Hours after his swearing-in ceremony, President Donald Trump asserted his administration’s economic policies with a presidential memorandum entitled “America First Trade Policy.” From assessing the domestic effects of the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA) to investigating China’s “unfair trade practices,” the document’s sweeping plans are ambitious. Many of the memo’s investigative promises have already materialized. On February 1, the president signed executive orders imposing additional 25 percent tariffs on most Canadian and Mexican imports. While these tariffs were initially suspended for 30 days, an additional 10 percent tariff on goods imported from China took effect on February 4. Days later, a February 10 order raised the aluminum tariff from 10 percent to 25 percent, with additional pharmaceutical and computer chip tariffs reportedly on the way. By signing a flurry of executive orders, President Trump portrays his administration as proactive and productive. However, this flood of tariffs, many of which are theatrical, distracts the American public from trade policies that could potentially benefit the domestic economy.
Not all tariffs are created equal. Instead of serving campaign promises or supporting the US economy, some tariffs are performative. These policies are designed to display presidential strength and American assertiveness in negotiations. The president’s tariffs on Mexico and Canada are a perfect example. Trump announced tariffs to force neighboring leaders to comply with his crackdown on the flow of fentanyl and illegal migration into the United States. In response, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum quickly announced the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops to the border. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also agreed to send forces and appointed a fentanyl czar to combat the problem. Hastily announced on X (formerly Twitter), these measures are token gestures and not intentional steps toward preventing the flow of fentanyl and illegal migration. Trump’s subsequent 30-day suspension of these tariffs renders them a threat and a poor solution to a complex issue of border security.
In a press conference on February 24, the president confirmed that the tariffs would proceed, claiming the United States had been “taken advantage of” by foreign nations. Trump, however, negotiated the standing North American agreement, USMCA, during his first term. Moreover, the agreement benefited the US economy. The USMCA encouraged domestic automobile production and gave Canada access to American dairy exports. It also fortified protections on intellectual property and enforced non-discriminatory grading standards for US agricultural imports. Lifting the tariff suspension conflicts sharply with the trust and laissez-faire spirit established by the agreement. Imposing these tariffs on Mexico and Canada and suspending them to extract empty concessions from other leaders was ineffective in protecting the border. Reimposing these tariffs to grow the US economy is also counterproductive. Without an economic or diplomatic purpose, this trade policy is a prop in an unnecessary attempt to make the United States look strong, and its neighbors weak.
The executive branch’s theatrical tariffs have not gone unnoticed. A recent BBC article described the tariff as a “threat” that many Canadian citizens believe “has caused a rift in the US-Canada relationship.” A national poll found that Canadians are more inclined to support reducing the nation’s dependence on the United States than restoring these countries’ pre-tariff relationship. According to President Sheinbaum, the tariff announcements also “sparked a wave of public response” from Mexican “businesses, communities, and organizations” who opposed the policies. US citizens are also displeased. Polling from strategic consultancy Public First found that only 28 percent of US citizens supported applying tariffs to Canada, while 43 percent were opposed. Over half of those involved agreed that tariffs would “damage the US relationship with Canada.” With widespread media coverage and public disappointment, performative tariffs are taking up air better allocated to well-intentioned policies.
Some of the recent tariffs are not theatrical. Unlike his other policies, Trump’s 10 percent tariffs on all Chinese imports may have some merit. According to Jorge Guajardo, former Mexican ambassador to Beijing, China has created the perfect environment to ensure its manufacturing sector supplies global demand. The Chinese government’s economic interventions allow it to enforce policies that are taboo in its competitors’ free-market economies, from lowering wages to deregulating the production process. Through the strategic use of tariffs, including raised tariffs on syrup-related imports in January, the nation also protects its domestic industry. China’s manufacturing capabilities are greater than the combined capacity of the United States, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Britain. Trump’s 10 percent tariffs on goods from China have received some criticism for potentially stimulating price hikes in fashion, toys, electronics, and more. Despite possible drawbacks, the policy takes a step toward the US economy catching up to its competitor, offsetting the imbalance in global manufacturing power.
The president’s tariff theatrics are not harmless stunts. They erode diplomatic relations between the United States and its economic partners. They damage a trade agreement that benefits the American economy. They absorb media attention that would be better spent on Trump’s potentially productive policies, giving the word “tariff” a sour aftertaste in the mouths of US citizens. The solution is simple: cut the fat. Tariffs that, whether successful or not, are intended to foster diplomacy or economic growth will give Americans the trade policy they deserve.