Trump Rolls Out Sweeping Tariffs
According to the article, President Donald Trump recently unveiled a long-promised, sweeping set of baseline tariffs on all trading partners and what he described as "kind reciprocal" tariffs on nations he claimed were the worst offenders in trade relations with the U.S.
Note: In addition to the article, please see the accompanying video, “Trump Imposes Far-Reaching New Tariffs,” included at the above-referenced internet address.
“Liberation Day”
"My fellow Americans, this is Liberation Day," Trump said from the White House Rose Garden, claiming the action will free the U.S. from dependence on foreign goods.
"April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed and the day that we began to make America wealthy again," he said.
The new measures -- which Trump described as "historic" -- include a minimum baseline tariff of 10 percent on all trading partners and further, more targeted punitive levies on certain countries, including China, the European Union and Taiwan.
"We will charge them approximately half of what they are and have been charging us," he said, adding, "because we are being very kind."
“Full” Reciprocal Versus “Kind” Reciprocal
"This is not full reciprocal. This is kind reciprocal," he said.
Trump held up a chart with a list of nations and what the new U.S. tariffs against them will be. At the top was China, which Trump said was set to be hit with a 34 percent tariff rate as he claimed it charged the United States 67 percent. (The new 34 percent tariff would be on top of a 20 percent U.S. tariff on China already in effect -- bringing the total tariff to 54 percent, according to Trump's senior counselor for trade Peter Navarro.)
The 10 percent baseline tariff rate goes into effect on April 5, according to senior White House officials. The "kind reciprocal" tariffs go into effect April 9 at 12:01 a.m., officials said and will affect roughly 60 countries.
The "reciprocal" tariffs are based not just on what was listed on the chart but also on alleged currency manipulation and trade barriers.
Trade Deficits as a “National Emergency”
Trump described trade deficits as a "national emergency" and that his actions will usher in what he called "the golden age of America."
"In short, chronic trade deficits are no longer merely an economic problem. They're a national emergency that threatens our security and our very way of life. It's a very great threat to our country," he said.
The tariff announcement is a moment months in the making for the president, but one that comes with significant political and economic risk.
A Risk of Recession
Some experts warn that his moves could cause the economy to slide into a recession and markets seesawed ahead of Trump’s announcement, after weeks of turmoil as Trump's tariff policy shifted and took shape.
The White House had been mum on details ahead of the formal announcement. One senior administration official said the situation was "still very fluid" after meetings and that Trump and his top advisers were trying to find some common ground where they agreed.
Some options debated in recent weeks, the media reported, were a 20 percent flat tariff rate on all imports; different tariff levels for each country based on their levies on U.S. products; or tariffs on about 15 percent of countries with the largest trade imbalances with the U.S.
The announced tariffs build onto levies already imposed by the administration, including on steel and aluminum as well as certain goods from China, Canada and Mexico.
"China urges the United States to immediately cancel its unilateral tariff measures and properly resolve differences with its trading partners through equal dialogue," a Commerce Ministry spokesperson said in a statement from China.
Strained Relations with Canada and Mexico
The actions have strained relations with Canada and Mexico, two key allies and neighbors. Prime Minister Mark Carney said last week the U.S. and Canada's deep relationship on economic, security and military issues was effectively over.
Canada has vowed retaliatory tariffs and Mexico said it will give its response later this week. The European Union, too, said it has a "strong plan to retaliate."
Following Trump's announcement, a resolution aimed at curtailing his ability to levy tariffs against Canada by challenging his national emergency declaration against the country passed in the Senate today by a vote of 51-48. It was a narrow but nonetheless rare rebuke of Trump's policy.
The resolution will now head to the House, but there's nothing compelling House Speaker Mike Johnson to take it up, so it's unlikely to further progress. The Senate also fell far short of the number of votes that would ultimately be necessary to bust a Trump veto if the bill ever got to his desk.
Still, the passage of the bill is a boon to efforts to challenge Trump's tariffs just hours after he announced then.
“Full Steam Ahead”
Trump and administration officials, however, are plowing full steam ahead, arguing America's been unfairly "ripped off" by other nations for years and it's time for reciprocity.
"For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike," Trump said.
The chart he held up had one column showing what it called tariffs imposed by what Trump suggested were the top five offending countries next to a second column with what it said were the U.S. "discounted reciprocal tariffs" against them.
They include:
- China at 67 percent compared with 34 percent.
- The European Union at 39 percent compared with 20 percent.
- Vietnam at 90 percent compared with 46 percent.
- Taiwan at 64 percent compared with 32 percent.
- Japan at 46 percent compared with 24 percent.
The list includes a massive 44 percent tariff on Myanmar, currently reeling from a devastating earthquake, saying that country imposes an 88 percent tariff on the U.S.
The economy was the top issue for voters in the 2024 presidential election, with Americans casting blame on President Joe Biden for high prices and Trump promising to bring families financial relief.
Short Term Pain, Long Term Gain?
The administration has painted tariffs as a panacea for the economy writ large, arguing any pain experienced in the short term will be offset by what they predict will be major boosts in manufacturing, job growth and government revenue.
"Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country, and you see it happening already. We will supercharge our domestic industrial base," Trump said. "We will pry open foreign markets and break down foreign trade barriers. And ultimately, more production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers."
But economists say it will be American consumers who bear the brunt of higher costs to start.
It's unclear how much leeway the public is willing to give Trump to get past what he in the past called "a little disturbance."
Public Reaction
Already, little more than two months into his second term, polls show his handling of the economy is being met with pushback.
An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey published recently found a majority of Americans (58 percent) disapprove of how Trump has been handling the economy.
On his protectionist trade negotiations with other nations, specifically, 60 percent of Americans said they disapproved of his approach so far. It was his weakest issue in the poll among Republicans.
Trump's GOP allies on Capitol Hill have said they're placing trust in the president, but acknowledged there will be some uncertainty to start.
"It may be rocky in the beginning, but I think this will make sense for Americans and it will help all Americans," House Speaker Mike Johnson said at his weekly press conference on Tuesday alongside other members of Republican leadership.
Democrats, meanwhile, pledged to fight the tariffs "tooth and nail" and were trying to force a vote aimed at curtailing his authorities to impose levies on Canada.
Note: For a comprehensive list of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on international trade, please see the following article:
“Trump Tariffs List in Full”
Discussion Questions
1. In March 2025, the U.S. unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. Given this relatively low rate of unemployment, if textile and other manufacturing jobs do return to the United States, would there be enough “ready, willing, and able” workers to fill those positions?
In your author’s opinion, this is a fascinating question! When your author was in undergraduate school as an economics major at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (in the previous millennium!), the leading professors suggested that five percent was the “normal” rate of unemployment. The theory behind the “normal” rate of unemployment was that due to imperfect information for potential employees regarding job availability and for potential employers regarding qualified candidates, a certain percentage of unemployment is to be expected, and that percentage was estimated to be five percent. Currently, the U.S. unemployment rate is 4.2 percent, almost one full percentage point below what has been considered the “normal” rate of unemployment. Given this, it really does challenge reason to expect that hundreds of thousands of workers would be available “at a whim” to fill hordes of textile and manufacturing jobs in the United States.
2. In your reasoned opinion, which branch of government should determine whether tariffs should be imposed on trading partners, and if so, what the tariff rates should be: the executive branch (i.e., the president), or the legislative branch (i.e., Congress)?
This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution vests the power to lay and collect tariffs with Congress.
The Framers of the Constitution intended for legislative oversight on taxation, tariffs, and related financial matters, viewing tariffs as strategic levers to be used with caution and prudence.
Historically, Congress set tariffs and maintained tight control over this power. However, over time, particularly after the Great Depression, there was a shift towards delegating some authority to the executive branch. This began with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, allowing the President to negotiate trade agreements without separate congressional approval each time.
Later acts, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, further evolved this delegated authority. These allowed the president to act on national security concerns through tariffs or respond to unfair foreign trade practices. However, this delegation is not unchecked. For instance, Section 232 of the 1962 Act enables the president to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security, but this is bounded by specific findings and processes.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that any delegation of power must include an “intelligible principle” to direct and limit the president’s use of this authority. While the president can negotiate and respond to immediate threats, the imposition of generalized tariffs still requires congressional approval, reinforcing the separation of powers fundamental to our constitutional republic.
For an excellent article addressing this issue in greater detail, please see “Who Controls U.S. Tariffs? The Constitution vs. Presidential Power” at the following internet address:
https://www.usconstitution.net/executive-tariff-authority/
3. In your reasoned opinion, to what extent, if any, should maintaining positive foreign relations factor into the decision regarding whether to impose trading restrictions on trading partners? For example, should the people of the United States be concerned that relations with Canada and Mexico are now reportedly “strained” because of the tariffs? Explain your response.
This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. In your author’s opinion, maintaining positive foreign relations should factor greatly into the decision regarding whether to impose trading restrictions on trading partners. Although this world may be a microscopic “speck” in a limitless universe, what happens on “the speck” in terms of geopolitical relations matters infinitely for everyone on it. It’s a thin raft, and keeping it afloat requires international cooperation and compromise. The “peace dividend” theory of foreign trade suggests that when two nations enter a trade agreement, that makes it substantially more difficult for them to engage in war against one another. This “dividend” may be difficult (or impossible) to calculate in terms of actual value, but the value is certainly there. Would anyone really want our two closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico, to be enemies of the United States? Our border with Canada is 5,525 miles long, the longest international border between two countries in the world, and the U.S. border with Mexico is 1,954 miles long. What about Europe?
