The Trade Wars: Tariffs, Globalization, and the Battle for Economic Dominance
Chapter 12: The Next Chapter – Will America Reverse Course?
Biden’s Approach to Trade vs. Trump’s Policies
The transition from the Trump administration’s protectionist trade policies to Biden’s trade approach marked a shift in rhetoric, but not necessarily in action. While Trump’s America First doctrine focused on unilateral tariffs and trade wars, Biden has taken a more multilateral, diplomatic approach. However, Biden has also maintained key tariffs and restrictions, demonstrating a continuation of some protectionist policies while integrating a stronger emphasis on alliances and global cooperation.
12.1 The Trump Administration’s Trade Policies
Tariff-Based Protectionism:
Imposed steel and aluminum tariffs under Section 232, citing national security concerns.
Launched a trade war with China, imposing tariffs on over $360 billion worth of Chinese imports.
Renegotiated NAFTA, replacing it with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
Unilateral Trade Actions:
Withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), reducing U.S. influence in Asian trade.
Undermined the World Trade Organization (WTO) by blocking the appointment of new judges to the dispute resolution body.
Used tariffs as a bargaining tool, threatening the EU, Canada, and Mexico with trade penalties.
Focus on Reducing Trade Deficits:
Aimed to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, but ended up worsening it due to retaliatory tariffs and global supply chain disruptions.
12.2 The Biden Administration’s Trade Policies
Maintaining Tariffs but Changing Strategy:
Despite criticizing Trump’s trade war, Biden kept most Trump-era tariffs on China.
Introduced targeted tariffs and subsidies for industries critical to national security (e.g., semiconductors, electric vehicles).
Avoided new unilateral tariffs but focused on working with allies to counter China’s trade practices.
Reinvesting in Domestic Industries:
Passed the CHIPS and Science Act (2022) to strengthen U.S. semiconductor manufacturing.
Implemented the Inflation Reduction Act (2022) to boost clean energy production and reduce reliance on Chinese solar and battery supply chains.
Multilateral Trade Diplomacy:
Repaired alliances strained by Trump’s tariff wars, particularly with the EU, Canada, and Japan.
Engaged in regional trade agreements such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) to counter China’s influence.
Strengthened the Quad alliance (U.S., India, Japan, Australia) as an economic and security counterweight to China.
The Political Divide Over Tariffs in Future Administrations
The future of U.S. trade policy remains uncertain, as tariffs have become a divisive political issue. Different factions within the Republican and Democratic parties hold conflicting views on trade, making it difficult to predict whether future administrations will continue protectionist measures or shift toward free trade agreements.
12.3 The Republican Divide on Trade
Trump-Aligned Populists (Pro-Tariff, Protectionist):
Favor aggressive tariffs to protect American jobs and industries.
Support economic decoupling from China and reshoring manufacturing.
Tend to oppose multilateral trade agreements in favor of bilateral deals.
Traditional Conservatives (Pro-Free Trade, Globalist):
Support reducing tariffs and expanding global trade agreements.
Advocate for corporate tax cuts and deregulation to attract foreign investment.
Favor rejoining CPTPP and other free trade agreements to enhance economic competitiveness.
12.4 The Democratic Divide on Trade
Progressive Democrats (Pro-Protectionism, Labor-Oriented):
Support tariffs to protect union jobs and domestic industries.
Advocate for higher labor and environmental standards in trade agreements.
Oppose corporate-friendly trade deals, favoring “fair trade” over free trade.
Centrist Democrats (Pro-Free Trade, Global Cooperation):
Favor reducing tariffs and strengthening multilateral trade agreements.
Support trade deals that reinforce strategic alliances against China and Russia.
Back investments in domestic industries as an alternative to tariffs.
12.5 The Role of Congress in Future Trade Policy
Congress plays a key role in shaping U.S. trade policy, particularly through the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which allows the president to negotiate trade agreements.
Future trade policies may depend on congressional control, with Republicans likely favoring tariffs as leverage and Democrats pushing for stronger labor and environmental provisions in trade deals.
What Lessons Should Be Learned from Past Trade Wars?
The U.S. has engaged in several trade wars throughout history, and each offers valuable lessons for policymakers moving forward.
12.6 Lesson 1: Protectionism Has Unintended Consequences
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930):
Intended to protect U.S. industries, but led to global retaliation and worsened the Great Depression.
Reduced U.S. exports by over 60%, crippling the economy.
Trump’s China Tariffs (2018-2020):
Aimed at reducing the trade deficit, but resulted in higher consumer prices and billions in farmer subsidies.
China shifted its supply chains, leading to long-term losses for U.S. exporters.
12.7 Lesson 2: Global Supply Chains Cannot Be Easily Rebuilt
Tariffs disrupted supply chains, but reshoring manufacturing takes time and investment.
Some companies shifted production to Vietnam, India, and Mexico instead of returning to the U.S.
Example: Apple and other tech giants diversified manufacturing but still rely on China for key components.
12.8 Lesson 3: Trade Wars Have Geopolitical Consequences
China Strengthened Alternative Trade Alliances:
The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was signed by 15 Asia-Pacific nations, excluding the U.S.
China expanded its influence in Africa and Latin America through infrastructure investments.
The U.S. Lost Market Influence:
Withdrawal from the TPP allowed China to dominate Pacific trade.
The EU and Japan signed independent trade agreements, reducing reliance on the U.S.
12.9 Lesson 4: Tariffs Alone Do Not Solve Economic Challenges
Manufacturing Job Losses Are Driven by Automation:
Tariffs did not revive U.S. manufacturing, as most job losses result from automation and efficiency improvements.
Example: U.S. steel jobs continued to decline despite Trump’s tariffs because of mechanized production.
Trade Deficits Are Not Easily Eliminated:
The U.S. trade deficit with China remained high, as businesses found alternative ways to import goods.
Consumers still demanded cheap electronics, clothing, and industrial goods, despite tariffs.
Conclusion
The future of U.S. trade policy remains uncertain. While the Biden administration has taken a more diplomatic and strategic approach, it has maintained key tariffs and industrial subsidies. The political divide over trade policy suggests that tariffs and protectionist measures will remain part of U.S. economic strategy, but their extent will depend on the priorities of future administrations.
The lessons from past trade wars highlight the risks of protectionism, the complexity of global supply chains, and the importance of multilateral trade agreements. Moving forward, U.S. policymakers must balance economic security, strategic competition, and global leadership to ensure America remains competitive in the evolving international trade landscape.
