The Trump administration’s approach to tariffs is being shaped by an internal tug-of-war between competing philosophies, bureaucratic rivalries, and geopolitical ambitions. These policies have significant implications for domestic industries, international trade relationships, and global power dynamics. Let’s dig into it.
Diverging Philosophies on Tariffs
Within the administration, two dominant philosophies about tariffs shape policy decisions:
Scott Bessent’s Strategic Perspective
- Role: As Treasury Secretary, Bessent brings a Wall Street-informed view, emphasizing tariffs as tools to negotiate favorable international agreements.
- Philosophy: Bessent argues that tariffs can be wielded tactically to compel economic rivals and allies to align with US interests. This view frames tariffs as leverage for achieving broader diplomatic and economic goals rather than ends in themselves. For instance:
- Pressuring China to adjust currency valuations and increase purchases of US goods.
- Using tariffs on Mexico and Canada as bargaining chips to address illegal immigration and drug trafficking into the United States.
Robert Lighthizer’s Protectionist Vision
- Role: Though not holding a formal position in Trump’s second term, Lighthizer’s influence lingers. As the first-term US Trade Representative, he championed the use of tariffs as a standalone policy.
- Philosophy: Lighthizer views globalization as a destructive force that hollows out US manufacturing and causes widespread social harm, including unemployment, opioid addiction, and family breakdowns. From his perspective, tariffs are not just tools but essential barriers to protect American industries and rebuild the economy from within.
These contrasting views are evident in Trump’s tariff policies. Tariffs are framed both as punitive measures targeting specific actions by Mexico, Canada, and China, and as part of broader goals to decouple the US from China economically and revitalize domestic manufacturing.
Current Policy Announcements and Implications
Subscribe!