When Trump took office in January, the Democrats, political leaders around the world, and especially the mass media were united in portraying a politically antagonistic stereotype of him. Then, when he announced the reciprocal tariff policy, he was caricatured as a political, economic, and industrial threat to America, North America, and the global economy.
But first, what is a tariff? A tariff simply means a tax charged on imported goods. Taxing imported goods has been a common policy around the world for generations. If there are mutual or multilateral agreements among countries, then those in agreement can waive one another’s import taxes.
But does a common tariff waiver create fair trade among participating countries? Yes and no. Yes, if the participating countries share a common currency. No, because countries with lower-value currencies end up selling cheaper products in countries with stronger currencies. This makes products from low-currency-value countries more affordable than local alternatives, creating an imbalance in affordability between imported and domestic goods. Hence, the need for import taxes—to equalize prices and ensure that quality remains the essential factor in consumer choice.
However, the issue of tariff equalization is not new or solely Trump’s or the Republicans’ invention meant to disrupt the global economy. In the past, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi in 1996 and Bernie Sanders in 2008 strongly called for higher reciprocal tariffs on Chinese products to counter the economic consequences of China’s unfair tariffs on American goods.
Furthermore, the economics of tariffs is more complex than simply taxing imports. The projected socio-economic and political consequences attributed to Trump’s tariffs were actually rooted in long-standing corporate greed within America.
When corporate America, driven by profit, saw the benefits of cheap foreign labor, they began outsourcing manufacturing jobs, leading to the closure of many local factories. With lower production costs, they exported American-branded products back to the U.S. and maximized their profits.
Unexpectedly, this massive outsourcing—especially to China—led to explosive growth in China’s economy. Meanwhile, American companies failed to safeguard their technologies and manufacturing processes. The Chinese, empowered by their economic rise, sent their youth to study science and technology in the U.S., while their domestic workers learned directly from American businesses. With patriotic determination and a clear vision for China’s future—amid the U.S.’s societal decline—China rapidly transformed into a manufacturing, economic, and political superpower. As the saying goes, with money comes power. According to Reuters, the U.S. now owes China $768.6 billion.
China has grown tremendously, while the U.S. (and the West) has stagnated, if not declined. One need not rely on academic theory to observe this; the rise of China’s modern infrastructure, scientific and technological advancements (from space exploration to quantum research), the global spread of Chinese products (from garlic to iPhone components), and the emergence of autonomous taxis and numerous EV brands (while the U.S. only has one major EV brand that some Americans themselves want to destroy)—all point to Chinese success in making China great again as it was in ancient times.
China has become the producer of American goods and has reaped the benefits of exporting American-branded products and acquiring transferred technologies. Like Japan, China has also innovated. At the same time, it imposes high tariffs on American imports. For instance, as shown in Trump’s presentation, China charges a 67% tariff on American products, while the U.S. was merely seeking a discounted reciprocal tariff of 34% on Chinese goods. So, which tariff is unfair?
Trump’s tariff on Chinese imports has sparked hostility. While the U.S. is seeking economic equalization and national recovery, China appears focused on retaliation and global dominance. China’s aggressive foreign policy reflects the authoritarian nature of its government—where criticism and policy opposition are often met with harsh responses.
The U.S.-China situation is not unique; it mirrors the dynamics in U.S. relations with allied countries, such as Canada. Interestingly, while China imposes high tariffs on Canadian products, Canada appears more antagonistic toward Trump and the U.S. than toward Xi and China—almost like a 51st Democratic state. In contrast, countries such as Mexico, Japan, South Korea, India, and Taiwan, among others, were quick to engage in deals with the U.S. Now, the EU also seems interested in reaching an agreement. Elon Musk has even suggested a tariff waiver between the U.S. and EU nations. Perhaps a fairer approach would be a market-based, proportionate tariff system (MBPTS), in which import taxes ensure that the market prices of foreign goods align with those of local products.
If Trump has a strong mandate from the American people to “Make America Great Again,” and if countries worldwide have long imposed tariffs on American products, and if Trump’s administration is merely introducing a discounted reciprocal tariff to balance the playing field—then why the repugnance toward Trump’s tariff?
