Tariffs and Trade Policy in America

Introduction

America’s approach to tariffs and trade policy has changed a lot in recent years, but these debates are not new. Throughout history, major moments like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised import taxes to protect American industries during the Great Depression, and the signing of NAFTA in 1994, which encouraged free trade across North America, have shaped the country’s views on trade. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff prompted other countries to raise their own tariffs, worsening the global depression and causing trade to decline. (Harkey, 2025) By contrast, NAFTA helped lower trade barriers and increase trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Still, it also led to factory jobs moving overseas, with some U.S. regions losing jobs. (NAFTA and the USMCA: Weighing the Impact of North American Trade, 2008)
Today’s changes are the latest part of this long story. While recent policies aim to protect American industries, they also try to learn from past approaches. Even though the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration’s tariffs, the administration has continued working toward similar goals through different means. (EU says US must honor a trade deal after court blocks Trump tariffs, 2026) This steady effort shows a significant shift in how the country thinks about trade, moving from a focus on “Free Trade” to “Fair Trade.”

The Trade Deficit and Its Consequences
Before tariffs were used, the United States bought much more from other countries than it sold, sending billions of dollars out of the country each year. For example, in 2018, the U.S. trade deficit in goods reached over $880 billion, according to the Commerce Department, and the total deficit, including services, was around $621 billion. This gap was especially large in sectors such as manufacturing, electronics, and automobiles, where imports were much higher than exports. This often meant other countries got more out of trading with America than Americans did. (Flores-Noel, 2025)
While free trade policies have contributed to these trade deficits and led to job losses in some industries, it is important to note that free trade has also brought benefits. Shoppers have benefited from lower prices and more choices, and many American companies have been able to sell their products in other countries, boosting exports in sectors such as farming and technology. Over time, though, the loss of important American factory jobs and the closing of local factories have raised concerns about the long-term effects of these trade patterns. (Bloom et al., 2024) Support from both political parties for working with other countries worsened the situation for some workers, underscoring how complex the effects of free trade can be. (Kovak & Morrow, 2024)

The Case for Fair Trade

The Trump administration supports “Fair Trade” because it believes trade should help Americans and keep the country safe. Most countries protect their own supply chains and make sure they have what they need, especially during emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, at the start of the COVID-19 crisis in 2020, the United States faced shortages of important goods like masks and medical supplies because much of the production had moved overseas. In March 2020, over 60 percent of the world’s face masks were made in China, making it hard for the U.S. to quickly get enough supplies to hospitals. (China’s daily mask output exceeded 110 million units, 2020)

According to a recent White House report, both the current and previous administrations have highlighted that strengthening domestic manufacturing is crucial to U.S. national security, leading to renewed calls to produce essential products in the United States. However, building stronger supply chains at home can mean higher costs for shoppers. According to a report from Medical Economics, moving medical device manufacturing back to the U.S. is a complex process because domestic production typically costs more than overseas manufacturing, especially for products that rely on low labor costs abroad. It is important to weigh these increased costs against the safety and stability that domestic manufacturing can provide.

Understanding Tariffs

Many Americans do not know much about tariffs or why they are used. (New Marquette Law School national survey finds public skeptical of tariffs and inflation trends, but increasingly positive on the nation’s direction, 2025) For many years, leaders from both parties supported free trade deals, which often hurt American factories. This has meant fewer good jobs and weaker local businesses, especially for middle and working-class people. (Free Trade Agreements: Pros and Cons for America, 2025)

Now, tariffs are being considered again as a way to help American workers and businesses. (Tariffs paid by midsize US companies tripled last year, a JPMorgan Chase Institute study shows, 2026) However, some critics say that tariffs can also have downsides, such as making goods more expensive for shoppers and risking trade disputes with other countries. These fights can lead other countries to impose tariffs on American goods, hurting American exports and damaging relationships with trading partners. (Baslandze et al., 2025) While tariffs are meant to protect jobs and industries at home, they can also create problems that leaders must carefully consider. (Gabriel et al., 2025)

Shifting Toward Economic Nationalism

Secretary Bessent, speaking at the Economic Club, said America needs to rethink its trade goals. The main idea is to make sure trade deals help Americans first. A report from Axios highlights that despite the intention behind tariffs to boost domestic manufacturing and support American workers, some business leaders say there is less consumer demand for products labeled “Made in USA.”

Even though some people do not like it, moving toward fair trade does not mean America is closing itself off or becoming protectionist. Instead, it signals a commitment to mutually beneficial partnerships. (Levin, 2007) For example, the recent US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) updated NAFTA to ensure modern, fair rules for cross-border trade and to protect workers’ rights in all three countries. Agreements like USMCA prove that “fair trade” can mean greater cooperation and prosperity, not isolation. (USMCA Review 2026, 2025) This approach balances the needs of American workers while keeping the doors open to collaboration with other nations. The Trump administration’s actions offer another choice for countries seeking to protect their workers and maintain control of their economies while still engaging internationally. (US tariff policy and a transformation of global trade architecture, 2025)

Expanding Opportunity

A big part of this economic plan is to give more chances to everyone, including people of color. The focus is on giving people jobs and contracts to help them move forward, rather than keeping them dependent on government assistance. (Year 1 Wins for American Workers: Record U.S. Contracts Under President Trump, 2026)

To make this happen, the plan encourages job-training programs to help workers learn useful skills, sets goals for awarding government contracts to minority-owned businesses, and suggests tax breaks for companies that hire from underserved communities. These steps are meant to reward hard work and support real success. (Min, 2025)

However, the effectiveness of these ideas has been mixed. According to a Third Way report, while job training programs and targeted contracts have provided some opportunities and growth for minority-owned businesses, many minority business owners are still shut out of full access to federal contracts. In fact, minority-owned businesses would have received $64 billion more in federal contracts in fiscal year 2020, highlighting how progress remains uneven and significant barriers persist for small businesses trying to participate in these opportunities. Also, tracking the long-term effects of tax breaks has been hard, and some experts worry that short-term financial help may not always lead to lasting job growth. (Page, 2025) Overall, while these ideas are a step in the right direction, more work is needed to ensure they deliver wide and lasting benefits.

Toward a New Golden Age

The administration imagines a “Golden Age” for America, where people see real benefits, not just promises. The focus is on skills, opportunities, and valuing hard work, rather than helping friends in business or wasting government money.

Conclusion: A Call for Fair Trade

Americans are ready to support fair trade policies that bring real prosperity. Many people support tariffs if they create more economic opportunities, especially for communities that have faced past disadvantages. The message is clear: trade should be fair, and everyone should benefit.

At the same time, debates about the best approach to tariffs and fair trade remain active and unresolved. Policymakers, experts, and everyday Americans continue to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of different trade strategies. As these discussions continue, it is important to keep considering the complex impacts of trade policy and to seek solutions that work for all.

For that reason, we at the Republican People of Color support and endorse the Trump Administration, for we too want the GOLD in this golden age. Real talk for we, the people marginalized, want in, too! We want the jobs, contracts, and merit to come back to America; the leftists can keep their handouts.

We advocate as Republican People of Color, a hand up for all. We, the people, deserve this for hand out has failed us as a nation and people. For that reason, we support the Trump administration all the way! We, the people, want, as working-, middle-, and upper-class Americans, to be part of this golden age; we want the Gold, too. We want to own more and be happier, not own less and be happy as globalists and American leftists envision for us all. Free People Power!

References

• Harkey, D. J. (2025). The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930: Part I. https://www.danharkey.com/post/the-smoot-hawley-tariff-act-of-1930
• (2008). NAFTA and the USMCA: Weighing the Impact of North American Trade. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/naftas-economic-impact
• (February 20, 2026). EU says US must honor a trade deal after court blocks Trump tariffs. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/8c5f9fa35d9f0f13afef0ddbaf88b1f6
• Flores-Noel, A. (2025). Main Street Meets the Trade War: The Effect of Tariffs on Small Businesses. Michigan Journal of Economics. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2025/05/02/main-street-meets-the-trade-war-the-effect-of-tariffs-on-small-businesses/
• Bloom, N., Handley, K., Kurmann, A. & Luck, P. A. (2024). The China Shock Revisited: Job Reallocation and Industry Switching in US Labor Markets. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 33098. https://doi.org/10.3386/w33098
• Kovak, B. K. & Morrow, P. M. (2024). The Long-Run Labour Market Effects of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The Review of Economic Studies 92(6). https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdae113
• (March 1, 2020). China’s daily mask output exceeds 110 million units. Xinhua. https://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-03/02/c_138835152.htm
• (September 30, 2025). New Marquette Law School national survey finds public skeptical of tariffs and inflation trends, but increasingly positive on the nation’s direction. Marquette University. https://www.marquette.edu/news-center/2025/marquette-law-school-national-survey-finds-public-skeptical-of-tariffs-inflation-trends-positive-on-nation-s-direction.php
• (2025). Free Trade Agreements: Pros and Cons for America. GovFacts. https://govfacts.org/money/broader-economy/trade-policy/free-trade-agreements-pros-and-cons-for-america/
• (February 18, 2026). Tariffs paid by midsize US companies tripled last year, a JPMorganChase Institute study shows. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/2a25158ff1d06bd7f72d909a8ec64f25
• Baslandze, S., Fuchs, S., Pringle, K. & Sparks, M. (2025). Tariffs and Consumer Prices: Insights from Newly Matched Consumption-Trade Micro Data. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Policy Hub. https://doi.org/10.29338/ph2025-01
• Gabriel, M., Christoph, E. & Bertin, P. (2025). Tariffs and Labor Markets: The Employment Impact of the Recent Trade Conflict. arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.11578
• Levin, S. (2007). The U.S. Must Redefine “Fair Trade”. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/media/series/gpi/the-u-s-must-redefine-fair-trade
• (July 31, 2025). USMCA Review 2026. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/usmca-review-2026
• (2025). US tariff policy and a transformation of global trade architecture. Agricultural and Food Economics 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aglobe.2025.100120
• (January 22, 2026). Year 1 Wins for American Workers: Record U.S. Contracts Under President Trump. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.trade.gov/press-release/year-1-wins-american-workers-record-us-contracts-under-president-trump
• Min, R. (2025). Does Trump’s Tariff Make America Great Again? An Empirical Analysis of US-China Trade War Impact on American Business Formation (2018-2025). arXiv preprint 2506.00999. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.00999
• Page, B. R. (2025). Extending TCJA Provisions Would Modestly Boost The Economy, But Not Enough To Offset The Cost. Tax Policy Center. https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/extending-tcja-provisions-would-modestly-boost-economy-not-enough-offset-cost