Revisiting Tariffs: A Free-Trade Perspective on the April 2025 Rollout

A Flawed Tariff Rollout

The administration’s latest tariffs, introduced last week, have raised immediate concerns and a lot of selling in the equities markets. The announced “total tariff” imposed by trading partners is not solely composed of tariffs. Instead, it aggregates foreign VAT taxes (consumption taxes), regulatory obstacles, and the trade deficit itself. While qualitative factors can inform policy, conflating them with tariffs is misleading. Including the trade deficit in this calculation is particularly questionable. For instance, Vietnam exports more to the United States than we export to them due to their smaller, less affluent economy—a natural imbalance, not a punitive trade barrier. The Trump administration’s intent to address perceived inequities is evident, but its rationale lacks clarity and coherence, undermining the policy’s credibility.

‍

Attempting to Make a Case for Tariffs

While reviewing tax returns last week, I had plenty of time at my desk to listen to commentary and have explored various perspectives on tariffs seeking to understand arguments beyond the administration’s framing. The criticisms—higher consumer costs, retaliatory trade barriers, and supply chain disruptions—are well-documented and align with my free-trade views in last week’s blog post. However, stronger arguments in favor of tariffs emerge from independent economists and geopolitical analysts, offering a systemic critique of modern trade dynamics.

Historically, free trade aimed to optimize efficiency: nations exported their strengths, imported their needs, and mutual prosperity followed. Yet today’s global trade departs from this ideal. The United States consumes heavily while producing relatively little, whereas China produces in excess while consuming only modestly. China’s government cares more about an industrial policy that prioritizes wealth accumulation over improving its citizens’ living standards. The result is a U.S. trade deficit exceeding one trillion dollars, with much of that capital funding Chinese acquisitions of assets worldwide. Those assets include farmland in America, ports in Africa, and mines in Australia. This advances Chinese global influence,  rather than boosting Chinese domestic consumption. This imbalance does not reflect comparative advantage but a strategic transfer of wealth, with the United States trading long-term resources for short-term goods.

The national security argument further complicates my position. America’s victory in World War II stemmed not only from military prowess but from industrial capacity—factories producing ships, planes, and tanks at scale. In a modern conflict, reliance on foreign supply chains could prove crippling for America. Tariffs might ensure domestic production in critical sectors, a consideration that transcends economics and touches on national resilience.

‍

Evaluating the Goal of Balanced Trade

These points underpin a case for tariffs: persistent trade surpluses or deficits distort global markets, favoring nations with industrial policies over those pursuing broad prosperity. Imposing tariffs on surplus countries like China could pressure them to redirect earnings toward their own citizens, fostering consumption rather than asset hoarding. Without such measures, the United States risks fueling adversaries’ growth while indulging in unsustainable consumerism—a trend at odds with the delayed gratification I advocate as a financial advisor.

The administration’s push for balanced trade, however, falters in execution. The April 2025 tariffs lack precision and clear communication, casting doubt on their effectiveness. While the underlying issue of trade imbalances warrants attention, this initial effort appears inadequate.

‍

Business Confidence

Business operates on confidence, and the Trump administration’s erratic tariff approach risks eroding it among corporate leaders. Firms hesitate to commit to long-term investments—whether in infrastructure, hiring, or expansion—without a stable and predictable economic environment. The abrupt introduction of tariffs in April 2025, coupled with unclear messaging, has heightened uncertainty, contributing to last week’s equity market sell-off. When stock prices drop sharply, consumer spending often contracts, forcing businesses to scale back investment and, in some cases, reduce payrolls to preserve margins.

This dynamic is compounded by the immediate cost pressures tariffs impose. Few companies can swiftly pass significant, sudden increases in input costs to customers without risking demand. Supply chains, already complex and globally intertwined, face disruption as firms scramble to adapt. While the administration’s goal of balanced trade may hold theoretical merit, its execution matters immensely. A tariff strategy demands careful design and transparent communication to avoid spooking markets and businesses alike. Last week’s rollout fell short on both counts, appearing hasty and poorly articulated. Thoughtful policy could mitigate these shocks; instead, the current approach risks undermining the very economic activity it aims to bolster.

‍

Conclusion

My free-trade convictions remain intact, rooted in the belief that tariffs typically impose more harm than benefit through elevated costs and international friction. Yet the arguments explored here—systemic trade distortions and security imperatives—have shifted my perspective slightly. I am less adamantly opposed to tariffs, recognizing they might serve a purpose in specific contexts. Whether they can address these complex challenges remains uncertain, particularly given the flawed rollout this month. We are navigating a pivotal moment in economic policy, and I welcome further discussion with readers on this evolving topic.

‍