Category: Government

bookmark_borderTariffs: The Most Regressive Tax That Hurts the Economy Without Reducing the Deficit

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
March 20, 2025

Tariffs function as one of the most regressive forms of taxation because they disproportionately burden lower-income individuals, harm economic efficiency, and provide minimal benefit in terms of reducing the deficit. Here’s why:

1. Tariffs as a Regressive Tax

A regressive tax is one that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. Tariffs fit this definition because:

  • They increase the price of goods—especially necessities like food, clothing, and household items—forcing lower-income consumers to spend a greater portion of their income on these essentials.
  • They do not scale with income—everyone pays the same higher price for imported goods, meaning that the burden is disproportionately heavier on those with less disposable income.

2. Damage to the Economy

Tariffs hurt the economy in multiple ways:

  • Higher Prices for Consumers – Import taxes make foreign goods more expensive, allowing domestic producers to raise prices due to reduced competition.
  • Supply Chain Disruptions – Many U.S. industries rely on imported components; tariffs increase their costs, reducing competitiveness and efficiency.
  • Retaliatory Tariffs – Other countries impose their own tariffs in response, harming U.S. exports and industries reliant on international markets.
  • Reduced Investment and Growth – Businesses facing higher costs and uncertainty are less likely to invest, expand, or hire new workers.

3. Minimal Impact on the Deficit

While tariffs generate revenue, their contribution to reducing the deficit is small because:

  • Tariff Revenues Are Limited – Even in years of aggressive tariff policies, they typically raise tens of billions—not enough to significantly impact a deficit that runs in the hundreds of billions or trillions.
  • Indirect Economic Costs Offset Revenue Gains – The economic drag from tariffs (reduced trade, job losses, lower productivity) often results in lower tax revenues elsewhere, negating much of the benefit.
  • Political Pressure for Subsidies – When tariffs hurt domestic industries (e.g., farmers suffering from retaliatory tariffs), the government often responds with subsidies, which further erode any fiscal gains.

Conclusion

Tariffs act as an inefficient, indirect tax on consumers, particularly the poor, while harming overall economic growth. They offer little benefit in reducing the deficit because their revenue is small relative to overall spending, and the economic damage they cause reduces other sources of tax revenue. In essence, they function more as a political tool than an effective economic policy.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderTrump’s Sweeping Tariff Plan Threatens to Reverse Decades of Trade Progress

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
March 20, 2025

Trump aides are preparing to implement a sweeping new set of tariffs on imports valued in the trillions of dollars, aligning with the administration’s push for a more protectionist trade policy. This plan, part of Trump’s so-called “reciprocal” trade agenda, is expected to significantly alter U.S. trade relations by targeting countries that impose tariffs or non-tariff barriers on American goods.

According to Edward Gresser, a trade policy expert, Trump’s proposed tariff plan could push the average U.S. tariff rate to levels not seen since the early 1930s—approximately 20 percent. Such a shift would mark a dramatic departure from decades of trade liberalization, reversing much of the progress made in reducing global trade barriers since World War II.

This is the first indication of the scope and magnitude of the April 2nd tariffs.

Economic and Historical Concerns

Critics warn that imposing tariffs at such high levels could trigger retaliatory measures from trading partners, leading to increased costs for American consumers and businesses. Economists and industry leaders have expressed concerns that a tariff regime reminiscent of the 1930s could result in supply chain disruptions, inflationary pressures, and reduced global economic growth. Historically, these types of tariffs were a significant factor in exacerbating the Great Depression.

There is no evidence that tariffs protect American industries or bring manufacturing back to the U.S. During Trump’s first term, the administration imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum under the justification of protecting American jobs and reducing reliance on foreign imports. However, studies, including one from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that these policies were a net negative for the economy.

The Economic Damage of Trump’s First Tariffs

  • Net Loss of 75,000 U.S. Manufacturing Jobs – While a handful of domestic steel jobs were temporarily created, the broader manufacturing sector suffered significantly. Industries reliant on steel and aluminum, such as automotive production, construction, and appliance manufacturing, faced higher input costs, leading to layoffs and production cuts.
  • Each Job Saved Cost Taxpayers $900,000 – The few jobs protected by tariffs came at an extraordinarily high cost, making it one of the least efficient job protection policies in U.S. history.
  • Higher Prices for American Businesses and Consumers – U.S. companies paid 15-20% more for steel and aluminum compared to international competitors, leading to price increases for consumer goods, vehicles, and infrastructure projects.
  • Decline in U.S. Exports Due to Retaliatory Tariffs – In response to Trump’s tariffs, major trading partners—including Canada, China, and the European Union—imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. This particularly hurt the agriculture sector, leading to billions in lost revenue for American farmers.
  • Stock Market and Business Uncertainty – The tariffs increased economic volatility, with markets reacting negatively to heightened trade tensions and uncertainty in key manufacturing industries.

As Trump pushes forward with his sweeping tariff agenda, the potential consequences for the U.S. economy, global trade relations, and domestic industries remain a significant concern.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderEconomic and Security Implications of Trump Policies

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
March 18, 2025

Recent policy decisions by the Trump administration have led Canada and Australia to reconsider significant defense contracts with the United States.

Canada’s Reassessment of the F-35 Fighter Jet Deal

Canada is reevaluating its C$19 billion contract for 88 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets. This reconsideration stems from escalating trade tensions, particularly the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. Prime Minister Mark Carney has directed Defense Minister Bill Blair to explore alternatives, though switching to other aircraft could entail increased costs and operational complexities.

Bombardier CEO Eric Martel expressed concerns that canceling the F-35 deal might prompt the U.S. to target Canadian firms’ contracts, potentially affecting Bombardier’s U.S. agreements.

Australia’s Scrutiny of the AUKUS Submarine Pact

Australia is reassessing its involvement in the AUKUS pact, which includes acquiring up to five Virginia-class submarines from the U.S. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull criticized the agreement, arguing it compromises Australia’s sovereignty and security without guaranteeing submarine delivery. He emphasized that despite Australia’s financial commitment, there’s no assurance of receiving the submarines, potentially leaving the nation dependent on U.S. military support.

Additionally, a nominee for the U.S. Undersecretary for Defense Policy suggested that selling submarines to Australia could be unwise amid rising tensions with China over Taiwan, indicating potential reluctance within the U.S. defense establishment.

These developments reflect growing unease among U.S. allies regarding recent American policy decisions, leading to potential shifts in longstanding defense and economic partnerships.

Protectionism 101: Trump Economics

bookmark_borderBYD’s Breakthrough Charging Tech Exposes the Pitfalls of U.S. Protectionism in the EV Market

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
March 18, 2025

BYD, China’s leading electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer, has unveiled a groundbreaking ultra-fast charging system capable of delivering 1,000 kilowatts (kW) of power. This advancement allows EVs to gain 400 kilometers (approximately 248 miles) of range in just five minutes, effectively matching the refueling time of traditional gasoline vehicles. This technology is set to debut in BYD’s latest Han L sedan and the upcoming Tang L SUV models.

In contrast, the United States has implemented protectionist policies, including substantial tariffs on Chinese-made EVs and components. These measures aim to shield domestic manufacturers from foreign competition but have led to increased costs for EV parts and materials. Consequently, American consumers face higher prices, potentially slowing the adoption rate of EVs and hindering the expansion of charging infrastructure.

Moreover, such protectionism may inadvertently discourage domestic innovation. With reduced competition, U.S. automakers might have less incentive to pursue rapid technological advancements, potentially causing them to lag behind global competitors like BYD. This scenario underscores how protectionist policies can stifle innovation and competitiveness within the domestic EV industry.

BYD’s new charging technology exemplifies the strides made by manufacturers operating in more open and competitive markets. It highlights the potential drawbacks of U.S. protectionist measures, which, while intended to bolster domestic industries, may instead result in higher consumer prices and a slowdown in technological progress.

Protectionism 101: Trump Economics

bookmark_borderThe Inflationary Impact of Trump Tariffs and the Decline of the Dollar

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
March 18, 2025

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, import prices rose 0.4% in February 2025, following a 0.6% increase in January. This marks the largest two-month advance since mid-2022. The February increase was primarily driven by higher fuel prices, which advanced 1.7% after a 2.9% rise in January. Nonfuel import prices also edged up 0.3% in February, continuing the upward trend from the previous month.

Over the past year, import prices have increased by 3.4%, reflecting ongoing inflationary pressures in the economy.

These rising import prices are contributing to broader inflation concerns, as higher costs for imported goods can lead to increased prices for consumers and businesses alike. This trend underscores the importance of monitoring trade policies and global economic conditions that influence import costs.

The decline in the U.S. dollar is contributing to import inflation in several key ways:

  1. Higher Costs for Foreign Goods – A weaker dollar means it takes more U.S. dollars to buy the same amount of foreign currency. Since imports are priced in the currency of the exporting country, the cost of these goods rises when converted into dollars.

  2. Increased Raw Material Prices – Many imported raw materials, such as oil and industrial metals, are priced in dollars on global markets. When the dollar weakens, foreign suppliers may demand higher prices to maintain their profit margins, driving up costs for U.S. buyers.

  3. Supply Chain Price Pass-Through – Foreign manufacturers that rely on U.S. demand may pass higher exchange-rate-related costs onto American consumers. If businesses cannot absorb the additional costs, they raise prices on imported goods, fueling inflation.

  4. Reduced Purchasing Power – A weaker dollar diminishes the real value of American incomes when purchasing imported goods. This limits the ability of businesses and consumers to shop for lower-cost alternatives abroad, reinforcing inflationary pressures.

  5. Higher Transportation and Logistics Costs – Since global trade often involves transactions in multiple currencies, a depreciating dollar can increase the cost of shipping and logistics, further raising the final price of imported products.

As import prices rise due to the weaker dollar, businesses either absorb the costs (reducing profit margins) or pass them on to consumers, contributing to overall inflation in the U.S. economy.

Stagflation

In addition, U.S. steel manufacturers raised their prices last week to match the tariffs on imported steel, reducing any cost advantage for domestic buyers. This increase in steel prices had ripple effects throughout the economy, driving up costs for industries that rely on steel, such as construction, automotive, and manufacturing. Higher material costs forced businesses to either absorb the added expenses, reducing profit margins, or pass them on to consumers, contributing to broader inflation. Additionally, retaliatory tariffs from trading partners further disrupted supply chains, increasing costs for raw materials and intermediate goods, exacerbating inflationary pressures across multiple sectors.

These developments highlight the growing likelihood of a slowing economy coupled with persistent inflation, a condition known as “stagflation,” which is one of the worst-case scenarios for economic stability.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

 

bookmark_borderGlobal Economic Outlook Dims Amid Rising Trade Barriers and Geopolitical Tensions

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
March 17, 2025

On March 17, 2025, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released its latest Interim Economic Outlook, revising downward its global economic growth forecasts. This worldwide slowdown is attributed to higher trade barriers in several G20 economies, which are expected to dampen global growth and contribute to inflationary pressures, elevated geopolitical tensions and policy uncertainties. For the United States, the OECD has notably reduced its GDP growth forecasts, anticipating a multiyear decline with a meager 1.6% growth rate in 2026.

Atlanta Fed's GDP Tracker
Atlanta Fed’s GDP Tracker

Additionally, the Atlanta Fed’s GDP tracker for real GDP growth also was revised downward today to -2.1% for the first quarter of 2025 indicating a possible recession in the first half of this year.

These forecasts highlight both the immediate and long term decline in global economies, as well as the severe impacts to the US economy due to Trump’s economic policies.

Ironically, a sharp decline in the U.S. economy could help counteract the ‘drill, baby, drill’ policy and slow fossil fuel consumption, which would be beneficial for the environment. An economic slowdown typically leads to reduced demand for oil and fossil fuels, resulting in lower emissions. This decreased demand often causes oil prices to fall. When the price of a barrel of oil drops below certain thresholds, drilling new wells can become unprofitable. For instance, in 2022, the average breakeven price to profitably drill a new well in the United States was approximately $56 per barrel, with regional variations ranging from $48 to $69 per barrel.  Therefore, sustained oil prices below these breakeven points can discourage new drilling activities.

Explanation of the ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Policy:
The phrase “drill, baby, drill” emerged as a political slogan advocating for increased domestic oil and gas production in the United States. It gained prominence during the 2008 Republican National Convention and has been associated with policies aiming to boost fossil fuel extraction to achieve energy independence and economic growth. In recent years, this slogan has been revitalized to support expansive fossil fuel production initiatives. Proponents argue that such measures can lead to lower energy prices and reduced reliance on foreign oil. However, critics express concerns that this approach undermines efforts to combat climate change by perpetuating dependence on carbon-intensive energy sources.

President Donald Trump’s stance on climate change has been characterized by skepticism and policy actions that deprioritize environmental concerns in favor of economic and energy interests.

Public Statements:

  • Historically, Trump has referred to climate change as a “hoax.”
  • More recently, he has dismissed concerns about rising sea levels, stating, “That is not our problem,” and has emphasized “nuclear warming” as a more pressing threat.
  • Trump has repeatedly referred to the climate crisis as the Green New Scam.

Policy Actions:

  • Upon his inauguration in January 2025, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement and pledged to roll back executive orders and policies from the previous administration aimed at addressing climate change.

  • He issued an executive order titled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” aiming to dismantle many federal actions addressing climate change.

  • The administration has proposed cuts to agencies like FEMA, which could significantly impact disaster response capabilities in states vulnerable to climate-related events, such as California.

Impact on Environmental Policies:

  • The administration’s stance has led to reduced funding for clean energy projects and transportation initiatives. Major financial institutions have withdrawn from net-zero alliances, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has implemented rules making it more challenging for investors to address environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues within companies.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

The Human Induced Climate Change Experiment

bookmark_borderTrumpenomics: How Tariffs, Policy Cuts, and Labor Shortages Are Devastating American Farmers

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
March 13, 2025

Recent policies enacted by the President have had significant financial repercussions on American farmers, leading to substantial economic losses.​

1. Impact of Tariffs and Retaliatory Measures

The Trump 2.0 administration’s imposition of tariffs, particularly on steel and aluminum, has triggered retaliatory tariffs from major trading partners such as China, Canada, and the European Union. These countermeasures have significantly reduced demand for U.S. agricultural exports, exacerbating existing challenges like droughts, supply chain disruptions, and low commodity prices. Texas farmers, many of whom have historically supported the President, are now voicing concerns over the mounting economic pressures caused by these policies.

The precedent for these economic consequences was set during Trump’s first administration. The 1.0 tariffs, particularly those targeting steel and aluminum, prompted severe retaliatory measures, notably from China. The impact on U.S. agriculture was devastating:

  • Soybean Exports: In 2018, U.S. soybean exports to China plummeted by $9.4 billion. While some alternative markets were found, they only recovered $4.7 billion in lost revenue, leaving a net loss of $4.7 billion for American soybean farmers.
  • Regional Losses: Major agricultural states like Iowa, Illinois, and Kansas saw significant financial hits. Iowa farmers alone lost $1.46 billion, Illinois suffered $1.41 billion in losses, and Kansas endured a $955 million decline in revenue.
  • Federal Bailouts: In an attempt to compensate for the damages, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued $23 billion in direct payments to farmers between 2018 and 2020. However, these subsidies often fell short, leaving many farmers struggling with long-term economic setbacks.

The Trump 2.0 tariffs are broader in scope, applying to more countries at higher rates, making the expected economic fallout far more devastating than before. With supply chain disruptions, climate-related hardships, and rising input costs already squeezing farmers, these new tariffs threaten to push many agricultural operations to the brink of collapse.

So far in 2025, several countries and trading blocs imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agricultural imports in response to the current administration’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other goods. The European Union (EU) announced €26 billion in countermeasures against U.S. products, including agricultural goods. The first phase, effective April 1, targets €4.5 billion worth of U.S. consumer goods such as bourbon whiskey, jeans, and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. The second phase, set for mid-April, will impose tariffs on €18 billion worth of U.S. steel and agricultural products. Canada followed suit, imposing 25% tariffs on $21 billion worth of U.S. imports, including steel, aluminum, and various other goods. This action builds on earlier tariffs of $30 billion enacted on March 4. Meanwhile, China announced 10-15% tariffs on U.S. meat and agricultural products, suspended imports of U.S. lumber, and revoked soybean import licenses for three major U.S. firms.

Important to note, the bulk of the Trump tariffs have not yet been announced and are expected to be implemented on April 2, 2025. The President has stated that these tariffs will be applied to all countries and may be as high as 250%.

2. Cancellation of USAID’s Programs

The recent termination of local food programs, including USAID’s “Food for Peace,” has further strained farmers:

  • Loss of Funding: Since 2021, local school lunch programs have provided over $2 billion to various states, supporting local food purchases for schools and food banks. Their cancellation removes a critical revenue stream for farmers, exacerbating financial challenges.

  • Food for Peace: The USAID “Food for Peace” program, which operated with an annual budget of approximately $1.7 billion, has been terminated as part of the broader dismantling of USAID. This program purchased U.S.-grown commodities, such as rice, wheat, lentils, and peas, for distribution to populations facing food insecurity worldwide. Its cancellation not only impacts global hunger relief efforts but also removes a significant market for American farmers.

These program cancellations have disrupted supply chains, leading to financial instability for farmers who previously relied on these initiatives. The sudden loss of funding has left many agricultural producers without alternative markets, intensifying the economic challenges within the farming community.

3. Labor Shortages Due to Immigration Policies

Stricter immigration policies have led to a shortage of immigrant workers, who are essential to the agricultural workforce. This scarcity has resulted in increased labor costs and challenges in harvesting crops, thereby reducing overall productivity and profitability for farmers.​

4. Economic Uncertainty and Market Instability

The combination of trade tensions, program cancellations, and labor shortages has created an environment of economic uncertainty. Farmers are facing volatile market conditions, making it difficult to plan for the future and invest in their operations. This instability threatens the sustainability of the agricultural sector and the rural communities that depend on it.​

In summary, the current administration’s policies have introduced significant challenges for American farmers, affecting export markets, domestic program support, labor availability, and overall economic stability.

ALSO SEE:

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderClimate Update: A Sad Day for Humanity

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
March 13, 2025

The Trump administration has once again taken a sledgehammer to environmental protections, rolling back regulations on industrial emissions and automobile fuel efficiency standards. These actions continue the administration’s aggressive pro-fossil fuel agenda under the “drill, baby, drill” philosophy, prioritizing short-term profits over the long-term survival of our planet.

Rolling Back Protections: A Devastating Step Backward

Environmental regulations serve as critical guardrails to prevent unchecked pollution, mitigate climate change, and protect public health. However, the Trump administration has systematically dismantled these safeguards, undoing decades of progress.

Key rollbacks include:

  • Industrial Emissions: Regulations limiting carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gas emissions have been weakened or eliminated, allowing industries to pump more pollutants into the atmosphere with fewer consequences.
  • Automobile Standards: Fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles have been relaxed, leading to increased fossil fuel consumption and higher emissions at a time when transitioning to clean energy is more urgent than ever.
  • Public Land Exploitation: Protected areas, including national parks and wildlife refuges, have been opened up for oil drilling and resource extraction, permanently damaging ecosystems and increasing carbon output.

These policies, far from being economically beneficial, are accelerating climate change and endangering both the environment and human civilization.

Crossing the Point of No Return

Newly revised climate models indicate that the environmental policies enacted during Trump’s first and second terms have pushed the planet past multiple tipping points—points where climate systems begin to change irreversibly. These include:

  • Arctic Ice Loss Acceleration: Reduced ice cover is amplifying global warming by decreasing the Earth’s ability to reflect solar radiation.
  • Amazon Rainforest Collapse: Deforestation, coupled with rising temperatures, is transforming the world’s largest carbon sink into a net emitter of CO₂.
  • Ocean Circulation Disruptions: The weakening of major ocean currents, including the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), threatens global weather patterns and food security.

With these tipping points crossed, scientists warn that global temperatures are now set to surpass critical thresholds within this century, leading to more frequent and intense natural disasters, rising sea levels, and mass displacement of human populations.

The Cost of Ignoring Science

The consequences of ignoring climate science in favor of corporate profits are becoming increasingly severe. Every rollback in environmental protections increases the likelihood of widespread ecological collapse and economic devastation. Rising temperatures will fuel more hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and floods—each exacting a higher toll on human life and infrastructure.

Despite overwhelming evidence of the catastrophic impact of these policies, the administration remains committed to deregulation, further entrenching fossil fuel dependence and delaying the transition to sustainable energy.

Final Thoughts: An Avoidable Disaster

The tragedy of this situation is that it was entirely preventable. Had the U.S. prioritized climate action over corporate interests and personal greed, we could have slowed or even halted many of these dangerous trends. Instead, we now face an increasingly inhospitable planet, an unstable economy, and a future filled with avoidable suffering.

The question now is not whether the damage will be done—but how much worse it will get before real action is taken.

The Human Induced Climate Change Experiment

bookmark_borderA Storm Brewing in Global Trade

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
March 12, 2025

Daily Market Update: A Storm Brewing in Global Trade

While domestic markets remained relatively calm, international markets reacted with volatility to the latest round of tariffs, escalating trade tensions worldwide.

In Trump 1.0, steel and aluminum tariffs were introduced at 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum, selectively targeting a handful of nations. Today, those tariffs have returned—but this time, they are 25% across the board, applying to all steel and aluminum imports, regardless of their origin. This marks a significant escalation in protectionist policies, with the potential to destabilize supply chains and increase costs for U.S. manufacturers and consumers alike.

The global response has been swift. Retaliatory tariffs are already being discussed, with several key trading partners preparing countermeasures. Even Australia, a long-standing U.S. ally that was previously exempt, is now expressing frustration, with one prominent economist summing up the sentiment as: “What the fuck?”

The Impact: Higher Costs, Fewer Jobs, and Economic Instability

Historically, tariffs of this nature have had disastrous economic consequences. The last round of steel and aluminum tariffs under Trump led to a net loss of 75,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs, and each job “saved” cost taxpayers nearly $900,000. Prices on everything from automobiles to canned goods surged, making life more expensive for American families.

This time, the impact is likely to be even worse. A broad, across-the-board tariff will strain international relations, drive inflation, and trigger widespread retaliation. U.S. companies reliant on imported metals will face higher costs, leading to job cuts, reduced investment, and lower economic growth.

The Markets React: Uncertainty Takes Hold

While the full effects will take time to unfold, the immediate market reaction has been one of caution and concern. The tariffs add another layer of economic uncertainty at a time when global markets are already grappling with inflation, geopolitical instability, and rising interest rates. Investors are wary, and market volatility is expected to increase in the coming weeks.

Final Thoughts: Repeating History’s Mistakes

Despite clear evidence from his first term that tariffs did more harm than good, Trump is doubling down on failed economic policies that increase costs, eliminate jobs, and weaken the U.S. economy. The previous steel and aluminum tariffs were an economic disaster, and this round—hitting more industries, more countries, and more supply chains—will only accelerate the damage.

As trade partners prepare their countermeasures, the question is no longer if the U.S. economy will suffer, but how badly.

… and oh, yeah… these aren’t the real tariffs, yet. They come April 2.

bookmark_borderThe Devastating Impact of Trump’s Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

Posted on by admin

By Daniel Brouse
March 12, 2025

The Perterson Report released an analysis of the Trump steel and aluminum tariffs imposed during his first term that are very similar to the tariffs that went into effect today. In his last term, the result was a net loss of 75,000 manufacturing jobs and each job ‘saved’ cost taxpayers $900,000.

Key Findings: The Failure of Trump’s Previous Tariffs

During Trump’s first term, the administration imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum under the justification of protecting American jobs and reducing reliance on foreign imports. However, the Peterson Report found that the policy was a net negative for the economy.

The Economic Damage of Trump’s First Tariffs:

  • Net Loss of 75,000 U.S. Manufacturing Jobs – While a handful of domestic steel jobs were temporarily created, the broader manufacturing sector suffered significantly. Industries that rely on steel and aluminum, such as automotive production, construction, and appliance manufacturing, faced higher input costs, leading to layoffs and production cuts.
  • Each Job Saved Cost Taxpayers $900,000 – The few jobs that were protected by tariffs came at an extraordinarily high cost, making it one of the least efficient job protection policies in U.S. history.
  • Higher Prices for American Businesses and Consumers – U.S. companies had to pay 15-20% more for steel and aluminum compared to international competitors, leading to price increases for consumer goods, vehicles, and infrastructure projects.
  • Decline in U.S. Exports Due to Retaliatory Tariffs – In response to Trump’s tariffs, major trading partners—including Canada, China, and the European Union—imposed their own retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. This particularly hurt the agriculture sector, leading to billions in lost revenue for American farmers.
  • Stock Market and Business Uncertainty – The tariffs increased economic volatility, with markets reacting negatively to heightened trade tensions and uncertainty in key manufacturing industries.

Why the 2025 Tariffs Will Have an Even Worse Outcome

With Trump’s new 25% tariff on steel and aluminum, the economic consequences could be far worse than in 2018. Several key factors make the U.S. even more vulnerable to economic disruption today:

  1. Inflationary Pressures Are Already High – Unlike in 2018, inflation remains a major issue in the U.S. economy. These tariffs will further drive up prices for raw materials, worsening inflation for consumers and businesses.
  2. Global Supply Chains Are Still Recovering – Politics has already disrupted global trade, and adding tariffs now will further destabilize supply chains, making it harder for manufacturers to secure essential materials.
  3. Retaliation Will Hit Key U.S. Industries – The world has already signaled they will retaliate aggressively, likely targeting U.S. agricultural exports, manufacturing goods, and other key industries.
  4. Increased Risk of Economic Contraction – Economists warn that steep protectionist policies could push the U.S. into a manufacturing downturn, reducing GDP growth and weakening global investor confidence in the U.S. economy.

Final Thoughts: A Policy Repeating History’s Mistakes

Despite clear evidence from his first term that tariffs caused more harm than good, Trump is once again pursuing failed economic policies that drive up costs, eliminate jobs, and weaken the U.S. economy. The previous 25% steel and 10% aluminum tariffs proved to be a costly mistake, resulting in net job losses and higher consumer prices. Now, with new 25% tariffs on both, history is poised to repeat itself—only this time, the consequences could be even more severe.

If history is any indication, these tariffs won’t protect American jobs—they will destroy them.