America’s 2024 Trade Debate: Tariffs, Protectionism, and Competing Visions for Economic Sovereignty

By: D. Ariaz

In the 1990s, U.S. presidential candidates vied to expand America’s role in global commerce, embracing a more robust vision of free-market liberalism. Today, the discourse has turned inverted, focusing not on open borders but rather on insulating American industries. Presidential contenders Donald Trump and Kamala Harris each advance protectionist policies, albeit with distinct methodologies and end goals.

Donald Trump’s liberal trade vision, rooted in aggressive tariffs and economic insulation, channels an economic philosophy from nearly a century ago. Dubbed the “tariff man”, Trump implemented targeted tariffs on goods like washing machines, solar panels, steel, and aluminium, culminating in an escalating trade war with China. Now, he proposes a universal tariff on all imports, hinting at rates of up to 20% across the board. China remains his primary target, with rhetoric promising punitive measures as high as 60% on Chinese imports and considering rescinding China’s most-favoured-nation status - a move that would profoundly shake the World Trade Organisation’s framework.

According to the constitution, Trump could legally invoke past trade deal failures as a justification to raise tariffs on Chinese goods. The path to a universal tariff is more complex, however. Some experts posit that Trump might declare the U.S. trade deficit a national emergency, thus utilizing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping levies. Such an approach would likely provoke legal challenges from American companies, which might successfully contest the tariff’s implementation. Nevertheless, the judicial process would unfold over months, allowing Trump ample time to disrupt the global trading system and reshape the rules of economic engagement.

Despite criticism from within his party, Trump frames tariffs as a fiscally responsible measure, suggesting that they could offset the costs of the tax cuts Republicans favour. With approximately $3 trillion in annual imports, a 10% universal tariff could theoretically generate $300 billion in federal revenue. Yet, economists caution that this approach could dampen U.S. economic growth as trading partners retaliate, exacerbating market volatility and placing strain on American businesses and consumers.
​
Kamala Harris, conversely, espouses a subtler brand of protectionism, eschewing Trump’s blunt-force tariffs in favour of targeted industrial subsidies and selective trade measures. An outspoken critic of free trade, Harris was one of only ten senators to vote against Trump’s 2020 USMCA trade deal with Canada and Mexico, citing weak environmental safeguards. Her critiques of Trump’s proposed universal tariff highlight the domestic cost burden, framing it as a “national sales tax” that would raise the average family’s expenses by an estimated $4,000 annually.

Building on President Biden’s policy framework, Harris envisions strengthening American manufacturing through an “America Forward” tax credit, directing substantial subsidies toward emergent industries such as renewable energy. This approach parallels Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which supports domestic industries at the potential expense of international competitors, drawing criticism from trade partners. While Harris favours punitive trade actions against China in cases of rule violations, she views tariffs as a strategic tool rather than a blanket solution.

Under Harris, America would support its industries without fully retreating from the global market. Her approach delineates a form of soft protectionism—focusing on fortifying key domestic sectors while selectively engaging with global trade. Trump’s strategy, on the other hand, suggests a fortress economy, prioritizing tariff-based isolation over complex trade partnerships.
In a shifting landscape, America’s 2024 election thus marks a pivotal moment for U.S. trade policy. Both candidates propose a retreat from the bridge-building of past decades, aiming to secure economic sovereignty - but with strikingly different implications for the future of global commerce and American leadership on the world stage.