by Daniel Brouse
June 1, 2025
On May 30, 2025, Donald Trump announced that he would raise tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from 25% to 50%. The announcement took place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania—ironically, at the headquarters of U.S. Steel, a company now under foreign ownership after being acquired by Japan-based Nippon Steel.
Despite Trump’s attempts to frame the acquisition as something other than a foreign takeover, his administration supported the deal—effectively relinquishing one of the last iconic symbols of American industrial independence. The political optics of standing in front of a foreign-owned U.S. Steel to promote tariffs supposedly aimed at protecting American manufacturing highlight the contradictions at the core of Trump’s economic strategy.
Trump’s Tariff Folly: Round One
Trump’s earlier imposition of steel tariffs in 2018 under his “America First” policy was marketed as a way to revive domestic industry. But in reality, it delivered a net blow to the broader U.S. economy. Here’s what happened:
-
Net Loss of 75,000 U.S. Manufacturing Jobs
While a small number of domestic steel jobs were created, the broader manufacturing sector was hit hard. Industries like automotive, construction, and appliances faced soaring input costs, resulting in layoffs, reduced investment, and production slowdowns. -
$900,000 Cost Per Job Saved
According to independent economic analyses, each job preserved by the steel tariffs cost American taxpayers nearly $900,000, making it one of the least cost-effective job protection strategies in recent memory. -
Higher Prices Across the Economy
U.S. firms paid 15–20% more for steel and aluminum than their international competitors. These increased costs rippled across industries, raising prices on everything from cars to washing machines to public infrastructure projects. -
Retaliatory Tariffs and Export Declines
Countries like Canada, China, and the EU responded with their own tariffs, particularly targeting U.S. agricultural exports. Farmers, already struggling from shifting global markets, saw billions in lost revenue. -
Increased Market Volatility and Business Uncertainty
The erratic nature of Trump’s trade policies created uncertainty that dampened business investment and contributed to increased market instability.
Why Trump’s 2025 Tariffs Could Be Even More Destructive
Trump’s new 50% tariff—double the rate from 2018—comes at a time when the global economy is more interconnected than ever and inflationary pressures remain sensitive to supply chain disruptions. The risks are even greater now:
-
More Global Retaliation: Other countries may once again hit back with tariffs of their own—this time potentially broader and more aggressive. The U.S. could face compounded export losses, especially in tech, energy, and agriculture.
-
Greater Downstream Harm: U.S. manufacturers are already competing on thin margins and globalized supply chains. A 50% tariff will push many over the edge, leading to offshoring, layoffs, and consolidation.
-
Foreign Ownership Undermines the Premise: Supporting a foreign takeover of U.S. Steel while implementing protectionist tariffs is not just contradictory—it’s economically incoherent. Tariffs that raise domestic prices now benefit a Japanese-owned firm at the expense of U.S. manufacturers and consumers.
-
Inflationary Effects at the Worst Possible Time: Adding significant cost pressures to critical materials like steel and aluminum may worsen inflation at a time when the Federal Reserve is trying to stabilize prices.
Conclusion: America Last, Not First
Rather than revitalizing American industry, Trump’s steel tariffs have proven to be an expensive exercise in economic nationalism. They harm the very sectors they aim to protect, misallocate resources, and isolate the U.S. from global trade benefits.
Trump’s doubling down on tariffs in 2025—combined with a tacit approval of foreign acquisitions—only magnifies the disconnect between his rhetoric and reality. In doing so, he’s not making America great again—he’s making it less competitive, more isolated, and economically unstable.