Trump Promised 'Reciprocal' Tariffs. The Numbers Tell a Different Story.
In most cases, Trump's tariffs are significantly higher than the tariffs charged by other countries on American goods.

For months on the campaign trail and after taking office, President Donald Trump promised that his tariff policies would be based on a simple principle: reciprocity.
"Whatever they tax us, we will tax them," Trump told a joint session of Congress in March, outlining plans for higher tariffs on imports from much of the world. When some of those tariff rates were unveiled in early April—before being paused, amended, altered, and in some cases finally imposed—the president reiterated that point. "They're reciprocal—so whatever they charge us, we charge them," Trump said.
The White House has dropped that talking point in recent months. Even so, the executive order that invoked emergency powers to impose those tariffs still promises that they will be "reciprocal." And in courts where the Trump administration is defending the president's use of those expansive (and possibly unconstitutional) powers, the administration's attorneys continue to refer to that set of tariffs as the "reciprocal" tariffs—to distinguish them from tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico that were imposed in February for different reasons.
So are the tariffs actually reciprocal? Not even close.
Consider Switzerland. Last year, the average Swiss tariff on U.S. goods was a minuscule 0.2 percent, while the U.S. charged an average tariff of 1.4 percent on goods imported from Switzerland.
To make trade with Switzerland "reciprocal," then, Trump would have had to lower American tariffs on Swiss goods. In fact, he'd have to lower them even more, because in January the Swiss government abolished all of its tariffs on industrial goods from America—an arrangement that Swiss officials said would allow more than 99 percent of American items into the country duty-free.
Trump responded to that by imposing a staggering 39 percent tariff on imports from Switzerland. This is reciprocity?
The Swiss tariffs are where the Trump administration's claim of reciprocity is most disconnected from reality, but it is hardly the only example.
Singapore does not charge any tariffs on imports from the United States. Nevertheless, Trump's 10 percent baseline tariff applies to anything that Americans want to purchase from individuals or businesses in Singapore. The average tariff charged by the European Union on American goods is a scant 1.7 percent, but imports from there will now face a 15 percent tariff here. Vietnam charges an average tariff of less than 3 percent on American goods, but Vietnamese goods will face a 20 percent tariff when coming into the U.S.—and that's after Vietnam negotiated with Trump to lower what had been a 46 percent rate announced in April.
In all, about 80 percent of the Trump administration's supposedly "reciprocal" tariffs are higher than the tariffs charged by those countries on American goods, according to a new analysis from the Cato Institute.
"This revelation is more than just a rhetorical gotcha: tariff advocates, including Trump himself, have long justified new US tariffs on the grounds that they were needed to balance foreign tariffs, which are supposedly quite high, on American goods," write Scott Lincicome and Alfredo Carrillo Obregon, the co-authors of the Cato analysis. "Overall, the data further demonstrate that US tariffs today are about protectionism, with 'fairness' and other buzzwords simply a cover for achieving it."
There's nothing fair about charging Americans higher taxes in an attempt to restrict global trade. And there's nothing reciprocal about it at all.
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
So, now we can confirm Boehm doesn't own a dictionary.
Does anybody own a dictionary? It's 2025.
One might expect that someone who writes for a living might own a dictionary and a thesaurus, at least.
What is another word for thesaurus?
You can get them as apps. It doesn’t matter, Boehm is too stupid to ,ale use of such resources.
What word is he not using correctly?
Trump's tariff formula is to take the trade deficit with a country, divide by the value of goods imported from that country to get a percentage, and divide that percentage by two.
It never had anything to do with tariffs on goods imported from the US.
It, like most of what he does, is arbitrary.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93gq72n7y1o
In theory, he could have said that 'reciprocal' means that the US will impose tariffs in response to non-tariff trade barriers imposed by others. Those non-tariff trade barriers imposed by other countries are a very real problem for the US - even though, like tariffs, they are costs imposed by the imposing country. But what is very obvious is that his main priority was to raise US govt tax revenues rather than to change any terms/outcome of trade.
In theory he could have had some idea of what he was doing.
You're asking a lot.
Theories are for deep state bureaucrats, academics, and scientists to ponder while they try to secure new employment after being "doged".
Trump doesn't bother with theories anyway. He goes with his gut. And he has a lot of that.
In theory you could be sober. But you’re not.
Trump is infinitely more intelligent than all you worthless democrats here. Case closed.
Is this like when Obama talked about securing the border during his first term, then went ahead and did the opposite? Or when he talked about ending the various wars on terror, only to double down on them?
Or, to use the wayback machine, when George Bush 1 said no new taxes?
Quibbling over the definition of 'reciprocal' seems like a lesser problem than Presidents doing the literal opposite of what they ran on before being elected, but perhaps that's just me.
What I find amusing here is that Trump ran on a promise to raise taxes on Americans, has kept that promise, and people are cheering him for it. It is amusing because the people who are cheering the new taxes HATE taxes. But they tent their pants when Trump imposes taxes on imports.
We just lowered taxes you dumb fuck. And don’t tell me you really understand how tariffs work in reality. You don’t.
A rotting pile of dogshit understands tariffs better than your drunk ass.
Lowered some taxes, but - tariffs being a tax - raised others.
Let me guess you paid more for the Chinese anal intruder and think that was because of tariffs and not the greedy businessmen wanting to profit off your ass?
Literally in this case.
Did you like it? You’ve only been begging me to buy you one for weeks.
For maximum reciprocality, not-tariff trade barriers should be countered with similar opposing non-tariff trade barriers.
But, like you say, that sort of tactic wouldn't rake in cash for the federal government.
Trump doesn't care about the revenue. What he cares about it sticking it to foreigners. What do all of his policies have in common?
I think he does care about the tax revenue. Specifically Miran's plan for a Mar-a-Lago Accord. It's not going to work but it is true that the only way any foreigner would be interested in buying 100 year zero coupon Treasury bonds is if they were offered in exchange for tariff revenues
Then he's delusional, but we already know that. Because for tariffs to bring in revenue they must have a small impact on prices so people will pay them, while for tariffs to be protectionist them must have a high impact on prices so people won't pay them. He wants to have his cake and eat it to.
Who doesn't want to have their cake and eat it too? Just because most people outgrow that and learn to face reality doesn't mean those who grow up billionaires grow up and face non-billionaire reality.
You two guys aren’t going to make it through the next 3 years.
Is that what the retarded voices in your pickled little nugget of a brain told you?
EB;dr
Ignorance is strength, Cumrade! Be Ye therefor PROUD of Yer PervFected ignorance! Now the GOOD folks are having a book-burning at high noon, in front of the pubic library. Are ye cumming… Or are ye with the unpatriotic eggheads and the left-tits?
Same. Why would anyone bother to read Boehm? It's exactly the same shit four times a week.
Did not read Eric.
Just like with Jacob Sullum.
Akita approves.
Skimmed it. Same lies, and contextless statements. Like his statements about Singapore, while ignoring how China using them as a pass through to avoid US tariffs.
You know who you can thank for that?
Democrats and their endless THEFT ... Spending ... ?Welfare?.
If there wasn't such an out of control debt there wouldn't be any need for Tariffs / Taxes.
That endless consumption that literally ATE domestic production alive.
Dumb, da dumb, dumb, duuuuumb.
The heck if it wasn't; [R] - trifectas spend 1/3rd what [D] trifectas do.
As-if Democrats weren't the one's always pitching new SPEND-MORE plans.
You're delusional.
While Reagan was president the federal deficit increased by 94%.
With Bush I it went up 67%.
With Clinton it went down 150%.
Bush II it went up 1,204%.
Obama it went down 53%.
Trump saw an increase of 317% his first term.
I can't find a percentage for Biden, but I know it went up.
And it's going to increase during Trump's second term as well.
So while Republicans talk a good talk about fiscal responsibility, the facts tell a different story.
By the way, the only thing the federal deficit and the trade deficit have in common is the word deficit. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The federal deficit is the difference between how much money the federal government spends and how much money it brings in. The trade deficit is the difference between the value of goods exported to a country and the value of goods imported from a country. The latter is a completely meaningless term only used by politicians and other economic ignoramuses.
Cherry picked numbers with zero citations to back anything up. Also no mention over who was running Congress.
Typical Demcasmic lies and distortions.
FFS. Obama TRIPLED the Deficit his 1st Year moron.
You don't get credit for TRIPLING a Deficit your first year and then slowly decreasing a TRIPLE-SET deficit. Which he didn't do anyways; A full [R] congress did. As if the numbers didn't show that black & white.
Take out the Democrat pitched Cares Act final year and Biden TRIPLED it the first year also (from Pre-Cares Act Trump). Kept it TRIPLED his whole [D]-trifecta reign.
As it goes on and on and on and on all the way back to FDR 100+ years Democrat trifectas spend 3 - TIMES what Republicans do.
Blame Democrats for all the bad that happens while Republicans hold the White House, and credit Republicans for all the good that happens while Democrats hold the White House.
Partisanship 101.
So boring.
*yawn*
Learn some economics instead of carrying water for politicians.
Leftard Self-Projection 101.
With a topping of ... "Look over there! An Elephant ran under the rug!"
Leaving aside the purse being Congress’s bailiwick, is there a reason you went by deficit? Genuinely curious as that seems like a horrible metric.
Not saying deficits don’t matter, but all manner of variables (recessions, economic boom, brand new programs enacted into law, etc,) can end up affecting the actual deficit (the one that’s calculated after the fiscal year is done and we know how much was actually spent vs how much was brought in).
I would think spending (in raw, inflation adjusted numbers, or as a percent of GDP) would paint a better picture.
Yes, we know you are dumb.
There is no lower level of BS that you will spew to blame the Ds for Trump's screwups.
That’s rich coming from you Tony, considering that no democrat is capable of accountability for anything.
Who do you think pushed and passed all that [Na]tional So[zi]alist SPENDING?
Do you think the Cares Act, The IRA double-dip, SS, Medicare was all done by Republicans?
FFS Biden literally tried to E.O. Student Loan THEFT.
On and on and on it goes ... but heaven forbid Democrats take any blame for their [Na]tional So[zi]alist Bankrupt/Empire building tactics. Oh no. It must be MAGA's De-Regulation, Tax-Cuts, DOGE, Budget-Cuts and Bureaucratic Agency abolishing doing it huh?
Delusional. Absolutely Delusional.
So Trump LIED to us, ass cuntcerns His PervFected intentions? And now He won't FIX shit!?!?!?
Color me SHOCKED!
SNOT taking the Good Word of (NOT trusting) GIANT douches and a hypocrites IS, indeed, VERY sound policy!
The next lessons are actually pretty simple: Trade wars and shooting wars have in common, that no one ever truly wins either type of war. There is, in both cases, wasted suffering, and both sides lose, as compared to having NO war at all. What they do NOT have in common, is that in the case of trade wars, unilateral surrender (of the smart side) makes ALL of the sense in the world!
Also this: The interests of the people v/s the politicians is different. Under trade war, politicians get to pick winners and losers. Which industry get punished, and which gets rewarded? Time to rewards friends and punish enemies! With free trade, the people “need” the politicians much less! So ass usual, stupid people (who want to be “protected” from the BAD “other people”, AKA the BAD UN-Americans who might like to trade freely with us), are pussy-grabbers, and the politicians are the pussy-grabber-grabbers, who grab us ALL… Right in our pussy-grabbers! STOP letting them do that!!! Get RID of your useless, senseless, self-righteous pussy-grabbers!
The devil went down on Georgia. He was looking for a vote to steal.
Well, if you ever go into that DC Swamp, well, you better not go at night
There's things that grab that Wooley spot
Make a strong woman die from fright
Songs from the Spermy Daniels Band
LOL! Ye are a poet, and yer feet are LongFellows!
Trump is a lying sack of shit who has no idea what he is doing. The global economy is not his toy in his play pen.
You seem like a trustworthy person, please elaborate on your plan.
She does indeed seem trustworthy based on her insightful and well documented comments. I anxiously await her wisdom in every thread.
Gear, Tony in lipstick and a wig is not a chick.
Did I missgender the Molly person? I'm ready to be cancelled.
Impeach and convict Trump. Then try and convict him in criminal court. Do the same will all of his fascist collaborators. That is my plan.
The Biden regime already tried and failed. Failed at the soap box, the jury box, and at the ballot box. Keep it up, and the left will get the last box.
Even failed at Joe’s battle box.
I have a better idea. We round up you Marxist democrats and deposit you all in landfills. And do you know the fundamental difference between your plan and mine?
The difference is that mine is actually feasible. Yours will just be an impetus for my plan. So best you keep your head down, and learn to obey if you know what’s good for you.
Or you and your faggot Marxist comrades can just GTFO.
Do we care that they're not reciprocal but higher?
It would certainly be easier to care had the [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire not already bankrupted the USA.
Jesse-Spaz has spent YEARS here telling us that His Favorite Trumpy-Poo wants zero tariffs, and has repeatedly offered zero tariffs incoming to the USA, if only trade partners would go to zero. Now that we see that this is a TOTAL lie, Jesse-Spaz (AKA JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer) has NEVER apologized!
You should at least care about THAT, and SNOT believe a DAMNED thing that Jesse-Spaz writes!
The Pres said that reciprocal would include indirect barrier costs as well.
Boehm, you are getting caught up on a made up definition.
let him go he's on a roll.
Trump is an incredible liar! "Indirect barriers" could mean ANYTHING and EVERYTHING! Like foreigners SNOT being slaves to their governments! Canadian individuals did SNOT buy enough American shit (and Canadian Government didn't FORCE them to do so); so we will be FORCED to tariff the shit out of their stuff and stuff!!!
In most cases, Trump's tariffs are significantly higher than the tariffs charged by other countries on American goods.
Progress! I guess we've gone from "What tariffs" to "Ok, there are tariffs, but they're not as bad as Trump claims."
Wait. Are you saying other countries impose tariffs? As a loyal Reason reader I find that unpossible. Prior to Orangeman the planet was awash in free trade.
It seems reason authors are actually aware that borders exist, but only when discussing tariffs.
I'm even hearing there's something going on that social construct called DC, but hell if I can work out what that means.
For them, borders exist - but only for other countries. Same with tariffs - they're only for other countries, not us.
You know who said other countries don't impose tariffs? No one.
Just out of curiosity, do you want a VAT tax? Countries in Europe have VAT taxes. They make goods more expensive. We don't. Is it fair that their government makes stuff more expensive? Wait, you don't want a VAT tax, even though they have one?
Then why is it that when you see other countries making imports more expensive with tariffs, you get angry at the unfairness and demand that your government make imports more expensive with tariffs?
Seems kind of stupid to me.
Yet you endlessly defend democrats here, who want even more taxes, and won’t allow spending cuts. So fuck you. Trump is the only one with a plan.
American importers pay tariffs, not "them foreigners". So when Trump brags about the millions we gained from tariffs ... isn't he bragging about the millions reaped from American importers ?
His defenders in these comments won't even admit that tariffs are taxes.
Then you should be happy. As you have regularly advocated for more taxes here.
It's a penaltariff.
So next thing you know Trump will be claiming they let him grab them by the penaltariff and Leticia will have no choice but to indict. Is that what you want?
No, a combination of owners (through lower profits), employees (through lower compensation), and customers (through higher prices) pay the tariffs.
It not as simple as passing on all the costs to the customer. It will depend on the relative owner of each of those three and that will vary from product to product.
Regardless of apportionment, tariffs are paid on-shore, and are hence a domestic tax.
Boehm Promised a Great Depression if Trump Enacted Tariffs. The Numbers Tell a Different Story.
The Marxists who post here insist otherwise.
Wishcasting is to Eric as Strategery is to 43
Last month the argument was "tariffs aren’t raising prices." Now it's "at least it's not the Great Depression."
Now? Cite where tariffs are raising prices before you jump to another conclusion.
If your head is this deep in the sand, I can't help you.
So, nothing at all then it just 'feels right'.
Check out last week's CPI and PPI reports then come back and tell us how you feel.
The numbers are being cooked. How do we know this? Because they make Trump look bad. Once he fires all the leftists and replaces them with yes men who don’t want to get fired for embarrassing him, the numbers will start reflecting reality as Trump defines it. And BLS numbers will be as credible as number from China or North Korea.
The economy-government ties will look like China too.
They’re already that credible… (and no, not because of Trump OR Biden)
I hardly think we can attribute a 0.2% m-m increase to JUST tariffs.
Honestly, I’d be surprised if we could pin it on any one thing.
We can only make educated guesses. Inflation was trending down. Then Trump enacted 2 policies that were predicted to increase prices: tariffs and mass deportations. Then the inflation trend reverses despite Trump's otherwise anti-inflationary policies.
A safe bet, I'd say. Upcoming months will be telling.
You'll see.
“You'll see.”
I mean, I hope for all our sake that you’re wrong.
Are they raising prices? Because none of the stuff I buy is getting more expensive. Indeed, some of it has gone down in price.
Yes, prices are going up.
PPI report shows biggest surge in three years. Here's what that says about inflation
The latest PPI data underscores that higher prices are rippling through the economy
Of the things I buy regularly (or used to buy), the only rapid increases in price I've noticed are for beef and fresh fish. But that skyrocket took off several years ago.
Boehm either thinks we're stupid or he is stupid and/or blinded by his reflexively contrarian opinion when it comes to Trump. Doesn't he have to know that reciprocal does not have to mean numerically equal? This is a completely worthless insignificant article.
what about VAT taxes and the numerous ways other countries apply tariff like price increases on foreign goods? Funny how that is not discussed by the far left blog poster
VAT is imposed on goods regardless of source so are not a barrier.
None of you cultists seem willing to address the idiocy of the formula Trump used to assess tariff rates.
VAT is exempted on China's Domestic produced goods to the USA.
China was smart enough to realize Taxing their production/creation was stupid and taxing their consumerism was much smarter.
In contrast to the USA that thinks Tax-Exempting Consumerism while Taxing the tar out of production was suppose to be smart.
And anyone has to wonder why the USA doesn't make sh*t anymore.