Trump’s Reciprocal Tariff Calculations Are Nonsense, Will Punish Mutually Beneficial Trade
taxfoundation.org
If you tax trade, you get less of it—both imports and exports alike. Even a less-flawed version of Trump’s tariff plan would be unlikely to achieve its goals.

Yesterday, the Trump administration announced a series of tariffs it characterized as “reciprocal,” ranging from 10 percent to 50 percent and calculated for every country on Earth. The country-specific rates were made public at the press conference announcing the tariffs, as well as on White House social media.

However, despite the characterization of the tariffs as “reciprocal,” and despite the accompanying graphics referring to foreign “tariffs charged to the USA including currency manipulation and trade barriers,” the White House did not actually measure tariffs, currency manipulation, or trade barrier policies employed by other countries. Instead, it drew its estimates from something else entirely: bilateral trade deficits in goods.

Specifically, the White House documents appear to allege the “tariffs charged to the USA” are the greater of two different quantities: (a) 10 percent, and (b) the 2024 US trade deficit in goods with a given country, divided by the total quantity of US imports from that country.

Set aside, for now, the damage to economic growth these tariffs will cause, or the distributional impact of one of the largest tax hikes in US history. Other Tax Foundation work will cover that. (We currently estimate the cumulative amount of Trump tariffs at $3.1 trillion over 10 years, amounting to a roughly $2,100 tax increase per household in 2025 alone.)

The method for calculating other countries’ so-called “tariffs” for reciprocal purposes is nonsense. Bilateral deficits are not tariffs, nor are they meaningful anyway; trade in services is relevant; and tariffs cannot be used to target overall trade deficits. The overall result is an extraordinary policy error that will severely damage the economy while failing to reduce the US trade deficit.

  • Dragomus@lemmy.world
    2·
    11 hours ago

    Of course you’re right in that it’s financially not an option in a lot of countries, and I think Trump has no regard for that at all.

    But I am more speaking about the things that bother him, like Europe absolutely not wanting the chlorine washed chickens, nor beef treated with growth hormones and antibiotics. I vaguely recall an eastern country also not wanting US grown fish for some reason that eludes me now. Over the last few years Trump has mentioned these things like they are an annoying stone in his shoe and was considering forcing the other trade partners to buy them anyway through some wild trade agreement.