Date: 2025-08-21 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00028472
THE TRUMP SAGA
INCOMPETENCE ON STEROIDS
Opinion ... Trump is all in on a bad economic policy from centuries ago
Mercantilism made Europe’s colonial powers poorer. Trump is trying a modern version anyway.
INCOMPETENCE ON STEROIDS
Opinion ... Trump is all in on a bad economic policy from centuries ago
Mercantilism made Europe’s colonial powers poorer. Trump is trying a modern version anyway.
Original article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/05/06/trump-modern-mercantilism-tariffs/
Peter Burgess COMMENTARY
Peter Burgess
Kate Andrews is the Spectator magazine’s U.S. deputy editor. When first-term President Donald Trump said in 2018 that “we reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism,” he didn’t have many friends rolling in behind him. His calls to upend global trade seemed as disruptive — and as unlikely to happen — as his first election victory. Surely, once the president was out of office, the lurch toward U.S. protectionism would end. Yet here we are, more than six years later, with Trump restored to the Oval Office and protectionists intent on tearing down an already-fraying international consensus on free trade. The world’s biggest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, has called the new economic reality “modern mercantilism” — mercantilism being a term used by 18th-century Scottish philosopher Adam Smith to explain (and lament) a form of economic nationalism that seeks a big state, trade surpluses and self-reliance. Trump might not be pulling America all the way back to the Dark Ages, but far enough: to a time when European powers forced their Asian, African and American colonies to buy their exports. Similar principles are being applied under Trump’s “America First” banner: Trade deficits are considered inherently bad, whether it’s cheap clothes from China or vanilla beans produced in Madagascar. Products must be “Made in America,” no matter the cost. Wealth must be returned to the nation. This form of nationalism might — whisper it — be an even more powerful force than Trump. As Bridgewater notes, protectionist sentiment was stirring well before Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariff extravaganza. “There’s been a buildup and a shift in this direction” over the past five to 10 years, Karen Karniol-Tambour, the firm’s co-chief investment officer, explained in a recent note to clients, adding: “There was discontent with the way that the system was working.” That is to say, Trump’s recent surge of tariff announcements is but the latest stage — albeit an explosive one — in this larger movement. Follow Trump’s second term Follow Frustration with free trade, in the United States and abroad, has been rumbling for decades, as in the massive anti-World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999. But if America was fated for a protectionist era, it’s the pandemic that sealed it. The free movement of goods, supplies and people shut down virtually overnight. Suspicion and fear of outsiders spread in their place, as the world seemed to be coming undone. In retrospect, the conditions were ripe for Trump’s anti-globalization stance to win the battle of ideas. But is the debate over? Are the “modern mercantilists” really running the show? Tariff advocate and presidential trade adviser Peter Navarro appeared to be steering government policy for about a week early in the administration, until Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent managed to sneak in a meeting with Trump, unbeknownst to Navarro. Within days, the president had pivoted from announcing sky-high tariffs to explaining how dozens of free trade deals might be negotiated. The master of moving fast and breaking things has managed to reveal, in a matter of weeks, what it took Europe’s leaders centuries to discover: that economic nationalism makes countries poorer. Every red arrow and squiggle on our screens the week after Trump announced double-digit tariffs showed, in no uncertain terms, that wiping out trade means wiping out wealth. And not just for multinational companies and the billionaires, but for every American who has a pension or a retirement account. It does not bode well for the neomercantilism movement that its most prominent spokesperson, Trump, last week boasted that a trade deal with India could be imminent. Still, the president is unlikely to drop all of his protectionist instincts. A 10 percent universal tariff remains in place, which is eventually going to impact prices at home. And the 90-day suspension of the higher-rate tariffs does not mean they will disappear altogether. Not all of Trump’s instincts are without merit. His long-standing gripe with Europe, which refuses to import U.S. chicken, has exposed the bloc’s own protectionist racket. And calling time on China’s role in strategic U.S. industries was the right message from America’s commander in chief. But these legitimate concerns do not require the adoption of such black-and-white economic views — especially such outdated ones as “exports good, imports bad.” It also doesn’t require the United States to adopt its economic adversary’s tactics. China, after all, is the mercantilist power of our time: a country where a communist government runs the economy, subsidizes industry and manipulates its currency. Its export game has seen great riches flood into the country, but China’s long-term economic trajectory was already looking grim before Trump reappeared in the Oval Office. With a collapsing real estate sector, a slowdown in exports after the pandemic, and swelling local and provincial debt, China is finding that economic nationalism offers little help in the quest to regain momentum. Is that the model Trump wants America to emulate? Almost certainly not. It isn’t what most Americans imagine for themselves, either. After all, it was mercantilist policies enforced by Britain — the Sugar Act, the Tea Act, and plenty of other unfair trade and tax rules — that ultimately spurred the colonies to revolt 250 years ago. That’s what happens when you force bad ideas on Americans. We’ll eventually toss them overboard. What readers are saying The comments reflect a strong criticism of President Trump's protectionist policies, with many expressing concerns about their potential long-term negative impact on the U.S. economy. Commenters argue that Trump's approach is chaotic, lacks a coherent strategy, and is driven by... Show more Opinions on the Trump administration Next Opinion Catherine Rampell Trump demands wartime sacrifices — just not for himself Trump demands wartime sacrifices — just not for himself May 6, 2025 Opinion Henry M. Paulson Jr. China won’t back down. Is all-out trade war inevitable? China won’t back down. Is all-out trade war inevitable? May 6, 2025 Opinion Editorial Board How the trade war endangers national security How the trade war endangers national security May 5, 2025 Opinion Erik Wemple The White House is cozying up to influencers. Good luck with that. The White House is cozying up to influencers. Good luck with that. May 2, 2025 Opinion Dana Milbank As wreckage piles up, Trump and his aides retreat to fantasyland As wreckage piles up, Trump and his aides retreat to fantasyland May 2, 2025 Opinion David Ignatius A Trumpworld power struggle muscles Waltz out A Trumpworld power struggle muscles Waltz out May 1, 2025 Opinion JD Vance JD Vance: What President Trump achieved in his first 100 days JD Vance: What President Trump achieved in his first 100 days May 2, 2025 Opinion Fareed Zakaria Think the trade war with China hurts now? Just wait. Think the trade war with China hurts now? Just wait. May 2, 2025 Opinion Editorial Board Trump promised a better Iran deal. It’s looking a lot like Obama’s Trump promised a better Iran deal. It’s looking a lot like Obama’s May 1, 2025 Opinion Max Boot ‘At this point, we are a liberal democracy in decline’ ‘At this point, we are a liberal democracy in decline’ May 5, 2025 Opinion Dana Milbank Trump has only himself to blame Trump has only himself to blame April 30, 2025 Opinion Donald G. McNeil Jr. RFK Jr.’s view of autism is wrong — but profitable RFK Jr.’s view of autism is wrong — but profitable May 1, 2025 Opinion Ramesh Ponnuru The roots of Trump’s ‘I alone can fix it’ presidency The roots of Trump’s ‘I alone can fix it’ presidency April 30, 2025 Opinion Philip Bump America gave Trump another chance. He’s blowing it. America gave Trump another chance. He’s blowing it. April 30, 2025 Opinion Editorial Board Trump helped elect a liberal leader in Canada Trump helped elect a liberal leader in Canada April 29, 2025 Opinion Alyssa Rosenberg Since when did conversation become ‘anti-American’? Since when did conversation become ‘anti-American’? April 30, 2025 Opinion David Ignatius Hegseth shouldn’t be using Signal, but the SCIF system is terrible Hegseth shouldn’t be using Signal, but the SCIF system is terrible April 29, 2025 Opinion Trump is all in on a bad economic policy from centuries ago Mercantilism made Europe’s colonial powers poorer. Trump is trying a modern version anyway. Today at 5:45 a.m. EDT (Washington Post illustration; iStock) 5 min 242 By Kate Andrews Kate Andrews is the Spectator magazine’s U.S. deputy editor. When first-term President Donald Trump said in 2018 that “we reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism,” he didn’t have many friends rolling in behind him. His calls to upend global trade seemed as disruptive — and as unlikely to happen — as his first election victory. Surely, once the president was out of office, the lurch toward U.S. protectionism would end. Make sense of the latest news and debates with our daily newsletter Yet here we are, more than six years later, with Trump restored to the Oval Office and protectionists intent on tearing down an already-fraying international consensus on free trade. The world’s biggest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, has called the new economic reality “modern mercantilism” — mercantilism being a term used by 18th-century Scottish philosopher Adam Smith to explain (and lament) a form of economic nationalism that seeks a big state, trade surpluses and self-reliance. Trump might not be pulling America all the way back to the Dark Ages, but far enough: to a time when European powers forced their Asian, African and American colonies to buy their exports. Similar principles are being applied under Trump’s “America First” banner: Trade deficits are considered inherently bad, whether it’s cheap clothes from China or vanilla beans produced in Madagascar. Products must be “Made in America,” no matter the cost. Wealth must be returned to the nation. Opinions on the Trump administration Next Opinion Catherine Rampell Trump demands wartime sacrifices — just not for himself Trump demands wartime sacrifices — just not for himself May 6, 2025 Opinion Henry M. Paulson Jr. China won’t back down. Is all-out trade war inevitable? China won’t back down. Is all-out trade war inevitable? May 6, 2025 Opinion Editorial Board How the trade war endangers national security How the trade war endangers national security May 5, 2025 Opinion Erik Wemple The White House is cozying up to influencers. Good luck with that. The White House is cozying up to influencers. Good luck with that. May 2, 2025 Opinion Dana Milbank As wreckage piles up, Trump and his aides retreat to fantasyland As wreckage piles up, Trump and his aides retreat to fantasyland May 2, 2025 Opinion David Ignatius A Trumpworld power struggle muscles Waltz out A Trumpworld power struggle muscles Waltz out May 1, 2025 Opinion JD Vance JD Vance: What President Trump achieved in his first 100 days JD Vance: What President Trump achieved in his first 100 days May 2, 2025 Opinion Fareed Zakaria Think the trade war with China hurts now? Just wait. Think the trade war with China hurts now? Just wait. May 2, 2025 Opinion Editorial Board Trump promised a better Iran deal. It’s looking a lot like Obama’s Trump promised a better Iran deal. It’s looking a lot like Obama’s May 1, 2025 Opinion Max Boot ‘At this point, we are a liberal democracy in decline’ ‘At this point, we are a liberal democracy in decline’ May 5, 2025 Opinion Dana Milbank Trump has only himself to blame Trump has only himself to blame April 30, 2025 Opinion Donald G. McNeil Jr. RFK Jr.’s view of autism is wrong — but profitable RFK Jr.’s view of autism is wrong — but profitable May 1, 2025 Opinion Ramesh Ponnuru The roots of Trump’s ‘I alone can fix it’ presidency The roots of Trump’s ‘I alone can fix it’ presidency April 30, 2025 Opinion Philip Bump America gave Trump another chance. He’s blowing it. America gave Trump another chance. He’s blowing it. April 30, 2025 Opinion Editorial Board Trump helped elect a liberal leader in Canada Trump helped elect a liberal leader in Canada April 29, 2025 Opinion Alyssa Rosenberg Since when did conversation become ‘anti-American’? Since when did conversation become ‘anti-American’? April 30, 2025 Opinion David Ignatius Hegseth shouldn’t be using Signal, but the SCIF system is terrible Hegseth shouldn’t be using Signal, but the SCIF system is terrible April 29, 2025 This form of nationalism might — whisper it — be an even more powerful force than Trump. As Bridgewater notes, protectionist sentiment was stirring well before Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariff extravaganza. “There’s been a buildup and a shift in this direction” over the past five to 10 years, Karen Karniol-Tambour, the firm’s co-chief investment officer, explained in a recent note to clients, adding: “There was discontent with the way that the system was working.” That is to say, Trump’s recent surge of tariff announcements is but the latest stage — albeit an explosive one — in this larger movement. Frustration with free trade, in the United States and abroad, has been rumbling for decades, as in the massive anti-World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999. But if America was fated for a protectionist era, it’s the pandemic that sealed it. The free movement of goods, supplies and people shut down virtually overnight. Suspicion and fear of outsiders spread in their place, as the world seemed to be coming undone. In retrospect, the conditions were ripe for Trump’s anti-globalization stance to win the battle of ideas. But is the debate over? Are the “modern mercantilists” really running the show? Tariff advocate and presidential trade adviser Peter Navarro appeared to be steering government policy for about a week early in the administration, until Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent managed to sneak in a meeting with Trump, unbeknownst to Navarro. Within days, the president had pivoted from announcing sky-high tariffs to explaining how dozens of free trade deals might be negotiated. The master of moving fast and breaking things has managed to reveal, in a matter of weeks, what it took Europe’s leaders centuries to discover: that economic nationalism makes countries poorer. Every red arrow and squiggle on our screens the week after Trump announced double-digit tariffs showed, in no uncertain terms, that wiping out trade means wiping out wealth. And not just for multinational companies and the billionaires, but for every American who has a pension or a retirement account. It does not bode well for the neomercantilism movement that its most prominent spokesperson, Trump, last week boasted that a trade deal with India could be imminent. Still, the president is unlikely to drop all of his protectionist instincts. A 10 percent universal tariff remains in place, which is eventually going to impact prices at home. And the 90-day suspension of the higher-rate tariffs does not mean they will disappear altogether. Not all of Trump’s instincts are without merit. His long-standing gripe with Europe, which refuses to import U.S. chicken, has exposed the bloc’s own protectionist racket. And calling time on China’s role in strategic U.S. industries was the right message from America’s commander in chief. But these legitimate concerns do not require the adoption of such black-and-white economic views — especially such outdated ones as “exports good, imports bad.” It also doesn’t require the United States to adopt its economic adversary’s tactics. China, after all, is the mercantilist power of our time: a country where a communist government runs the economy, subsidizes industry and manipulates its currency. Its export game has seen great riches flood into the country, but China’s long-term economic trajectory was already looking grim before Trump reappeared in the Oval Office. With a collapsing real estate sector, a slowdown in exports after the pandemic, and swelling local and provincial debt, China is finding that economic nationalism offers little help in the quest to regain momentum. Is that the model Trump wants America to emulate? Almost certainly not. It isn’t what most Americans imagine for themselves, either. After all, it was mercantilist policies enforced by Britain — the Sugar Act, the Tea Act, and plenty of other unfair trade and tax rules — that ultimately spurred the colonies to revolt 250 years ago. That’s what happens when you force bad ideas on Americans. We’ll eventually toss them overboard. About guest opinion submissions The Washington Post accepts opinion articles on any topic. We welcome submissions on local, national and international issues. We publish work that varies in length and format, including multimedia. Submit a guest opinion or read our guide to writing an opinion article. Post Opinions also thrives on lively dialogue. If you have thoughts about this article, or about anything The Post publishes, please submit a letter to the editor. What readers are saying