US President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to impose across-the-board tariffs is unlikely to provide meaningful relief to workers displaced by import competition. A targeted adjustment program that combines retraining opportunities for younger workers and support for older ones would be more effective and less expensive.
WASHINGTON, DC – Over the past 75 years, global prosperity, poverty reduction, and economic growth rates have reached unprecedented levels, largely driven by the open multilateral trading system. By lowering tariffs and reducing transportation and communication costs, this system has enabled efficient producers to access new markets in a competitive global environment, thereby fostering innovation.
But the multilateral trading system, which came under threat when Donald Trump won the 2016 US presidential election, is at risk of unraveling following Trump’s return to the White House in 2025. During his first term, Trump rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership, renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, and launched a trade war with China, sharply raising tariffs on Chinese imports, as well as on steel, aluminum, and other goods, often justifying these measures on national-security grounds.
Regrettably, President Joe Biden did not reverse Trump’s tariffs, jeopardizing a system that had long benefited both the United States and the global economy. During his campaign, Trump pledged to impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods and a 60% tariff on all imports from China. He also threatened to keep raising tariffs until the US eliminates its trade deficit.
Even if Trump halved his proposed tariffs, they would still have devastating consequences for the US and the global economy. After all, the external current-account balance (of which trade comprises the largest part) reflects the gap between a country’s total consumption and its production. Addressing the US external deficit requires either higher incomes or lower domestic demand. While raising tariffs might reduce some imports, it would also increase the cost of imported parts and components for US firms, which would mean higher prices for consumers and a loss of competitiveness for exporters. If imports fell faster than exports, the dollar’s exchange rate would adjust to balance supply and demand in the currency market, with revaluation further undermining US competitiveness.
While Trump’s proposals are undeniably extreme, neither of America’s two major parties supports free trade as strongly as they once did. The most commonly cited reason for this is the economic dislocation and job losses caused by import competition. Even with the US unemployment rate at a historically low 4.1%, rising imports have inflicted significant pain on local communities. For small towns that rely on a single employer struggling against foreign competition, the broader economic gains to consumers and most producers offer little solace.
But tariffs are not a solution to the problems of small-town America. Higher tariffs drive up the prices of imported goods, and Trump’s proposed tariffs would almost certainly curtail consumption. Although tariffs might temporarily slow layoffs and plant closures, the overall impact on the US economy – including the inevitable retaliation from other countries – would be profoundly damaging.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Trump’s first term offers a cautionary tale. His import tariffs, lower than those he is now proposing, are estimated to have cost the average American household more than $1,000 annually, and the damage would have been even worse if US importers hadn’t rerouted goods through countries like Vietnam, where Chinese parts and components were assembled and then exported to the US to avoid Trump’s punitive duties.
If Trump’s incoming administration imposes high, across-the-board tariffs, the resulting price hikes and economic disruptions would be far more severe. The broader the tariffs, the harder it would be for importers to use third countries to avoid them, driving up costs for US and international manufacturers.
Despite this, there is no guarantee that Trump’s tariffs would save any US jobs. At best, they might delay the downward spiral of declining housing prices, shuttered storefronts, and reduced employment. But retaliatory tariffs could compound the damage, and even if tariff-protected industries managed to survive, they would probably require indefinite protection to remain viable.
Contrary to popular belief, technological advances – not imports – have been the primary driver of US job losses. While foreign competition has played a role, its impact has been concentrated in areas reliant on a single major firm or industry. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program (TAA), designed to support workers displaced by import competition, has proven inadequate.
A far more effective and less costly alternative to Trump’s proposals would be to make import tariffs conditional. For example, producers benefiting from trade protections could be required to refrain from hiring additional workers unless those protections are lifted. This approach would help ensure that the costs of such measures do not become permanent.
Moreover, older displaced workers could receive generous adjustment assistance, including early access to Social Security or supplemental wage support until they become eligible for retirement benefits. Their younger counterparts could receive unemployment benefits, job-placement services, and even financial assistance for relocation, provided they enroll in approved retraining programs. These resources could be administered by local labor or unemployment offices.
To be sure, it would be difficult to justify helping workers displaced by imports while neglecting those who lost their jobs to technological change, even though import-related job losses often provoke stronger political reactions. Replacing the TAA with a more targeted program focused on retraining younger workers and supporting older ones could benefit trade-affected communities and the broader US economy. If successful, such a program could also be extended to cover other displaced workers.
Although the current adjustment program is slow and fails to address workers’ needs, tariffs are unlikely to provide timely or meaningful relief to those affected by foreign competition. A more targeted adjustment program that supports both younger and older workers would yield greater benefits while imposing far fewer burdens on the US economy than Trump’s damaging tariffs.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Recent demonstrations in Gaza have pushed not only for an end to the war, but also for an end to Hamas's rule, thus echoing Israel's own stated objectives. Yet the Israeli government, consumed by its own internal politics, has barely acknowledged this unprecedentedly positive development.
underscores the unprecedented nature of recent demonstrations in the war-ravaged enclave.
America's history is replete with episodes in which vigorous government action proved essential to achieving shared prosperity. With a lethal mutation of neoliberalism now destroying US state capacity, understanding what came before has never been more important.
urges the creation of public utilities to accelerate decarbonization and improve living standards.
WASHINGTON, DC – Over the past 75 years, global prosperity, poverty reduction, and economic growth rates have reached unprecedented levels, largely driven by the open multilateral trading system. By lowering tariffs and reducing transportation and communication costs, this system has enabled efficient producers to access new markets in a competitive global environment, thereby fostering innovation.
But the multilateral trading system, which came under threat when Donald Trump won the 2016 US presidential election, is at risk of unraveling following Trump’s return to the White House in 2025. During his first term, Trump rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership, renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, and launched a trade war with China, sharply raising tariffs on Chinese imports, as well as on steel, aluminum, and other goods, often justifying these measures on national-security grounds.
Regrettably, President Joe Biden did not reverse Trump’s tariffs, jeopardizing a system that had long benefited both the United States and the global economy. During his campaign, Trump pledged to impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods and a 60% tariff on all imports from China. He also threatened to keep raising tariffs until the US eliminates its trade deficit.
Even if Trump halved his proposed tariffs, they would still have devastating consequences for the US and the global economy. After all, the external current-account balance (of which trade comprises the largest part) reflects the gap between a country’s total consumption and its production. Addressing the US external deficit requires either higher incomes or lower domestic demand. While raising tariffs might reduce some imports, it would also increase the cost of imported parts and components for US firms, which would mean higher prices for consumers and a loss of competitiveness for exporters. If imports fell faster than exports, the dollar’s exchange rate would adjust to balance supply and demand in the currency market, with revaluation further undermining US competitiveness.
While Trump’s proposals are undeniably extreme, neither of America’s two major parties supports free trade as strongly as they once did. The most commonly cited reason for this is the economic dislocation and job losses caused by import competition. Even with the US unemployment rate at a historically low 4.1%, rising imports have inflicted significant pain on local communities. For small towns that rely on a single employer struggling against foreign competition, the broader economic gains to consumers and most producers offer little solace.
But tariffs are not a solution to the problems of small-town America. Higher tariffs drive up the prices of imported goods, and Trump’s proposed tariffs would almost certainly curtail consumption. Although tariffs might temporarily slow layoffs and plant closures, the overall impact on the US economy – including the inevitable retaliation from other countries – would be profoundly damaging.
Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Trump’s first term offers a cautionary tale. His import tariffs, lower than those he is now proposing, are estimated to have cost the average American household more than $1,000 annually, and the damage would have been even worse if US importers hadn’t rerouted goods through countries like Vietnam, where Chinese parts and components were assembled and then exported to the US to avoid Trump’s punitive duties.
If Trump’s incoming administration imposes high, across-the-board tariffs, the resulting price hikes and economic disruptions would be far more severe. The broader the tariffs, the harder it would be for importers to use third countries to avoid them, driving up costs for US and international manufacturers.
Despite this, there is no guarantee that Trump’s tariffs would save any US jobs. At best, they might delay the downward spiral of declining housing prices, shuttered storefronts, and reduced employment. But retaliatory tariffs could compound the damage, and even if tariff-protected industries managed to survive, they would probably require indefinite protection to remain viable.
Contrary to popular belief, technological advances – not imports – have been the primary driver of US job losses. While foreign competition has played a role, its impact has been concentrated in areas reliant on a single major firm or industry. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program (TAA), designed to support workers displaced by import competition, has proven inadequate.
A far more effective and less costly alternative to Trump’s proposals would be to make import tariffs conditional. For example, producers benefiting from trade protections could be required to refrain from hiring additional workers unless those protections are lifted. This approach would help ensure that the costs of such measures do not become permanent.
Moreover, older displaced workers could receive generous adjustment assistance, including early access to Social Security or supplemental wage support until they become eligible for retirement benefits. Their younger counterparts could receive unemployment benefits, job-placement services, and even financial assistance for relocation, provided they enroll in approved retraining programs. These resources could be administered by local labor or unemployment offices.
To be sure, it would be difficult to justify helping workers displaced by imports while neglecting those who lost their jobs to technological change, even though import-related job losses often provoke stronger political reactions. Replacing the TAA with a more targeted program focused on retraining younger workers and supporting older ones could benefit trade-affected communities and the broader US economy. If successful, such a program could also be extended to cover other displaced workers.
Although the current adjustment program is slow and fails to address workers’ needs, tariffs are unlikely to provide timely or meaningful relief to those affected by foreign competition. A more targeted adjustment program that supports both younger and older workers would yield greater benefits while imposing far fewer burdens on the US economy than Trump’s damaging tariffs.