Last updated on January 13, 2025
For the 2024 election, Donald Trump’s campaign was characterized by his promise to support the American people financially. After all, individuals praised him during his first term for economic prosperity and wanted to capitalize on this perception. However, during Biden’s presidency, voters pointed their fingers at him for the desolate economic conditions resulting from COVID-19. This created a narrative where Trump’s past policies were romanticized while the pandemic’s fallout was unfairly laid entirely at Biden’s feet.
This illustrates a wider concept. Voters across the country quickly assume that presidents have direct control over the economy as if Joe Biden had a magical button to solve all financial struggles. A survey by Pew Research found that 81% of Americans stated the economy was a top voting priority when deciding the presidential candidates. Nonetheless, the Federal Reserve, an independent institution, remains the single largest influencer over economic growth and conditions. In reality, presidents have limited applications and authority, but their “limited” exercises can have severe consequences on a global scale. Trump’s promise of tax cuts and synthetic growth, clouding voters’ minds, overrode his true plans to disrupt worldwide trade.
Recently, the former President has expressed his desire to impose a 25% tariff on products imported from Mexico and Canada while increasing China’s tariffs to as much as 60%. For reference, a tariff is a tax imposed by the government on imported goods, making them less competitive compared to domestic products. Trump’s promise to “put America first” requires forcing other nations “to pay up” by prioritizing businesses in the United States. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gives him the authority to implement these measures. Not only would this entirely undermine the North American Free Trade Agreement he renegotiated during his first term, but the burden would fall primarily on consumers who face higher prices. Small businesses nationwide are already stockpiling and bulk-buying inventory to prepare for losses. The Budget Lab at Yale estimated that purchasing power would decrease by $1,200 for the average American household as prices skyrocket, impacting products like avocados, tequila, and aluminum.
Rather than just accepting blows from the United States, countries like Mexico have signaled their intention to respond through retaliatory means like alternate tariffs and import bans to damage Western economies. This scenario already played out when Trump vowed to tax Chinese imports in a New York Times Editorial Board in January 2016, which prompted a quick response from the Chinese government. China and the United States began escalating tariffs on $450 billion of products, which the Carnegie Endowment estimates cost 245,000 American jobs. While this resulted in an eventual truce after extensive negotiations and talks between governments, this outcome isn’t guaranteed in today’s tense geopolitical environment. Stanford Economist Russ Roberts estimates that an intensified trade war between the powerhouses could result in a recession, furthering unemployment and halting economic growth.
The Guardian recently analyzed the results of a poll conducted by Kamala Harris’ campaign, discovering that only 48% of Americans understand how tariffs work. This is especially concerning when there’s a lack of pushback from Trump’s voter base because the majority can’t comprehend what this measure does on a fundamental level. While experts primarily disagree with his economic policies, he continues to receive support from his followers, propelling the surging crisis. In fact, experts are already recommending that consumers shop early for products like electronics, gaming accessories, shoes, and toys that will be subjected to high costs.
These circumstances should be a calling for American voters. Moving forward, we need leadership that values collaboration and transparency without reckless, unfounded economic policies. It’s time for change–time to demand a higher standard of responsibility, considering the global implications and worldwide prosperity. Voters must prioritize leaders with an understanding of modern economies and international stakeholders to prevent disaster. These tariffs are one step back, but demanding accountability is how we take two steps forward.
Be First to Comment