The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump's Trade Deals Won't End the Harm Caused by His Tariffs
In each case, tariffs remain much higher than they were before the deals.

Trump has reached a trade deal with the European Union, which follows previous deals with the UK, Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Some might view these deals as vindication of Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, and other tariff hikes. But the truth is that these deals leave us worse off than before. In each case, tariff rates under the deals are vastly higher than they were before Trump started his trade war. For example, the new tariff on most EU goods will be 15%, compared to an average rate of 1.47% before Trump's second term (the EU imposed an average %1.35 rate on US imports). It's a similar story with Japan (15% vs. 2%), Britain (10% vs. 3.3%), and the others. Moreover, under the Administration's interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Trump would retain unfettered discretion to raise tariffs further any time he wants for any reason. That means the deals have no real legal force, and aren't genuinely binding.
As a result, Americans will face much higher prices than before on many goods, and there will be other severe economic damage, as well. All told Trump's IEEPA tariffs are expected to impose some $1.9 trillion in tax increases on Americans over the next decade, costing the average household some $1000 per year, while also raising prices and greatly diminishing economic growth. In addition, giving one man total control over tariffs undermines the rule of law and the stable expectations on which the international economy depends. There is also the damage the tariffs do to relations with US allies, thereby weakening the Western alliance relative to rivals like China and Russia.
The relatively modest reductions in tariffs against US exports these deals include (e.g. Britain reduced its tariffs from an average of 3.8% to 1.8%) don't even begin to offset the enormous harm - even if we (wrongly) discount all harm done to foreign trading partners, and only consider effects on the US.
Obviously, the trade deals also don't change the fact that Trump's IEEPA tariffs are illegal for a wide range of reasons. The Liberty Justice Center and I secured a ruling against the "Liberation Day" tariffs in the US Court of International Trade, and our case (together with one filed by 12 state governments) is now on appeal in the Federal Circuit. We hope to continue to prevail, now aided by big-name legal scholars and appellate litigators Michael McConnell and Neal Katyal. We also have the support of amicus briefs from a wide range of group across the political spectrum.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If this is “Harm”
“Hurt me Baby!”(One More Time?)
I’ve literally (I usually hate when peoples use that word but I think I’m correct) never been richer than I am today
Sometimes I (want to) do like Scrooge McDuck and just bathe nude in my Shekels
1972, I was 9, I wanted an increase in my weekly allowance from $0.75(that’s 75 cents millenials) to a Dollar, my dad made me write a request (typed, by my Mom) where I explained the need for the increase (Despite Milhouses “Price Controls” Comic Books had gone from 15 cents/month to 20, and more clever publishers had gone to “bimonthly”(every 2 month millenials) for 50 cents(“only 2 Quarters)
My request was approved (grudgingly, when he got back from Thailand) in his defense back dated to date of my request
Next year I got a Paper Route
Frank
Hi, Ilya: Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that June would’ve posted a $70 billion deficit, not a $27 billion surplus without tariffs, just as it did in June, 2024. Where in your post did you mention that?
Educators have an ethical duty to present all sides of a subject. Leaving out a side makes the article misleading partisan Dem propaganda.
Wow - government revenues go up when taxes on goods and materials are imposed. Extraordinary.
How is that relevant? Nobody denies that raising taxes raises revenue. (Well, I suppose some of the less numerate supply siders appear to deny that.) The argument against Trump's tariffs was not "It won't bring in revenues."
Inflation is not really happening either.
I doubt the courts will be any more impressed with your political and economic analyses than they are with the major questions doctrine silliness but do give it your best shot in your appeals.
I doubt the courts will be any more impressed with your political and economic analyses than they are with the major questions doctrine silliness but do give it your best shot in your appeals.
That's because you're an idiot and don't know WTF you're talking about (or else a badly programmed bot). The problems with tariffs are not something Ilya dreamed up. They are a standard part of economic analysis - to use a phrase lawyers like, this is black-letter economics.
“Black letter economics”? If you say so. Is it also “black letter politics”? To each his own made up expression asshole.
And, repeating my comment in its entirety before replying, why? Who would do that but an idiot or an AI program? Kind of ironic, isn’t it clown?
This could be a pre-canned response to any of Prof. Somin's post.
A continuation in your rejection of any actual engagement with anyone's writing; just seeing keywords and going off.
And speaking of pre-canned contemptible insults masquerading as a substantive response. Again little communist girl that never smiled, I know you’re a bastard but do you have to be such a stupid bastard?
"This could be a pre-canned response to any of Prof. Somin's post."
It's a pre-canned response to every Prof. somin post because Somin's posts are all the same.
Ilya, walking through the VC with a sign board saying the world will end (date unknown) thanks to Trump's actions.
Trump must be doing something right, if he is upsetting Somin's plan to destroy America.
" to impose some $1.9 trillion in tax increases on Americans over the next decade,"
Sigh...as repeatedly pointed out, these are not direct tax increases "on Americans." At best, they are indirect tax increases.
Tariffs are paid by the importers of the goods. Sometimes, they pass these costs along to the consumer. Sometimes, these importers are unable to pass these costs along and remain competitive, so they don't.
When blatant assumptions (at best) like these are made, it calls the rest of the argument into question.
...and as always, individual results may vary.
Tariffs are paid by the importers of the goods. Sometimes, they pass these costs along to the consumer. Sometimes, these importers are unable to pass these costs along and remain competitive, so they don't.
Yes, but the importers are also Americans, an elementary point which you don't seem to grasp. So Ilya is quite correct that these taxes are (mostly) paid by Americans.
THIS!!! Why is this fucking point the one that is always missed? I own a small amount of stock in Walmart, Costco, etc (through my various mutual funds). I'm paying for these tariffs as a shareholder on one end. And--assuming the company decides to pass on the costs to the consumer--I pay a second time, when I decide to buy those goods.
It's not that complicated to understand that, as Americans, we are the ones who are paying for Trump's tariffs, one ways or another. They may be good policy or bad policy, but I think only foolish people believe that non-American's are the ones paying the vast vast vast majority of said tariffs.
Then why is the CPI currently at only 2.7%...you know, lower than it was in January?
"Yes, but the importers are also Americans, an elementary point which you don't seem to grasp. So Ilya is quite correct that these taxes are (mostly) paid by Americans."
That's a very unsophisticated view of commerce. For example, a large Japanese computer products company exports product to the U.S., and the company receiving it in the U.S. is a U.S. corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Japanese company. So, are 'Americans' paying these tariffs? And this scenario is not at all uncommon.
Trump lowered our standard of living, raised our taxes, then calls it a victory. MAGA applauds. Unbelievable.
My standard of living hasn't been lowered. How has yours?
I only get one Old Fashioned in the Delta Sky Club instead of two, oh wait, that’s for my Liver
1. I have slightly less disposable income, due to paying slightly more for goods.
2. I have significantly less freedom, and this has had a profound impact on my standard of living (which obviously is affected by my individual emotional health, and by my country's collective emotional spirit)
3. My Republican party is now run by feckless and gutless lickspittle whores, and I have no confidence in the future of my own political party. This forces me to contribute more of my money to multiple political 3rd parties, which decreases my available disposable income.
4. The media are cowed by Trump and by Trump's bullying behavior, which decreases the media's effective oversight over bad behavior by both parties. This encouraged bad behavior by Dems and Republicans, which directly leads to a lowering of my standard of living.
Those 4 are just off the top of my head.
1. I have slightly less disposable income, due to paying slightly more for goods.
As of June the U.S. inflation rate (CPI) is 2.7%. You do understand that's LOWER than it was at the same point in 2024, right? (It's also slightly lower than it was in Jan. and Feb. of this year). Perhaps you'd prefer the 9.1% rate of June 2022.
"1. I have slightly less disposable income, due to paying slightly more for goods."
And how is this because of Trump and tariffs? It is much more likely due to inflation under Biden.
"2. I have significantly less freedom, and this has had a profound impact on my standard of living (which obviously is affected by my individual emotional health, and by my country's collective emotional spirit)"
This requires an explanation. How do you have less freedom due to Trump?
"3. My Republican party is now run by feckless and gutless lickspittle whores, and I have no confidence in the future of my own political party. This forces me to contribute more of my money to multiple political 3rd parties, which decreases my available disposable income."
No one is forcing you to contribute to political parties, and unless you're a billionaire, your contributions don't make a difference anyway.
"4. The media are cowed by Trump and by Trump's bullying behavior, which decreases the media's effective oversight over bad behavior by both parties. This encouraged bad behavior by Dems and Republicans, which directly leads to a lowering of my standard of living."
Wow, that's a stretch. The mainstream media - NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, et.al., are all anti-Trump.
"Those 4 are just off the top of my head."
Keep thinking.
You refuse to buy a different product of equal or superior quality that is American made.
American workers, by your consumption determinism, have more freedom because they have higher employment and more money.
Your RINO party disappeared long ago.
The "media cowed to Trump." LOL! Thanks for the joke. Your humor is much appreciated. Go watch the opening episode to South Park, an hour of MSNBC, the local news in 75% of America's largest cities, watch any of the broadcast networks nightly news, or read the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc. etc. and post this again without laughing at yourself.
Keep them coming!
Tell that to my colleagues who got fired.
The 'hey I'm doing fine' is literally what that fucking poem 'first they came for' is about.
You should care about other people. If not because that's what good people do, then because you're not immune from authoritarianism just because you're a fan of hurting other people.
It's about time someone let the air out of that bloated federal bureaucracy. People in the private sector get laid off all the time. Why should the public sector be immune?
Layoffs in the private sector occur because someone made a cost-benefit analysis. Layoffs in the public sector are occurring to destroy the government represented by that flag you wave while posting bullshit like that.
I posted no bullshit, at all. That the federal bureaucracy is bloated is beyond dispute. Geez, we probably have more employees of the FDA than we have farmers! No one is trying to destroy the government by laying off people, they are trying to save it, improve it!
On-farm employment is 2.4 million, FDA has 18,000 employees.
How many farm owners?
The major questions and non-delegation doctrines had some chance of success to kill the tariffs until Trump inked deals. Had: past tense.
Now that he's shown it to be a negotiation tactic, the tariff policy is firmly in the area of foreign policy (as a tool to make deals). The courts won't intervene. The President gets broad latitude to handle foreign policy and ink agreements.
But, I hear you say, the Senate is supposed to ratify treaties and taxes! Yes, that is true, they are. The last one (with Chile, according to Google, to prevent double taxation and fiscal evasion on income and capital) took ten years to ratify.
The courts will let the process play out.
No.
1) No, they're not a tool to make deals or a negotiation tactic. He is imposing massive, permanent taxes on Americans.
2) As you acknowledge, the president actually has no power to make agreements with foreign countries, not without the senate. Though, to be fair, he isn't actually making agreements; he's just pretending to, and dumb people eat up his "frameworks" of deals as if they were actually deals.
3) Simply saying, "Well, this affects foreign policy" does not give the president any power in a domestic area.
I look forward to your amicus brief.
"they're not a tool to make deals or a negotiation tactic."
I mean... he just announced a trade deal with the EU and Japan. Trump is not doing anything substantially different than what Bush and Clinton did when they negotiated NAFTA (except, he's using the threats of high tariffs to bring them to the table).
"the president actually has no power to make agreements with foreign countries, not without the senate."
Going all the way back to President Jefferson, the President has had very broad latitude to conduct foreign policy, including negotiating treaties and trade agreement to present to the Senate for ratification. The (deals, treaties, frameworks), however you want to characterize, it fall squarely within what almost every President has done for 250 years.
Now, you may not like the deals he's making and think the tariffs are a bad idea; but that does not make them illegal or make Trump's negotiation tactics unconstitutional.
It does need to be ratified by the Senate. I am quite sure it will be. There is a large pocket of Democrats just as protectionist as Trump.
The president may have wide latitude but that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution itself, hence an explicit Constitutional power delegated to the legislature takes precedence. For another instance,consider that the president cannot override defence appropriations for foreign policy purposes.
Thomas Jefferson sent naval vessels to negotiate and fight the Barbary pirates without consulting the Senate. He de facto waged war on them, the Senate's power to declare war notwithstanding.
When it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy, there is a long tradition of the President being granted latitude, even in matters of war powers. The Supreme Court has a long history of deferring to the President on these matters
Notwithstanding your use of the terms de facto and notwithstanding, you're not good at this.
"In each case, tariff rates under the deals are vastly higher than they were before Trump started his trade war."
Can a war be said to have started when the first side attacks the second side? Or is it when the side being attacked begins defending itself? And is the war properly captioned as the attacking side's war, or the defending side's war? These questions would stump Ilya.
Whereas it is necessary for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandises imported...
So began the Tariff Act, the very first major piece of legislation passed by the First United States Congress, sponsored by Rep. James Madison, and signed into law by President George Washington on July 4, 1789.
But, we must always keep in mind, those men did not have the benefit of the wisdom of the disciples of inane 1970s libertarianism. If they had, just imagine the heights the United States might have attained.
At this rate, Donald Trump will have to negotiate increased output of copium in order to handle the worldwide surge in demand.
MAGA is all about reveling in misery.
That's interesting, I take it as projection. I would say that progressives and liberals revel in misery, while MAGA types are trying to change and improve things.
I have agreed with Professor Somin that Congress has authorized the President to set tariffs in only specific and limited circumstances and has by no means passed the sort of Tariff Enabling Act that would support his setting tarriffs as pure negotiation weapons to negotiate on other matters as he pleases. Unlike Professor Somin, however, I think the statutory issues should completely decide the matter and the courts should not decide whether Congress could constitutionally delegate this kind of power until a case arises where it has actually done so.
That said,if Congress had passed a tariff statute with tariffs at the levels we’ve ended up with here and the President wasn’t acting ultra views, I don’t think this tariff regime would be the end of the world.
Professor Somin has strong ideological reasons to believe all tariffs are evil. And he is right that unduly high tatiffs have killed trade and deepened depressions in the past. But nonetheless, I see no reason why trade should be conducted absolutely tax free. The kinds of “the sky is falling” complaints Professor Somin makes about any tariff level above zero were made about just about every other kind of tax we’ve ever had. And despite all the kvetching by people who think taxes are something only the little people should have to pay, generally speaking the sky hasn’t fallen when taxes come further up the economic chain and big people have to pay them too.
As Justice Holmes said, taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Government has to spend a lot of money protecting and policing trade. Many of its efforts, from piracy patrols to counterfeit policing, are in the interests of industry and merchants. Why shouldn’t they pay their fair share for having a government?
This is a policy position with which I agree. It doesn't make them illegal or unconstitutional. Which is why Congress should repeal tariff delegations.
Tariffs like this are bad, which is why I'd like the political party out of power to be making that case, including for their legislative repeal. (Of course they won't, because they agree philosophically with protectionism that American workers are being ripped off, but are butt hurt that Trump has stolen their issues and voters.)
It's pitiful to see how many people insist that tariffs are not taxes and even if they are, are paid by foreign producers. Perhaps it's to manage the cognitive dissonance of opposing all tax increases as a matter of conviction, while supporting all Trump policies as a matter of creed.
You know, that's the oversimplification argument. If tariffs were a tax, they would be called taxes. There are all kinds of taxes: income tax, real estate tax, excise tax, sales tax, and so forth. Some are 'mandatory,' some discretionary. For example, if you don't want to pay more sales tax, don't buy stuff! But if you don't pay your real estate tax they can take your house.
Tariffs are most like sales tax. You can avoid them by not buying things. Importers can respond competitively by lowering their prices, thus mitigating the impact of tariffs.
So, saying "tariffs are taxes" is an oversimplification, and incorrect.
If tariffs were a tax, they would be called taxes
"If dogs werea species of wolves they'd be called wolves".
It is not required that all species which are members of a genus have the same name, whether we're talking biology or language.
Tariffs are most like sales tax. You can avoid them by not buying things.
And you can avoid income tax by not having any income. So whart?
Yea, and you can avoid all taxes by killing yourself!
But not all taxes are the same. Some are discretionary.
But not all taxes are the same. Some are discretionary.
No-one said all taxes were the same. And all taxes are discretionary inasmuch as one can always find a way not to be liable for a class of tax, even if the necessary measures may be inconvenient.
"even if we (wrongly) discount all harm done to foreign trading partners, and only consider effects on the US."
It's nice to see Ilya occasionally let down his guard and reveal himself to be the globalist, corporatist swine that he is.
Reminder that Ilya Somin wants the US to exist only as an economic zone that imports infinity third worlders and gives them gibs.
Just a reminder that the point of the tariffs is that Trump, and only Trump, gets to decide on a daily basis whom to punish and whom to reward by imposing and sometimes delaying tariffs.
In other words, it's a grift machine, and all the bs and bluster about us "being ripped off", "rebuilding US manufacturing", and "tariffs are paid by foreigners, not US consumers" is just that bs and bluster.
(and, yes, it's terrible economic policy for many many reasons, but the point is not to improve the US economy. I'm reminded of Coleman Young, longtime Mayor of Detroit, who had no qualms about economic ruin as long as it increased his power and influence,)
There's a reason why the founding fathers did not place that much power in the hands of a single person.
I wonder why Somin isn't this worked up about income taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, etc.
Exactly.
Hell, he's nowhere near this worked up over tariffs levied AGAINST American products just to keep it as tight as possible. No, he's only upset by the response to those aggressive, anti-American policies. Revealing, that.
Reality and all the empirical evidence in the world refuting Ilya's baseless rants will prevent him from carrying on and making a fool of himself in economic discussions. Mr. Somin simply cries "damn the torpedoes!" He ignores the lack of inflation and declares the tariffs cause inflation. He disregards the absence of rising unemployment and argues the tariffs will result in across the board job losses. He neglects the strong economic activity in the nation and rants that recession in inevitable.
Ilya never lets the irrefutable facts, or his ignorance of economics get in the way of his blind ideological tirades. He will just keep citing baseless quotes from failed prognosticators as fact despite the daily economic reality to the contrary.
When the American economy grows at 3% for four consecutive quarters for the first time in nearly a quarter century Ilya Somin will complain about Europe's economy and how he can't afford Russian caviar!
Like many academics, Ilya suffers from both TDS and a very poor understanding of economics. The TDS is plain, as joked about Ilya would likely say that if Trump cured cancer, look at all the doctors and pharma reps jobs he destroyed.
On the economic front, tariffs are not a zero sum game, much like the economy as a whole. Firstly, there is something called substitution in an economic system. Tariffs on Mercedes cars goes up, so the price of the car goes up, and people now have a marginal motivation to purchase a Cadillac (made in America) or Lexus (made in Japan who cut a tariff deal and has lower tariffs). Or maybe Mercedes moves more of its manufacturing to the USA to avoid tariffs, maintains their price, and creates jobs here in America. Just because there is a tariff and prices rise on that good, doesn't mean it will be a) paid at a high rate because the same number of goods are sold or b) paid by the consumer because the producer can decline to increase the price by an equivalent amount. None of this thinking seems to be in Ilya's article.
But let's even assume he is right and that substitution of goods doesn't occur, changes in foreign manufacturing doesn't occur, and all of the tariffs are passed on to the consumer and that USA will bear a $1.9T tax increase on the population over the next 10 years. This is the equivalent of $190B per year in taxes. Also part of this process is increased commitment of foreign investment, which so far seems to add up to around $5.5T in the next 7-10 years.
That investment over 10 years is $550B in investment in factories, infrastructure, etc. per year or 2.9x the 'tariff tax' Ilya claims. However, these investments have a multiplier effect on the economy. According the the National Association of Manufacturers, as seen at this link: https://nam.org/mfgdata/facts-about-manufacturing-expanded/, every $1 invested has a $2.64 positive impact on the GDP. So those $5.5T in investment will create $14.5 trillion in positive effect. Therefore why does Ilya have a problem paying $1.9T over 10 years to get $5.5T in investment over those 10 years that will create $14.5T (a 7.6x benefit) in positive benefit to the GDP?
Like I said, economics isn't a zero sum game, something that Ilya and his fellow travelers consistently miss.
Glenn Kessler is out at the Wash. Post. He did 18 years, I think, making shit up. Good riddance.
Good lord, the TDS is strong with this one! Doesn't seem to be able to stop. And now is an economist to boot.
Trump delenda est, apparently.