President Donald J. Trump’s second term began in the same dramatic fashion as his first term. Trump 1.0 kicked off in 2017 with his so-called Muslim ban. Trump 2.0 in 2025 has begun with a wave of immigrant deportations and a trade crackdown. I will address the immigration crackdown in a future column. Today, my focus is on trade.
Fulfilling a key campaign promise, Trump escalated trade tensions by imposing tariffs on goods from the United States’ three largest trading partners: Canada, Mexico, and China. Together, these nations accounted for two-fifths of U.S. imports in 2024, making them central to the American economy.
On February 1, the president announced a 25 percent additional tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico and a 10 percent additional tariff on imports from China. However, after securing preliminary agreements from Mexico and Canada on potential border deals, his administration paused the implementation of those tariffs, pending a final agreement. China, however, remains firmly in the crosshairs of this escalating protectionist policy and has already struck back with retaliatory tariffs and an antimonopoly investigation into Google.
Trump, a perpetual proponent of tariffs, justified his new proposed measures with two key arguments: protecting American jobs and leveraging trade policy to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking. In a statement on the White House website, his administration framed the tariffs as a tool “to hold Mexico, Canada, and China accountable to their promises of halting illegal immigration and stopping poisonous fentanyl and other drugs from flowing into our country.”
Frank F. Islam: A year later, U.S. lessons from Covid (March 18, 2021)
The question arises are tariffs the best and most effective tool to address these two issues?
Let’s start with the second issue of illegal immigration and addictive drug flow. Illegal immigration has been a persistent challenge for the Republic, dating back to its earliest days. In the past several decades, successive administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have struggled to implement solutions, often resorting to short-term enforcement crackdowns or unsuccessful attempts at legislation ending in gridlock.
The reality is that migration patterns are driven by deep-rooted economic and political forces — factors that tariffs have little to no influence over. People fleeing violence, poverty, or political instability do not reconsider their decisions based on whether the U.S. has imposed a 25 percent tariff on Mexican steel. If anything, tariffs that strain the Mexican economy could exacerbate migration pressures rather than reduce them.
Secondly, the fentanyl crisis is a public health emergency, not simply a trade dispute. While much of the illicit fentanyl entering the U.S. is produced in China or trafficked through Mexico, tariffs do little to disrupt the supply chains of drug cartels. These networks operate outside formal trade channels, relying on underground smuggling routes, clandestine laboratories, and digital transactions that tariffs do not touch.
Addressing the fentanyl epidemic requires targeted policies: better border enforcement, enhanced cooperation with foreign governments, stricter financial tracking of illicit transactions, and, most importantly, domestic public health initiatives aimed at addiction treatment and prevention. Tariffs on legal goods from China and Mexico do nothing to stop the flow of synthetic opioids into the U.S. — they merely serve as a symbolic gesture that ignores the root cause of the crisis.
Now, back to the first issue: the question becomes do tariffs protect American jobs.
With foreign goods becoming more expensive due to tariffs, consumers may shift toward domestic alternatives, potentially benefiting local manufacturers. However, the reality is that U.S. consumers have long relied on foreign goods for a simple reason — domestic products have often been less competitive, either in price or quality.
Read more columns by Frank F. Islam
Whether it’s foreign goods, now costlier due to Trump’s additional tariffs, or costly American alternatives, U.S. consumers will inevitably end up paying more for the same products.
Economics 101 teaches a simple truth: when prices rise, consumer spending drops. By design, tariffs raise the cost of imported goods, driving up prices for both businesses and consumers. This, in turn, reduces overall consumption and threatens jobs, particularly in industries reliant on international trade.
As importantly, tariffs invite retaliation. In the past, Canada, Mexico, and China have retaliated with their own tariffs on American goods, making U.S. exports costlier and less competitive in these vital markets. The outcome would be shrinking revenues for American farmers, manufacturers, and exporters, with jobs increasingly at risk. In the end, the Trump tariff policy directly contradicts Trump’s stated goal of protecting American workers.
The ripple effects of Trump’s tariffs extend beyond immediate price hikes and job losses. They threaten to disrupt global supply chains, inflate consumer costs, and destabilize industries that rely on cross-border trade.
According to the Brookings Institution, nearly 50 percent of trade within North America consists of supply chain transactions — where components cross borders multiple times before becoming finished products. For example, in the production of a Chevy Silverado or Dodge Challenger, parts may travel between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico several times. A 25 percent tariff at each crossing quickly snowballs into significant cost increases, making manufacturing prohibitively expensive and driving the cost of goods for consumers up.
Trump has always preferred the spotlight and has much more experience and expertise in generating dramatic headlines than in implementing well-thought-out policies. His trade war spectacle is no exception. He campaigned heavily against Biden on the issue of inflation, yet these tariffs will likely exacerbate the problem rather than solve it. One estimate suggests that if the tariffs are implemented, annual inflation could rise to as much as 4 percent — a self-inflicted wound that contradicts Trump’s economic messaging of lower costs on gas and groceries.
To make matters worse, Trump’s trade aggression could inadvertently benefit China, the very nation he seeks to contain. The Brookings Institution warns that a North American trade war weakens efforts to re-shore supply chains away from China. In other words, by creating instability in North American trade, Trump may actually push businesses back toward reliance on Chinese manufacturing rather than reducing it.
Ironically, with the trade war, Trump is undermining the very agreement he signed — the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) — after gutting the quarter-century-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He called NAFTA an “outdated” and “terrible” treaty, which “resulted in the loss of millions of American jobs and devastated communities across our country.”
After he signed USMCA, the president, in typical Trumpian fashion, termed the new deal “the largest, most significant, modern, and balanced trade agreement in history.”
The president’s new moves also call into question whether the U.S. can be trusted to honor its trade commitments.
Perhaps the greatest long-term damage from Trump’s proposed trade war would be to America’s global reputation as a stable and predictable market. For over a century, the U.S. has been a magnet for foreign investment due to its consistent, business-friendly policies.
This predictability has made the country the top destination for global capital. In 2023, the U.S. attracted a net foreign investment inflow of nearly $349 billion — over 41 percent of the world’s total foreign direct investment of $848 billion. In other words, more than six out of every 10 dollars invested worldwide flowed into the U.S.
Sudden, erratic trade policies could undermine this global trust. Investors and trading partners alike may begin to look elsewhere, wary of an America that no longer values long-term commitments. This unpredictability could have lasting effects on investment, economic growth, and the country’s overall financial standing in global markets.
In conclusion, Trump’s tariff-heavy strategy is an unnecessary gamble. While it makes for dramatic headlines, it carries significant risks — higher inflation, job losses, economic uncertainty, and a loss of U.S. credibility on the world stage. Instead of strengthening the American economy, these tariffs could ultimately weaken it, harming the very workers they purport to protect.
Trump’s proposed trade war would be a perilous undertaking. It would likely be a war that America would lose.