'Competing Objectives' of Trump Tariffs Could Extend Their Duration, Experts Say
The potentially competing objectives of President Donald Trump's April 2 tariffs could mean that they won't go away anytime soon, experts suggested during an event hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
"What we see ... is competing objectives and narratives about what the tariffs are supposed to do broadly," said Greta Peisch, a partner at Wiley's trade practice and former general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. She said that tariffs have been floated as a revenue source, a means to reduce trade deficits and increase domestic manufacturing, and a way to reduce tariff and non-tariff trade barriers. The administration itself has been unclear on which of these goals the tariffs are meant to address, adding to the confusion, she said: "If the administration wants to move the needle on the trade deficit dramatically, that's quite hard to do."
Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed, saying that he thinks Trump is "pursuing multiple goals," and that those goals "are in conflict with each other in many cases, and the President doesn't seem interested in resolving that conflict." He said that Trump is fundamentally a "mercantilist" who views bilateral trade deficits as a problem. That viewpoint is a "deeply incorrect view of international commerce, or commerce of any kind," he said.
Kelly Ann Shaw, a partner at Hogan Lovells and a former deputy assistant to the president for international economic affairs in the first Trump administration, disagreed that the competing objectives of the tariffs are a problem, saying that "all these things can be true at the same time." In her view, the administration is taking a "multifaceted" approach to trade, but she did admit that there "may be tension" around the idea of using tariffs as a revenue source. However, she said that she thinks that "the revenue point is more about messaging. It's really about the trade deficit. It's really about production. It's really about national security."
She also dismissed the idea that Congress might act to take back its authority over trade policy, saying, "I don't think that Congress is ready to jump back in that driver's seat."
Peisch agreed, saying that "it's very unlikely that there will be congressional action checking these, these tariffs, but at the same time, this is a massive undertaking. It's hard politically to sustain it. And so, you know, the President has demonstrated that he can withstand that so far."