Donald Trump's second-term trade policy has been defined by a signature style: aggressive tariff threats designed to twist arms, followed by abrupt reversals or concessions once markets tremble or deals materialize. Marketed as "America First" reciprocity to revive manufacturing for working-class Americans and strengthen the economy for all, this approach has instead delivered economic uncertainty that disproportionately burdens poor households while offering selective advantages to wealthy interests and industries. Nowhere is the pattern more evident than in dealings with India—Trump's oft-praised strategic partner—where high-stakes coercion gave way to a February 2026 interim trade framework slashing U.S. tariffs on Indian goods from 50% to 18%. This transactional flip-flop, rooted in precedents from Trump's first term, exposes the policy's flaws: it fails to deliver sustained gains for poor Americans, enriches uncertainty for the broader economy, and treats even reliable allies as leverage points rather than stable partners.
The hand-twisting playbook is clear. In April 2025, Trump unleashed "Liberation Day" reciprocal tariffs targeting dozens of nations, including India, initially at rates reflecting perceived imbalances and India's Russian oil purchases. Threats escalated to 25%, then 50% on Indian imports, framed as punishment for a $45 billion-plus trade surplus and defiance on energy sourcing. Indian experts, such as Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Vice Chancellor Rakesh Mohan Joshi, openly labeled these moves "arm-twisting" tactics to extract one-sided concessions like mandatory U.S. energy, aircraft, and defense purchases. Markets plunged; automakers and exporters lobbied intensely. Within days or weeks, reversals followed—much like the March 2025 pause on Mexico and Canada tariffs after Big Three automaker pleas, or the 90-day global pause lowering baseline rates while hiking China's. With India, the February 6, 2026, White House joint statement announced the shift: the U.S. would apply an 18% reciprocal rate on most Indian originating goods (textiles, apparel, chemicals, etc.), remove prior steel/aluminum duties on Indian aircraft parts, and grant preferential quotas. In return, India committed to eliminating or slashing tariffs on broad U.S. industrial, food, and agricultural products; addressing non-tariff barriers; and purchasing up to $500 billion in U.S. energy, technology, aircraft, and coal over five years—while reportedly curbing Russian oil buys. Trump hailed it as a "historic milestone" of "mutual interests," echoing his "Art of the Deal" narrative. Yet the whiplash—threaten ruin, extract concessions, declare victory—creates precisely the unpredictability businesses loathe. Supply-chain planning, reshoring investments, and export contracts become gambles rather than strategies.
This volatility undermines Trump's stated goals for poor Americans. His rhetoric promised tariffs would resurrect manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt, close trade deficits, and lift working families by forcing foreign producers to "pay" or relocate. Reality has been harsher. Tariffs function as a regressive consumption tax: low-income households spend a far higher share of income on imported or import-heavy goods like clothing, footwear, appliances, and food. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that, under sustained 2025 tariff levels, the bottom 20% of households (incomes under $29,000) face an effective tax increase equivalent to 6.2% of income—nearly four times the 1.7% burden on the top 1%. The Yale Budget Lab projects Trump's tariffs will push 650,000 to 875,000 more Americans into poverty by 2026 (0.2–0.3% of the population), including 150,000–375,000 children, as prices rise faster than the poverty threshold adjusts while wages stagnate for many. Manufacturing employment has declined by roughly 88,000–100,000 jobs since inauguration, per critics, despite rhetoric; retaliation from partners has hammered U.S. farmers and exporters, sectors employing many rural poor. Input costs for domestic producers (steel, components) have risen, offsetting any "protection." Far from a rising tide, the policy has inflated everyday prices without the promised blue-collar boom—echoing first-term findings where tariffs cost households thousands annually while job gains proved fleeting.
Meanwhile, benefits skew toward the rich and select corporate interests. High-net-worth individuals and Wall Street weather volatility better through diversified portfolios, hedging, or even profiting from trading swings. Protected sectors like steel or certain manufacturers—often with wealthy ownership or lobbying power—gain temporary shields, while broad tax-cut extensions (renewing 2017 TCJA elements) deliver trillions in relief disproportionately to high earners and corporations. The rich pay less relative burden from tariffs precisely because they consume fewer tariffed necessities as a share of wealth. Policy exemptions or negotiated carve-outs further favor insiders. The result is widened inequality: poor families face higher grocery and clothing bills, while elites enjoy lower effective taxation and market opportunities amid chaos. Trump's own framing—that tariffs could eventually supplant income taxes—would exacerbate this regressivity, shifting the burden onto consumption by the masses.
Turning to India as the "most reliable" trade partner highlights both the policy's transactional cynicism and a potential missed opportunity for stability. Trump has oscillated between praise ("great friend" Modi, "Howdy Modi" spectacles) and condemnation ("totally one-sided disaster," "tariff king"). Precedents abound: first-term steel/aluminum tariffs hit India, GSP privileges were revoked in 2019 over market access disputes, yet defense sales surged (Predator drones, helicopters), the Quad deepened against China, and Apple/Foxconn diversified production to India as a China alternative. Bilateral trade grew in services, pharma, and IT—sectors where India offers complementary strengths without the mercantilist aggression of Beijing. India’s 1.4-billion consumer market, English-speaking workforce, and democratic alignment make it a natural counterweight for resilient supply chains. The 2026 interim deal, while born of coercion, demonstrates feasibility: India opened markets on U.S. ag/tech goods and committed massive purchases, proving willing negotiation when not under duress.
Yet treating even this reliable partner with repeated arm-twisting followed by reversal undermines long-term trust. India hedged toward Russia and Europe partly due to unpredictability; further coercion risks pushing New Delhi toward multi-alignment rather than deeper U.S. integration. A consistent, non-coercive partnership could deliver genuine wins: predictable U.S. exports of energy and aircraft creating American jobs (including for less-skilled workers), diversified manufacturing reducing China dependence, and shared tech/defense innovation benefiting U.S. workers across income levels. Instead, the whiplash signals that no partner is safe from sudden pressure—eroding the very reliability Trump claims to value.
In conclusion, Trump's tariff tango of hand-twisting
and sudden reversals has not advanced a coherent vision for poor Americans or
broad prosperity. It has imposed regressive costs that swell poverty rolls,
failed to spark sustainable manufacturing revival, and cushioned elites through
selective protections and tax policy. Even the pivot toward India—America's
most reliable major democratic trade partner, with decades of strategic
precedents from Quad cooperation to production shifts—arrives stained by
coercion rather than mutual strategy. True America First leadership would
prioritize predictability, targeted investments in domestic skills and
infrastructure, and stable alliances that deliver jobs without inflating costs
for the vulnerable. Until then, the whiplash leaves working families bruised,
the rich relatively insulated, and potential partners wary. Consistency, not
chaos, is the real deal America needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment