I & I Editorial BoardSo far, President Donald Trump has been piloting his second term like Maverick from “Top Gun.” With one exception. The tariff rollout has been FUBAR, which is troubling since it’s Trump’s signature economic policy issue.
There have been glaring missteps along the way, repeated pauses, confused and conflicting messaging, turf wars. It’s draining public support and causing real economic problems as businesses can’t make plans while all this is in flux.
We aren’t privy to insider gossip to speculate why this is. But we can say that Trump needs to get his tariff act together, and fast.
Consider what has transpired in just the past two weeks:
Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement turned out to be a disaster. Not just because an island inhabited only by penguins was listed as a trade abuser, but because it quickly became apparent that the math used to set tariff rates made no sense.
While Trump called the tariffs reciprocal, they weren’t. They were instead based on trade imbalances with other nations, which even Trump supporters pointed out is a flawed metric.
Then, less than a week later, Trump announced a 90-day pause on Liberation Day.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the pause was part of “his strategy all along,” but U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer testified at a House hearing that he wasn’t aware of the pause until after it was announced, CNN reported.
This past Friday, Trump announced that smartphones, laptops, and the like would be exempt from tariffs. Then, over the weekend, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that they were only temporary. And Trump on Sunday posted on Truth Social that “NOBODY is getting ‘off the hook. There was no Tariff ‘exception’ announced on Friday. These products are subject to the existing 20% Fentanyl Tariffs, and they are just moving to a different Tariff ‘bucket.’”
Forbes has counted eight flip-flops by the administration on tariffs and trade since Liberation Day.
Meanwhile, there’s news that two camps in the White House are fighting for dominance – team tariff, led by Peter Navarro, and team econ, led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
Here’s how Semafor put it:
President Donald Trump’s economic advisers are becoming a team of rivals … Ask Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, and National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett about negotiating on tariffs, for example — and you’ll hear four different answers ….
The mixed messages point to fundamental disagreements within the administration about how to address trade deficits, according to more than a dozen lawmakers, lobbyists and analysts interviewed for this story. Trump’s advisers sound united behind the spirit of his trade agenda but far less aligned on its execution — differences driven by both personality and ideology.
When Trump announced the pause, the word went out that Navarro had been sidelined and Bessent was in the driver’s seat on trade. (Elon Musk called Navarro a “moron.”)
On Sunday, Navarro was on “Meet the Press” insisting that was not the case.
“I’m here. I’m here on ‘Meet the Press,’” Navarro replied. “I think you’d like to think this is the top show on Sunday.”
There’s nothing wrong with having leaders within an administration debating an issue. Such internal debates, in fact, are healthy and often lead to better policy proposals that can get more widespread support.
But why in the world are Trump’s advisers fighting over who will fly the plane and where it’s heading while it’s in flight when those decisions should have been made before it took off?
Trump can fix this. But he needs to take the controls, stop jerking the plane around, deal with the turbulence, and reassure everyone in the cabin with calm consistent messaging, and stay on target.
And quick. Before the passengers start fighting over the barf bags.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
William F. Shughart II
I don’t see any draining support for Trump. What I do see is a hyperbolic press, of which I&I seems to be a part. Why don’t you try a little investigating? Maybe even ask for some interviews with Trump and parts of his team? Standing on the outside and whining isn’t a good image. Give us some useful information and insight, not this swill.
I have no idea what the admin was thinking but Trump accomplished his primary goal: He got America talking about unfair trade deficits, non-tariff barriers, currency manipulation, and manufacturing and supply chains.
I call that a win. We have been on auto-pilot with trade for the last 40 years and to disastrous effect on the working class (politicians seem to do alright, though. Hmm.). I had no clue how other governments were creating barriers to trade while at the same time flooding our markets with their cheap goods. Now I do.
China is the worst offender, which uses prison or slave labor (they lie about it), has essentially no environmental regs, no labor laws, manipulates its money, steals IP, controls major supply chains, relabels tariffed products as “Made In Vietnam” and exports them from its communist commonwealth or other countries it has under its thumb. Don’t get me started on garlic!
So yes it was a bit of a mess but it got America talking and more importantly, thinking. Now Trump has 90 days to hammer out fair trade deals with scammers and schemers like China, the EU (who hate our guts as does the UK), and all the rest.
Although it has appeared erratic, it may be a requirement to do it quickly. A slower plan will likely never get done.
The reason for the confused rollout is precisely the confused thinking behind it.
First, a trade deficit is not the same thing as a trade barrier. For example, would you agree there are no trade barriers between California and Utah? But would you agree that trade between them is highly unbalanced?
Second, a trade deficit is not the same thing as the offshoring of industry. For example, Japan has a trade deficit with Saudi Arabia but is more industrialized than it.
Third, the offshoring of industry is not the same thing as unemployment. For example, the UK is more industrialized than Laos but has a higher unemployment rate.
Fourth, even if one accepts the legitimate need to preserve certain industries in our own country, tariffs are a pretty blunt instrument to get there. They are likely to harm our own economy too, so they need to be carefully targeted.
All these reflect confused thinking, confused goals and confused means of achieving those goals.
But who is going to explain all that to President Trump? This explains all the infighting on his economic team.