The False Narrative Behind Trump’s Trade Restrictions

Lacking any basis in facts or logic, history or economics, the Trumpian narrative on trade is detached from reality.

On “Liberation Day,” April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs. Declaring a national emergency, he argued that these tariffs are needed to “liberate” the United States from the alleged problems caused by global trade.^[1] He imposed a 10 percent universal tariff on all imports effective April 5 and country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs effective April 9. Other governments, including the Chinese government, imposed retaliatory tariffs. Trump retaliated back against China, raising the rate on Chinese goods to 145 percent.^[2]

Financial markets plunged. The S&P 500 index fell 10.5 percent after the announcement, the fourth-worst two-day performance since 1950.^[3] Treasury bonds also fell precipitously. To calm the markets, Trump announced a ninety-day pause on the “reciprocal” tariffs—except those on Chinese goods—while keeping the 10 percent universal tariffs in place. On May 12, however, he also temporarily reduced the tariffs on Chinese goods to 30 percent. On July 7, Trump paused the reciprocal tariffs again for a month; then on July 31, he announced updated tariff rates effective August 7.

The reason for the initial ninety-day pause, Trump said, is that people “were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid.”^[4] He later told Time that although the bond market got the “yips,” he didn’t. He also said that if tariff rates are as high as 50 percent by next year, that would be a “total victory.”^[5]

The administration’s messaging on this policy has been as erratic as its implementation. Some officials say the tariffs are permanent while others say they’re negotiable. When asked about the mixed messages, Trump replied, “they can both be true.”^[6] The back-and-forth changes and lack of clarity—along with various court challenges—have created overwhelming uncertainty. “Nobody can work like this,” says Alison Leavitt, managing director of the Wine and Spirits Shippers Association. “It is impossible to function in this environment. . . . It’s the random nature that causes this fear and disruption. You just do not know what to expect.”^[7]

The purported purpose of the tariffs also seems to shift daily. The administration says we need them to bolster national security. Or to stop fentanyl imports. Or to increase government revenue.

Despite this, a few consistent themes stand out. According to Trump, other nations have been “ripping off” the United States for decades. They impose higher trade barriers on us, including tariffs, than we do on them. These “unfair trade practices” have caused an imbalance wherein the United States imports far more goods than it exports. This “trade deficit” has “hollowed out” our manufacturing base, harming the middle class. Free trade doesn’t work if America adheres to it while other nations don’t. Imposing reciprocal tariffs on them is only fair and logical. If Vietnam, for example, imposes a 46 percent tariff on our goods, we should impose a 46 percent tariff on their goods. Such tariffs will ensure “fair trade,” reducing the trade deficit while “reshoring” manufacturing and critical supply chains. This, in turn, will strengthen the economy, protecting workers and creating better-paying jobs.

Before we examine this narrative, we must clarify two points. First, international trade is often described as trade between nations, but nations do not trade with each other. People trade with each other. The “United States,” for example, does not trade with “Canada.” Individuals and businesses in the United States buy goods and services from businesses in Canada. And individuals and businesses in Canada buy goods and services from businesses in the United States. Annually, trillions of dollars of goods move across national borders—this is the effect of countless buy/sell decisions made by countless individual economic actors.

Second, recall that a tariff is a tax on imported goods. The government forces U.S. companies to pay this tax when they buy goods from foreign companies. These U.S. companies can either pass the tax on to consumers as higher prices, eat the tax themselves (raising their costs), or both. They can also look for domestic alternatives, but the reason they import the goods to begin with is because such goods are either unavailable or more expensive in the United States. Either way, Americans pay more when government restricts their freedom to trade.

But is this the paramount concern? And will Trump’s tariffs deliver benefits that outweigh the costs? Should Americans have the right to voluntarily choose from whom they buy goods? Or should government have the authority to curb such transactions on economic grounds? Is this only an economic issue? Or is it also a moral issue, an issue of rights?

Reciprocal Tariffs?

When Trump unveiled his “reciprocal” tariffs, the rates were far higher than the rates other governments were imposing on U.S. goods. He imposed a 20 percent tariff on goods imported from the European Union (EU), for example, but the average trade-weighted tariff rate (which takes into account the value of imports for each product category) that the EU imposes on U.S. goods is only 2.7 percent.^[8] So how did the Trump administration calculate these rates? It divided our trade deficit with each nation by that nation’s exports to the United States. This calculation supposedly accounts for not only tariffs, but also nontariff trade barriers. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, a nation’s cumulative trade barriers “can be proxied by computing the tariff level consistent with driving bilateral trade deficits to zero.”^[9]

This “calculation” is nonsense. It assumes that if two nations have equal trade barriers, there would be no trade deficit (not true) and that the only reason for a trade deficit between two nations is that one of them has more severe trade barriers than the other (also not true).

Even accounting for nontariff trade barriers, Trump’s tariffs are still far from reciprocal. If he were serious about imposing reciprocal tariffs, he would reduce them on most of our trading partners. Yes, despite Trump’s endless griping, the U.S. government imposes greater trade barriers than most governments of developed nations do—and this was true before Trump’s recent tariffs. The Cato Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World 2024 annual report measures economic freedom based on five categories, including “freedom to trade internationally.”^[10] In this category, the overall score for the United States is good (8.11 out of 10), yet it ranks 53rd, below the United Kingdom (21st), Germany (22nd), Canada (33rd), Japan (35th), and Taiwan (50th). The United States, moreover, ranks only slightly better than Mexico (55th).

Even though the Chinese government imposes more severe trade barriers (ranking 92nd), the U.S. government doesn’t benefit Americans by reciprocating. When one nation’s government imposes tariffs on goods from another nation, it might harm that nation’s exporting businesses, but it harms its own businesses (and their customers) more because they pay the tax. Imposing higher tariffs to penalize another nation or to “level the playing field” is self-defeating. The U.S. government shouldn’t curtail its citizens’ freedom to trade just because another government does so to its citizens.

Has U.S. Manufacturing Declined?

One of Trump’s main arguments for his “reciprocal” tariffs is that global trade has “deindustrialized” the United States, “hollowing out” its manufacturing base. But is that true? Manufacturing employment peaked in 1943 at 38.9 percent of total employment, then steadily declined to 8 percent by 2024.^[11] Contrary to the assertions of Trump and other alarmists, this decline in manufacturing employment is a sign of progress. Focusing only on employment, the alarmists ignore that manufacturing output has increased. Producing more goods with less labor is how an economy advances. The United States has the second-largest share of global manufacturing output, almost equaling the next four nations (Japan, Germany, India, South Korea) combined.^[12] China has the largest share, but U.S. productivity is more than twice as high. In China, manufacturing output per capita is $3,554; in the United States, $7,453.^[13]

As manufacturing jobs dropped in the United States, service jobs rose from 56 percent of total employment in 1943 to 86 percent in 2009.^[14] Some people equate service jobs with low-paying, menial work. But service jobs include those in law, finance, and marketing; software, medicine, and education; energy, transportation, and other well-paying fields. Although manufacturing jobs have historically paid more on average than other private-sector jobs, this has changed in the past fifteen years, as they now pay less.^[15]

Most wealthy developed nations, including Japan, France, and the United Kingdom, have also had declining manufacturing employment.^[16] This is the general, long-term path most economies follow as they develop. When an agrarian economy evolves into an industrial economy, new manufacturing jobs replace old agricultural jobs. As productivity grows and as technology advances, new service jobs eventually replace old manufacturing jobs. This is partly because, as their incomes rise, people start to spend more money on services than they do on goods.^[17] (Services constitute 76.4 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.)^[18] Producing the manufactured goods we want with fewer workers—while importing the ones we don’t produce—means that more people are free to pursue other kinds of work, leading to a wider variety of products and services and a broader array of jobs to create them.

Trump, in short, wants to fix a nonproblem. He’s not only trying to reverse a positive eighty-year trend but doing so in a way that limits individual freedom: high universal tariffs.

Tariffs Will Harm Manufacturers

Tariffs won’t help the manufacturing sector; they will harm it. Why? Because they raise input costs. More than half of U.S. imports are raw materials, intermediate goods, and capital equipment.^[19] Ford, for example, imports parts from foreign suppliers in Spain, Japan, China, Turkey, Germany, Mexico, and elsewhere.^[20] A typical automobile comprises around twenty thousand parts, the imported ones originating in 50 to 120 nations.^[21]

Suppose an auto manufacturer sourced all its parts from U.S. suppliers. Because many parts are not produced in the United States, this would require a massive investment in time and money to onshore the entire supply chain. But excluding that up-front cost, sourcing all auto parts from U.S. suppliers would add an estimated $10,000–$20,000 to the cost of an automobile.^[22]

If U.S. manufacturers pay more because of tariffs or because of high-priced domestically sourced parts, how will this benefit anyone? It won’t benefit consumers—prices will be higher. It won’t benefit investors—profits will be lower. And it won’t benefit employees—tariffs will destroy more jobs than they create. The steel tariffs, for example, that Trump imposed during his first term created about a thousand jobs in the steel industry. But higher tariff-induced steel prices destroyed seventy-five thousand jobs in steel-using industries.^[23]

A needless tariff-induced rise in costs isn’t just money out of someone’s pocket; it’s fewer resources (time, money, and labor) for other things. This ultimately means fewer opportunities for individuals to improve their lives because government has constrained their choices, hindering their ability to flourish. Every extra dollar a person pays because of tariffs is one less dollar he can save, invest, or spend on other goods.

This also means fewer opportunities for businesses to flourish. Running a successful business requires countless decisions. Businessmen must set prices, manage costs, and supervise employees. They must choose reliable suppliers, develop strategic partnerships, and adopt new technologies. They must decide which new markets to enter, which projects to invest in, and how to finance them. All these decisions—which just scratch the surface—entail risks that businessmen must rationally assess, carefully weighing the pros and cons. To make the best decisions, they must be free to act on their independent judgment. Tariffs undermine this freedom, potentially disrupting years of diligent business planning.

Further, every extra dollar a business loses because of tariffs is one less dollar it can use to raise its employees’ wages, to hire new employees, or to reinvest in the business by expanding production, improving its products, or better serving its customers. Higher tariff-induced costs breed less efficient, less robust businesses, which harms us all.

This isn’t hypothetical; it’s already happening. Horst Engineering, a supplier for the aerospace and defense industries, can’t pass on its higher costs to customers because of long-term contracts. Horst must now pay more for highly specialized equipment it imports from a Japanese company, as such equipment is unavailable in the United States. Horst CEO Scott Livingston asked, “If I cannot build the capacity because my input costs are now going up, what have we gained?”^[24]

Because of the tariffs on Chinese goods, clothing manufacturers have halted hiring and voided employee contracts. “It’s really eating into profit margins,” a recruiter for the industry said. “It’s been crushing for the brands to take that kind of financial hit.”^[25] Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said member companies have reported large financial losses from canceled orders for U.S. agricultural products. It’s “a full-blown crisis,” he lamented.^[26] Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been “inundated by small business requests” for tariff relief. And a CNBC survey revealed that 51 percent of small businesses expect the tariffs to harm them.^[27]

John David Rainey, chief financial officer for Walmart, said the temporary 30 percent tariff on goods from China is “still too high . . . The magnitude of these increases is more than any retailer can absorb. It’s more than any supplier can absorb. And so I’m concerned that [the] consumer is going to start seeing higher prices.”^[28] Other major companies from Nike, Mattel, and Macy’s to Target, Costco, and Best Buy have either already raised prices or plan to raise them soon to offset the tariffs. A survey by Chief Executive Group and AlixPartners, moreover, found that 68 percent of CEOs are considering raising prices this year in response to the tariffs, if they haven’t already.^[29] Whereas some companies are raising prices to offset tariffs, others, such as Disney, Microsoft, and Procter & Gamble, are cutting costs by laying off employees.^[30]

Higher prices, lower profits, increased layoffs—this is what happens when government meddles in the economy. The more salient point, however, is that tariffs aren’t just impractical; they’re also immoral because they forcibly restrict the freedom of businesses and individuals to work, produce, and trade.

Are ‘Trade Deficits’ a Problem?

Even if other governments end their “unfair” trade practices, removing all trade barriers, and even if manufacturing employment rises, Trump would still be dissatisfied because he’s fixated on another nonproblem: the trade deficit, which he insists is a “national emergency that threatens our security and our very way of life.”^[31] Despite the relatively low trade barriers imposed on U.S. goods by most of our trading partners’ governments, Trump considers trade deficits alone proof that they’re taking advantage of us. As one White House official told the New York Post, “the trade deficit that we have with any given country is the sum of all unfair trade practices, the sum of all cheating.”^[32]

Trump has been relentlessly hammering this point for decades. In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, he wrote, “You only have to look at our trade deficit to see that we are being taken to the cleaners by our trading partners.”^[33] Recently Trump said, “For decades our country has been looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.”^[34] He claims that we’re “losing $2 trillion a year on trade.”^[35] (The total trade deficit last year was $917.8 billion.)^[36] “We’re not going to have deficits with your country,” he said, “because to me a deficit is a loss.”^[37]

The United States has a trade deficit because Americans buy more goods from foreign businesses than foreigners buy from U.S. businesses. That is, Americans import more goods than they export. In 2024, Americans imported $4.11 trillion worth of goods and services while they exported $3.19 trillion.^[38] Contrary to Trump, this does not mean we’re “losing” money. Americans pay foreign businesses money in return for goods. They value those goods more than they value the money they spent on them. This is a gain, not a loss. Buying goods from domestic businesses is no different. I have a trade deficit, for example, with Amazon. I buy many goods from it, yet it buys nothing from me. Is this an “unfair” trading relationship? Is Amazon taking me “to the cleaners,” “looting” and “plundering” me? Of course not.

The trade deficit is money that not only isn’t “lost”; it’s returned to the United States as foreign investment. When foreigners have a trade surplus with Americans, what do they do with the U.S. dollars they gained by selling more goods to us than we sold to them? They invest in U.S. dollar-denominated assets, such as businesses, real estate, or U.S. Treasury bonds. This also includes foreign companies investing in the United States, employing Americans, expanding manufacturing capacity, and boosting economic growth. According to one analysis, foreign direct investment “in the US manufacturing sector alone reached $1.8 trillion prior to the pandemic . . . and majority-owned affiliates of all foreign multinationals [in the US] employed nearly eight million American workers, contributing $1.1 trillion to US gross domestic product (GDP).”^[39]

Trump believes that tariffs will encourage foreign investment. Although he understands the benefits of such investment, he doesn’t understand that in aggregate, a net increase in foreign investment can’t happen without a trade deficit. Nations that have a foreign investment surplus, by definition, must have a trade deficit (and vice versa). One balances the other. Increasing foreign investment while simultaneously reducing the trade deficit is impossible.

Besides “losing” money, Trump also blames trade deficits for the decline in manufacturing employment. Other developed nations, however, such as Germany, Japan, and Italy have had similar declines in manufacturing employment, yet they have trade surpluses. Why? Because manufacturing employment declined mainly from increased productivity, not trade deficits.^[40]

One problem with official trade deficit statistics is that they potentially overstate the volume of imports while understating exports. When a U.S. foreign affiliate produces goods, then ships them to the United States, these sales count as imports even though a U.S. company sold goods to Americans. Further, U.S. foreign affiliates produce and sell trillions of dollars of goods annually outside the United States, but these sales don’t count as exports even though a U.S. company sold goods to foreigners.^[41] Trade deficit statistics consider only where a good was produced and sold, ignoring who produced and sold it. This calls into question how meaningful official trade deficit statistics are. Yet this won’t stop Trump from imposing ruinous, freedom-restricting tariffs.

Tariffs Won’t ‘Cure’ the Trade Deficit (or the Economy)

“We have massive Financial Deficits with China, the European Union, and many others,” Trump says. “The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS.”^[42] Did this work during his first term? No. Despite the tariffs he imposed, the trade deficit increased 24.4 percent, from $503 billion to $626 billion.^[43] That tariffs might reduce the trade deficit may seem plausible, but the evidence is lacking. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), for example, studied how tariffs affected 151 countries from 1963 to 2014. It found that although tariffs reduce the volume of trade, they have little effect on the balance of trade.^[44] Trying to reduce trade deficits with tariffs is self-defeating because tariffs not only reduce imports, but they also reduce exports when other governments respond with retaliatory tariffs.

Although trade deficits do not mean that Americans are ripped off, Trump’s “cure” for this alleged “problem” will rip us off. The NBER study—and many others—found that tariffs reduce output and productivity while increasing unemployment.^[45] A recent Tax Foundation analysis, moreover, estimates that over the next decade, Trump’s tariffs will reduce U.S. GDP by 0.8 percent without foreign retaliation, 1 percent with retaliation. (Putting this in perspective, if the U.S. economy had grown 1 percent less annually for the past twenty-five years, the nation would be 20 percent poorer.) The Tax Foundation also estimates that the tariffs will raise taxes on average by $1,243 per household while reducing average after-tax income by 1.2 percent.^[46] Finally, the Budget Lab at Yale estimates that tariff-induced price increases will cause an average loss per household of $3,800.^[47]

Tariffs fundamentally don’t work because they violate individual rights, thwarting the independent judgment and voluntary actions of businesses and consumers. Rather than respecting their freedom to make their own trading decisions, Trump thinks he knows better how they should run their businesses and live their lives. A blunt instrument, tariffs hinder the intricate functioning of markets, increasing costs, dislocating supply chains, and disrupting established business relationships. Tariffs are impractical because they are immoral.

Although the U.S. economy certainly has problems, they’re not caused by free trade, globalization, or other nations’ alleged unfair trade practices. A trade war will not fix our economic problems; it will compound them.

The Value of Trade

The premise motivating Trump’s tariffs is his crude, dogmatic view that trade is a zero-sum game. If one party wins, the other must lose. If the United States has a trade deficit, it must be getting “taken to the cleaners.” Because our trade partners are allegedly “winning” while we’re “losing,” that must be causing our economic problems. This view evades perhaps the most elementary principle of economics: Trade—the voluntary exchange of goods and services—is win-win. I buy goods because I value them more than the money I paid for them. Conversely, a business sells goods because it values the money more. I sell my labor to an employer because I value the salary it pays me more than the time and effort I expend. My employer, by contrast, values my services more than it values the money it pays me. In each case, we both gain; we both benefit; we both win.

Trade is a corollary of the division of labor. Individuals specialize in producing the goods or providing the services they do best. This increases everyone’s productivity by orders of magnitude, creating goods and services that otherwise wouldn’t exist. Observe the countless products you consume and consider: Without trade, how many of them could you alone create and how long would it take you to do it?

Exactly.

When two parties trade, the benefits they gain are not somehow negated if they don’t live in the same nation. In fact, the opposite is true. Trading with foreigners generates countless opportunities that wouldn’t exist if we were confined to trading domestically. Global trade enables a more intensive division of labor, boosting productivity. This expands the variety of goods and services while proliferating new ideas and innovations. Empirically, nations with fewer trade barriers are far more prosperous than those that have prohibitive trade barriers.^[48]

Some critics argue that although trade benefits some, others are often harmed. What they really mean is that others are “harmed” by competition. Such critics, however, don’t say this explicitly because they recognize that competition is good. It impels businesses (domestic and foreign) to up their game, spurring innovation, greater efficiency, and lower prices. Yes, some businesses suffer or fail because of foreign competition. Though unfortunate, this is essential for markets to function properly. When a business fails, those working for it and investing in it can redeploy their labor and capital more efficiently elsewhere. Imposing tariffs, or any other policy, to protect weak businesses at the expense of everyone else—including other businesses—is not only inefficient but unjust.

Trade, simply put, is an indispensable economic activity that promotes human flourishing. But equally important, it is also a moral right. The individual’s right to trade derives from his right to property and liberty, which in turn derive from his right to life. Because using one’s mind to produce goods and provide services is one’s means of survival, an individual is morally entitled to the property (money, goods, real estate) he earns. He is also entitled to use his property any way he chooses provided he doesn’t violate others’ rights. This includes trading with whomever he wants on whatever terms each party agrees to—which means trading without coercive interference from third parties such as the government.

Lacking any basis in facts or logic, history or economics, the Trumpian narrative on trade is detached from reality. To repudiate Trump’s immoral, destructive trade war, we must refute the false narrative that’s motivating it. We must also extol the value of trade while staunchly defending the right of every individual and business to do it freely.

---

^[1] White House, “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase Our Competitive Edge, Protect Our Sovereignty, and Strengthen Our National and Economic Security,” April 2, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/.

^[2] Talya Minsberg, “A Timeline of Trump’s On-Again, Off-Again Tariffs,” New York Times, March 13, 2025 (updated June 4, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/business/economy/trump-tariff-timeline.html.

^[3] Billy Duberstein, “The Stock Market Just Had 2 of Its Worst Back-to-Back Days in 75 Years. Here’s What History Says Happens Next,” Yahoo Finance, April 20, 2025, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stock-market-just-had-2-190000481.html.

^[4] MSNBC, “People Were ‘Getting Yippy’: Trump Defends 90-Day Tariff Pause,” YouTube, April 9, 2025,

.

^[5] “Read the Full Transcript of Donald Trump’s ‘100 Days’ Interview with TIME,” TIME, April 25, 2025, https://time.com/7280114/donald-trump-2025-interview-transcript/.

^[6] Emily Mae Czachor, “What Trump Has Said about Tariffs as Stock Market Reacts,” CBS News, April 9, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-trump-has-said-tariffs-stock-market/.

^[7] Ted Simmons, “US Tariff Uncertainty Takes Its Toll,” The Spirits Business, May 23, 2025, https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2025/05/us-tariff-uncertainty-takes-its-toll/.

^[8] Ashley Capoot, “Tariff Rates Trump Ascribes to Other Countries Are Vastly Higher Than World Trade Data Shows,” CNBC, April 4, 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/04/trumps-tariff-rates-for-other-countries-larger-than-word-trade-data.html. The easiest way to understand a weighted average is to contrast it with a simple average using a couple examples. Suppose the tariff rate on cars is 10 percent while the tariff rate on all other goods is 20 percent. To calculate the simple average, add the two rates together, then divide by two. In this case, the simple average tariff rate is 15 percent [(10% + 20%) / 2 = 15%]. The simple average tariff rate would be equal to the trade-weighted average tariff rate only if the value of imported cars equals the value of all other imported goods. But suppose instead that the value of imported cars is 20 percent of the value of total imports while all other imported goods are 80 percent. The trade-weighted average tariff takes into account that the value of these two categories is not equal. In this case, the trade-weighted average tariff rate is only 9 percent [((10% * 20%) + (20% * 80%)) / 2 = 9%].

^[9] Capoot, “Tariff Rates Trump Ascribes to Other Countries Are Vastly Higher Than World Trade Data Shows.”

^[10] James Gwartney et al., “Economic Freedom of the World: 2024 Annual Report,” Cato Institute, 2024, https://www.cato.org/economic-freedom-world/2024.

^[11] Kevin Bahr, “U.S. Manufacturing Employment: A Long-Term Perspective,” CPS Blog, January 29, 2025, https://blog.uwsp.edu/cps/2025/01/29/u-s-manufacturing-employment-a-long-term-perspective/.

^[12] “Manufacturing by Country 2025,” World Population Review, 2025, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufacturing-by-country.

^[13] “Manufacturing by Country 2025.” Author’s calculation. China: $4.975 trillion ÷ 1.4 billion population = $3554. U.S.: $2.497 trillion ÷ 335 million population = $7454.

^[14] “A Look at a Long-Term Trend for the Bureau’s Birthday,” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 27, 2024, https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/a-look-at-a-long-term-trend-for-the-bureaus-birthday.htm.

^[15] Charles S. Gascon, “Labor Constraints Remain Greatest Challenge for Resurgent Manufacturing Sector,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, July 13, 2022, https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/2022/jul/labor-constraints-challenge-resurgent-manufacturing-sector; Katelynn Harris and Michael D. McCall, “The Relative Weakness in Earnings of Production Workers in Manufacturing, 1990–2018,” Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2019, https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2019.27.

^[16] Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, “Manufacturing Accounts for a Relatively Small and Declining Share of Total Employment in Rich Countries,” Our World in Data, November 05, 2024, https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/manufacturing-accounts-for-a-relatively-small-and-declining-share-of-total-employment-in-rich-countries; Bertrand Gruss and Natalija Novta, “The Decline in Manufacturing Jobs: Not Necessarily a Cause for Concern,” IMF Blog, April 9, 2018, https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2018/04/09/the-decline-in-manufacturing-jobs-not-necessarily-a-cause-for-concern.

^[17] Amy Olsen, “New Study Finds That Income, Not Prices, Drives the Economy,” Dartmouth News, March 25, 2021, https://home.dartmouth.edu/news/2021/03/new-study-finds-income-not-prices-drives-economy.

^[18] Abigail Tierney, “Value Added to Gross Domestic Product across Economic Sectors in the United States from 2000 to 2021,” Statista, January 27, 2025, https://www.statista.com/statistics/270001/distribution-of-gross-domestic-product-gdp-across-economic-sectors-in-the-us/.

^[19] “Trading to Win,” National Association of Manufacturers, https://nam.org/issues/trade/ (accessed June 4, 2025).

^[20] “Ford Motor Company,” The Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://oec.world/en/profile/company/ford-motor-company (accessed June 4, 2025); “Ford Motor Company,” Trademo, https://www.trademo.com/companies/ford-motor-co/24988756 (accessed June 4, 2025).

^[21] Michael Wayland, “How Much Would a 100% ‘Made in the USA’ Vehicle Cost? It’s Complicated,” CNBC, May 16, 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/16/made-in-the-usa-vehicle-cost.html.

^[22] Wayland, “How Much Would a 100% ‘Made in the USA’ Vehicle Cost? It’s Complicated.”

^[23] Kadee Russ and Lydia Cox, “Steel Tariffs and U.S. Jobs Revisited,” EconoFact, February 6, 2020, https://econofact.org/steel-tariffs-and-u-s-jobs-revisited; Diccon Hyatt, “How Trump’s Metal Tariffs Could Eliminate 75x More US Jobs Than They Save” Investopedia, February 11, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/metal-tariffs-cost-at-least-75-times-more-jobs-than-they-saved-8789838.

^[24] Shannon Pettypiece, “How Trump’s Tariffs Are Causing Pain for Some U.S. Manufacturers,” NBC News, May 8, 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/trumps-tariffs-are-causing-pain-us-manufacturers-rcna204786.

^[25] Paul Davidson, “April Jobs Report Preview: As Trump Tariffs Start, See Sectors That Are and Aren’t Hiring,” USA Today, May 1, 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/05/01/industries-hiring-tariffs-april-jobs-report/83333585007/.

^[26] Lori Ann LaRocco, “U.S. Agriculture Isn’t Nearing a Trade War Tariff Crisis, It’s in a ‘Full-Blown Crisis Already,’ Farmers Say,” CNBC, April 28, 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/28/trade-war-tariffs-full-blown-crisis-us-farm-exporters-say.html.

^[27] Ian Thomas, “America’s Small Businesses Preparing for Recession with Trump Tariffs: CNBC/Surveymonkey Survey,” CNBC, May 9, 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/09/small-businesses-expect-recession-with-trump-tariffs-poll.html.

^[28] Melissa Repko, “Walmart CFO Says Price Hikes from Tariffs Could Start Later This Month, as Retailer Beats on Earnings,” CNBC, May 15, 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/15/walmart-wmt-q1-2026-earnings.html.

^[29] Ali McCadden, “Here Are the Retailers Raising Prices as Trump Tariffs Take Hold,” CNBC, May 31, 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/31/trump-tariffs-here-are-the-retailers-raising-prices.html; Dan Bigman and Melanie Nolen, “Tariffs: 68 Percent of U.S. CEOs Say They Are Raising Prices in New Chief Executive-AlixPartners Poll,” Chief Executive, May 28, 2025, https://chiefexecutive.net/tariffs-68-percent-of-u-s-ceos-say-they-are-raising-prices-in-new-chief-executive-alixpartners-poll/.

^[30] Ali McCadden, “Corporate Layoffs Have Ramped up in Recent Weeks. Here Are the Companies Making Cuts,” CNBC, June 5, 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/05/corporate-layoffs-companies-making-job-cuts.html.

^[31] CNBC Television, “Pres. Trump Calls Trade Deficits a ‘National Emergency,’” YouTube, April 2, 2025,

.

^[32] Steven Nelson, “Trump Slaps at Least 10% Tariffs on Almost All Imports in ‘Declaration of Economic Independence’: Half of What They Are Charging Us,” New York Post, April 2, 2025, https://nypost.com/2025/04/02/us-news/trump-slaps-at-least-10-tariffs-on-all-imports-in-declaration-of-economic-independence-half-of-what-they-could-be/.

^[33] Donald J. Trump, The America We Deserve (Los Angeles: Renaissance Books, 2000), 120.

^[34] Global News, “Trump Says US Being ‘Looted’ by Other Nations Is Justification for New ‘Reciprocal’ Tariffs,” YouTube, April 2, 2025,

.

^[35] Leslie Dickstein and Simmone Shah, “Fact-Checking What Donald Trump Said in His ‘100 Days’ Interview with TIME,” TIME, April 28, 2025, https://time.com/7280129/donald-trump-fact-check-2025-interview/.

^[36] “Table 1.5. U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services by Area and Country,” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?ReqID=62&step=1#eyJhcHBpZCI6NjIsInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyLDZdLCJkYXRhIjpbWyJQcm9kdWN0IiwiMSJdLFsiVGFibGVMaXN0IiwiMzAxNjQiXV19 (accessed June 4, 2025).

^[37] Aaron Rupar (@atrupar), “Trump: ‘I spoke to a lot of leaders—European, Asian, from all over the world. They are dying to make a deal, but I said ‘we’re not gonna have deficits with your country . . . ,’” X, April 6, 2024, https://x.com/atrupar/status/1909031046349193349.

^[38] “Table 1.5. U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services by Area and Country.”

^[39] Norbert Michel, “Global Capital Flows and the Balanced Trade Myth,” Cato Institute, December 12, 2023, https://www.cato.org/publications/currency-capital-flows-trade-balances-jobs.

^[40] Michael J. Hicks and Srikant Devaraj, “The Myth and the Reality of Manufacturing in America,” Ball State University Center for Business and Economic Research, June 2015 and April 2017, https://conexus.cberdata.org/files/MfgReality.pdf.

^[41] “Worldwide Activities of U.S. Multinational Enterprises: Revised 2021 Statistics,” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, https://www.bea.gov/worldwide-activities-us-multinational-enterprises-revised-2021-statistics, https://apps.bea.gov/international/xls/usdia2021r/Part-II-D1-D13.xls (accessed on June 4, 2025).

^[42] Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts from Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts), “We have massive Financial Deficits with China, the European Union, and many others. The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS, which are now bringing . . . ,” X, April 6, 2024, https://x.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/1909042814396014883.

^[43] “U.S. Trade Balance 1970–2025,” Macrotrends, https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/trade-balance-deficit (accessed June 4, 2025).

^[44] Davide Furceri et al., “Macroeconomic Consequences of Tariffs,” National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2018, https://www.nber.org/papers/w25402.

^[45] Furceri, “Macroeconomic Consequences of Tariffs.”

^[46] Erica York and Alex Durante, “Trump Tariffs: Tracking the Economic Impact of the Trump Trade War,” Tax Foundation, https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/ (accessed June 4, 2025).

^[47] “Where We Stand: The Fiscal, Economic, and Distributional Effects of All U.S. Tariffs Enacted in 2025 through April 2,” Budget Lab at Yale, April 2, 2025, https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/where-we-stand-fiscal-economic-and-distributional-effects-all-us-tariffs-enacted-2025-through-april.

^[48] Brandon Fontaine, “Trade Liberalization and Economic Performance: An Empirical Analysis,” Bryant University Digital Commons, https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1184&context=eeb (accessed June 4, 2025); Jeffrey A. Frankel and David H. Romer, “Does Trade Cause Growth?” American Economic Review 89, no. 3 (June 1999): 379–99, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.89.3.379; Jeffrey D. Sachs and Andrew Warner, “Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1 (1995): 35–36, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995a_bpea_sachs_warner_aslund_fischer.pdf.