Prioritizing Peace and Prosperity: Why a Tariff War Must Wait

 While decades of one-sided trade deals have undeniably contributed to the erosion of American infrastructure and the creation of massive trade imbalances, initiating a widespread tariff war with our allies at this juncture would be a detrimental miscalculation. The paramount concern of the current administration must be the immediate alleviation of inflationary pressures on American consumers, achieved through prudent fiscal policies such as curbing excessive federal spending, extending existing tax cuts, and fulfilling the campaign promises of further tax reductions. The administration possesses ample time to rectify trade imbalances in the future, specifically after the resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the implementation of spending and tax cuts, and the decisive control of inflation.

The economic ramifications of the Russia-Ukraine war have been acutely felt by American consumers, primarily through the surge in energy prices. Securing a lasting peace in the region is not merely a geopolitical imperative, but also an economic necessity. A successful resolution would significantly stabilize global energy markets, leading to a substantial reduction in costs for American households. This, coupled with the gradual expansion of domestic energy production, must be a central policy objective. Cultivating strong relationships with European allies is crucial in achieving this peace, and aggressive trade negotiations that risk alienating these partners would be counterproductive to the pursuit of peace.

Prior to the crucial midterm elections, the administration must prioritize the legislative enactment of spending cuts and tax reductions. Tariffs, inherently unpopular with consumers, could jeopardize the ability of legislative bodies to effectively pass the necessary fiscal measures. While the Department of Government Efficiency has made commendable strides in identifying fraud, waste, and abuse, sustained legislative action is essential to prevent future fiscal mismanagement. The president must therefore focus on building consensus and securing legislative victories, rather than engaging in potentially divisive trade disputes.

By addressing the root causes of inflation—including elevated energy costs stemming from both environmental policies and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as well as excessive government spending—the president can pave the way for lower interest rates and a revitalized economy. This, in turn, will create a favorable political climate for legislative success in the midterm elections. Instead of a broad tariff war, the administration should employ diplomatic channels to identify areas of compromise for tariff reductions, reserving immediate tariff actions for national security concerns, such as those related to fentanyl and drug trafficking.

In conclusion, if the president can guide his party through the midterm elections with a record of achieving peace in Europe, reducing energy costs through both diplomacy and domestic production, curbing inflation through fiscal discipline, and fostering economic growth through extended tax cuts and streamlined regulations, he will be strategically positioned to negotiate advantageous trade agreements during the latter half of his presidency. This approach would solidify his legacy as a highly effective leader. Conversely, premature and aggressive trade actions risk destabilizing his administration, jeopardizing his party's control of Congress, and prolonging the economic hardship faced by American consumers.

by

Theo Johnson