The recent tariff plans announced by President Donald Trump and his allies have been enveloped in a cloud of accusations—specifically the term “cheating.”
During his initial announcement on April 2, dubbed “liberation day,” Trump revealed a list of new tariffs of up to 50 percent on nearly all countries, a strategy that took effect at midnight on April 9. However, hours later, he issued a 90-day pause on these tariffs, subsequently increasing tariffs on China and maintaining a 10 percent tariff across the board on nearly all trading partners.
As he unveiled his sweeping tariff plan, he articulated a stance against nations he claimed treated the U.S. unfairly, stating, “For nations that treat us badly, we will calculate the combined rate of all their tariffs, non-monetary barriers, and other forms of cheating.”
In the days that followed, several administration figures echoed these allegations of “cheating.”
White House adviser Stephen Miller argued on Fox News that foreign countries have manipulated the rules of trade to the detriment of the U.S., asserting, “This has cost America trillions of dollars in wealth. … They’ve stolen our industries.”
Additionally, White House adviser Peter Navarro emphasized in an April 6 interview how foreign actions were explicitly designed to cheat the U.S. and were supported by the World Trade Organization’s regulations.
However, when questioned about the validity of these cheating claims, the White House did not provide supporting evidence.
While it is true that trade cheating can occur, legitimate accusations can be heard at the World Trade Organization (WTO), yet the White House’s rationale for imposing tariffs seemed more rooted in the extent of trade imbalance rather than tangible evidence of unfair practices.
Experts have pointed out that the term “cheating” is often used by Trump and his allies to describe any foreign government action that leads to a bilateral trade deficit with the U.S.
Kent Jones, an emeritus professor of economics at Babson College, remarked, “On the face of it, this definition has no economic validity.”
He explained that bilateral trade balances are generally dictated by a country’s specific trade patterns rather than government policies alone.
Moreover, an analysis of the ten countries affected the most by the proposed tariffs indicated that they are predominantly poorer and smaller nations, a scenario more attributed to their economic circumstances than to unfair trade practices.
These countries primarily export the few resources they have while being too small and impoverished to purchase much from the U.S.
The highest tariff rates were directed toward countries such as Lesotho, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Cambodia, Laos, and Syria, all of which share common characteristics of limited economic power.
Such countries, for example, tend to have a significant surplus in exports to the U.S. in relation to imports.
Lesotho, for instance, exports 85 times the value of its imports from the U.S. while other nations maintain similar ratios.
These countries, while economically small, contribute significantly to U.S. imports through unique exports; for example, Madagascar is recognized for its critical supply of vanilla, while Saint Pierre and Miquelon is home to valuable fisheries.
The economic disparity is stark when comparing GDP per capita figures—with the U.S. GDP per capita being 163 times that of Madagascar.
Even in countries like Vietnam, where the disparity is smallest, the U.S. GDP per capita is still 19 times greater.
Among the ten countries facing tariffs, most account for a mere fraction of total U.S. trade volume, with Vietnam comprising just over 4 percent of total U.S. imports.
While discussing the rationale behind high tariff rates, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the tariff rates were “very carefully crafted” to account for tariffs imposed by trading partners as well as non-monetary factors that hinder trade.
However, these expert analyses indicate that the seeming unfairness portrayed by the White House does not reflect the actual dynamics at play within international trade.
Experts argue that the trade characteristics of poor, small countries align with their need to export, often because they lack the purchasing power to import expensive goods from the U.S.
For example, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economic analyst, countered the idea of successfully changing trade balances through tariffs, noting that nations like Madagascar cannot simply buy high-end American vehicles like the Cadillac Escalade.
McCarthyists maintaining that the imposition of extra tariffs would prompt economic action from small nations seem overly optimistic, as the realities of their economic structures dictate their trade patterns.
Despite these nuances, the administration has faced criticism for its approach to tariffs, which experts describe as simplistic and inaccurately reflecting the global trade landscape.
The complexity of these trade relationships is also illustrated through examples of trade disputes involving the U.S. and other nations.
One notable example is the protracted softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada, which centers on claims that Canada unfairly subsidizes its lumber industry.
Canadian officials contend that their timber largely comes from publicly owned land, placing the dispute within a complex regulatory framework.
While certain actions can be deemed as cheating, such as dumping or currency manipulation, defining cheating in the trade context can be ambiguous at times.
The White House also faces skepticism regarding its approach to tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Critics argue that by imposing new tariffs on these countries, Trump is effectively defaulting on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which he had previously negotiated.
As evidenced by ongoing disputes, if such accusations of cheating were substantiated, the focus should instead be on appropriate channels for resolving trade grievances, such as the WTO.
Experts agree with the notion that the countries listed in Trump’s tariff plan are not exhibiting cheating behaviors despite the administration’s claims.
Kent Jones stated that if Trump wants to assert that tariffs by these countries are unfair or that currency manipulation is occurring, he should substantiate his assertions by identifying these practices and alleviating issues through the appropriate judicial avenues.
Ultimately, the discourse surrounding Trump’s tariff plans reflects broader challenges within international trade relations.
As the world becomes increasingly intertwined economically, accusations of cheating and retaliatory tariffs may not necessarily yield a balanced approach, but rather complicate efforts to address the fundamental nuances of global trade.
The ongoing debate will require not only transparency and accountability on the part of the administration but also a commitment to understanding the complexities involved in international economic relations, which extend beyond mere accusations of cheating.
image source from：https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-claims-countries-are-cheating-the-u-s-on-trade-what-does-that-mean
