By New York Post (Opinion) | Created at 2025-04-06 00:36:23 | Updated at 2025-04-06 20:10:00
20 hours ago
Maybe all that winning was becoming boring.
Whatever the reasons that led President Trump to rock the globe with his “Liberation Day” tariff regime, the immediate result has been a world of hurt for millions upon millions of Americans.
The stock market meltdown that wiped out some $6.4 trillion of value last Thursday and Friday means many households saw 10% or more of their nest eggs suddenly erased.
Their pain is matched only by their confusion about why the president triggered the sell-off.
After all, Trump 2.0 was scoring major successes by sealing the border and deporting alien criminals.
The DOGE audit was proving his claims of massive government waste and fraud. Similarly, his crackdown on Columbia and other universities that allow Hamas supporters to harass and intimidate Jewish students is rattling the radicals where it hurts most — in their multimillion dollar federal grants.
Meanwhile, his election provided a big boost to the economy, which has been humming along. Because he has been faithful to his campaign promises, polls show Trump with the highest approval rating he’s ever had.
Economic issues
Say goodbye to that.
His winning streak is not the only thing in jeopardy. Given the tumult on Wall Street and in markets around the world, it’s reasonable to conclude that Trump is betting his presidency and GOP control of Congress on the tariff gambit.
That probably wasn’t his plan, but like it not, that’s how it’s playing out.
The early returns are not promising. By 15 percentage points, voters hold a negative view of Trump’s handling of inflation and most oppose his emphasis on tariffs, a Wall Street Journal poll finds. Negative views of his economic stewardship outweigh positive views by 8 points, according to the survey, which was completed before markets tanked last week.
Public doubts about the economy are dramatic when you recall how important the subject was to Trump’s victory. His attacks on “Bidenomics” and inflation became a key reason why Trump swept the seven swing states and his party carried Congress.
Yet demoralized and divided Democrats now smell blood as some voters begin to sour. The disruption caused by the tariff war is so severe that JPMorgan economists predict it could take a big bite out of America’s Gross Domestic Product this year and warn that if, the tariffs remain in place, there is a 60% chance of a global recession.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, no fan of Trump’s to start with, said the tariffs could lead to both higher inflation and slower growth.
Naturally, the fear gauges are also rising among congressional Republicans. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said Friday that if the tariff war pushes the US into “a recession, particularly a bad recession, 2026 in all likelihood politically would be a bloodbath. You would face a Democrat House, and you might even face a Democrat Senate.”
None of this is certain, of course, nor is it meant to suggest Trump’s goal isn’t worthy. Leveling global trade is admirable and a core tenet of his America First approach.
He aims to protect and expand domestic manufacturing and create good, well-paying jobs by giving more companies incentives to move their headquarters and factories to the United States.
Levying the field
It’s been a consistent theme since he entered politics in 2015 with a rousing denunciation of the globalists whose unfair trade practices hollowed out large industries in middle America.
And he celebrated his 2024 win by hosting business titans at Mar-a-Lago who promised to invest in America. Among them was Japan’s SoftBank, whose chief executive pledged to invest $100 billion.
That’s the point of tariffs — to incentivize companies to make their products and create jobs in the US.
Meanwhile, the taxes on imported products also provide Washington with a source of revenue, with the White House predicting as much as $700 billion would be collected this year under the new rates, which would help fund tax cuts.
If they are reciprocal, which Trump insists he wants, tariffs would even the score by punishing imported goods at the same rate as countries do that impose high taxes on American products sold abroad.
A prime example of the current imbalance was noted by White House adviser Stephen Miller: “Why is that if you go to Tokyo, there’s no American cars, if you go to Berlin, there’s no American cars, but on our streets, we have every foreign car there is?”
He added: “They’ve blocked their markets from our cars. President Trump is saying that has to end.”
Although the president has repeatedly denied it, the suspicion that the aim is to get trading partners to negotiate was effectively confirmed by Trump himself Friday afternoon.
“Just had a very productive call with To Lam, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, who told me that Vietnam wants to cut their Tariffs down to ZERO if they are able to make an agreement with the U.S.,” he posted on Truth Social.
But the first inkling of good news came just hours after China raised its tax on American products to 34%, saying reciprocal levies were necessary to stop Trump’s “bullying.”
Fast and furious
China, of course, has long been the poster child of trade imbalances. A study from the US International Trade Commission reports that “the sheer volume of China’s exports to the US outpaced America’s exports to China by three to one in 2024.”
Even a sneering Axios concedes the facts, writing that China “has a long record of trade abuses: IP theft, forced technology transfers, state subsidies and market access restrictions for foreign companies.”
It continues: “The European Union doesn’t cheat the way China does. But it protects its own through generous agricultural subsidies and strict regulatory standards that often double as trade barriers.”
The VAT, Europe’s value added tax that can go as high as 27% in some countries, is another barrier on US imports.
Thus, with restrictive trade practices by other nations, there’s often not much difference between friend and foe.
Leaving aside the predictable legacy media reaction to the turmoil — one suspects there was glee in the New York Times newsroom over the market’s plunge and Trump’s political predicament — there are also conservative skeptics.
Most of their doubts center on two elements: the enormous size of the tariffs and the decision to unleash them all at once.
Some suggested that more modest rates and an industry-by-industry approach could be more effective because it would focus on specific countries and products, such as steel and aluminum.
Another argument is that onshoring cannot happen overnight. For foreign manufacturers to make a decision to relocate means building a facility in the US, hiring workers and producing goods — a process that could take many months if not years.
Trump doesn’t have years. The midterm elections are 19 months away.
