did it.
He defended democrats when they did it first! Because that was ok!
Sigh - do more research
Presidential Discretionary Authority over Tariff Rates.
In dozens of statutes, Congress has authorized the President
to adjust tariff rates in response to specific trade-related
concerns related to U.S. foreign policy and national security
interests, or that require an administrative finding by a U.S.
agency. For example, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion
Act of 1962 empowers the President to adjust tariffs on
imports that threaten to impair U.S. national security.
Section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act and Section
203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
empower the President in a time of war or national
emergency to regulate imports. Section 201 of the Trade
Act of 1974 empowers the President to raise tariff rates
temporarily when the U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC) determines that a sudden import surge has caused or
threatened serious injury to a U.S. industry. Congress has
also empowered U.S. agencies to impose duties to offset
certain injurious trade practice
When Congress unconstitutionally delegates powers to the Executive that his defenders don't like, like creating the Department of Education, Trump is a hero for refusing to execute unconstitutional laws.
But when Congress unconstitutionally delegates powers to the Executive that his defenders like, like giving him the power to arbitrarily raise taxes, Trump is a hero for riding unconstitutional laws like he stole them.
Looks to me like Trump and his defenders, like the leftists they hate, only care about the Constitution when convenient.
I don't see a Constitutional Amendment in all those cites. And I don't buy into Living Constitution Theory.
Sigh, you do more research.
Damn that Trump!
Once again, by fighting back against economic aggression from foreign countries he is somehow INITIATING a trade war.
How dare he?!
They're throwing rocks in their harbor! That's an act of aggression! We need to throw rocks in our harbors too!
If there were any truth to that you would be correct, but the US has always had tariffs on all sorts of things.
Being a moron and implementing tariffs for no reason will not create industry in this country
Having policies and following up on them would
but trairtortrump is a moron, so that won't happen
and no matter what happens, he will take no blame
Long time Reason commenters were never really libertarians! So hilarious!!
Trade wars aren't fights to the death, they are fights to the pain.
https://youtu.be/wUJccK4lV74?si=nIPx35LbRRiwxIvT
JesseAZov, the russian assets real handle?
Here in Canada we have a choice. We can buy Tropicana orange juice from the U.S., or we can buy no name or private label orange juice from Brazil. Nobody in Canada is buying Tropicana any more.
They aren’t! Cite?
Then why is Carney flip-flopping from 'we're done with America' to 'America and Canada are best friends'?
Canada represents about 2% of the American economy. America represents about 20% of the Canadian.
>In Trump's flawed way of looking at trade, that would mean America is somehow ripping Canada off, but this is actually a great deal for everyone involved.
Could it not be a better deal if *CANADA* didn't put tariffs on American imports?
Yes?
Thank you - that's 'tariffs as policy tools' in action.
They can pay more for orange juice or they can stop putting 100% tariffs on milk.
Tlump Taffiffsss.... *passes out drunk*
True. A lot of Americans make their living in industries involved in international trade. But, isn’t that traitorous? Shouldn’t we be prosecuting and jailing these people? Starting with tugboat crewmen and longshoremen? Perhaps followed by orange farmers.