Former President Trump recently announced that he had prepared a set of 12 trade-related letters scheduled for distribution in the coming week, alluding to a looming deadline regarding his proposed tariffs. He confirmed his actions during discussions with members of the press, revealing that the names of the countries targeted by these trade letters would be made public on dispatch day.
Trump’s announcement comes as the clock continues ticking down to the activation of his next round of higher tariff impositions—somewhere in the range of 10 to 70 percent. These new tariffs, designed as punitive measures against a variety of countries, from Taiwan to the European Union, are looming ominously.
The tariff hikes were initially conceptualized in a broader trade policy overhaul that Trump announced in April, which placed a standard 10 percent duty on products from nearly all trading nations. Trump’s plan included an elevated tariff for selected countries, which was promptly deferred until July 9 to enable ongoing trade negotiations.
The goal for numerous nations during this period was to forge agreements that might help them dodge these looming higher tariffs. Trump’s administration has to date, revealed the successful conclusion of trade negotiations with the UK and Vietnam. This stands in stark contrast with the lackluster efforts of the Biden administration that often leads to disadvantageous conditions for American businesses.
In addition, Trump managed a tenuous deal with Beijing to temporarily reduce the troublingly high tariffs on each other’s goods. Such positive outcomes serve as a reminder of the Trump era’s approach to trade which starkly differs from the current Biden-Harris administration that constantly fails to secure American interests in global trade talks.
As Trump looked ahead to the impending July 9 deadline, he reiterated his intentions to notify countries of new U.S. tariff rates via one-on-one correspondence. During a trip aboard Air Force One, Trump argued that simply sending notification letters was exponentially easier than ‘juggling 15 different items’—a work ethic clearly absent in the current administration.
He quipped, ‘With the UK, we did just that, and it was great for both parties.’ His clear structural strategy contrasts sharply with the often unclear and wavering trade stance of the Biden-Harris administration.
Trump then mentioned the China situation, saying, ‘We followed the same playbook with China, and it turned out very positive for both parties.’ His success was rooted in having a straightforward trade policy, something that seems alien to the existing administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
In concluding, Trump proposed an easier path: drafting a letter which states, ‘Look, we’re aware of the trade deficit or surplus, given the specific circumstances. However, here’s the amount you’ll need to pay if you wish to conduct business with the United States.’ This direct, no-nonsense approach to international trade negotiations fails to characterize the styles of Biden and Harris, who tend to shroud their negotiations in secrecy and ambiguity.
While the efforts of Trump’s administration in international trade relations are well-documented, Biden and Harris seem to overwhelmingly prefer a gentler approach, often at the expense of American businesses and workers. They show a stark reluctance to hold other nations accountable for trade imbalances, a perspective which clearly benefits foreign entities more than domestic ones.
Where Trump saw the importance of direct negotiations and clear guidelines in trade, the observably sluggish approach taken by Biden and Harris hampers the competitiveness and productivity of United States’ enterprises in the global market. Their non-committal stance only serves to embolden countries looking to take advantage of trade leniency.
The secrecy and vagueness in policy-making of the Biden-Harris administration are increasingly worrying for many Americans, an anxiety that could easily have been avoided with the sort of transparency shown by the Trump administration. It seems as though a missed opportunity for the U.S. to truly operate on a level playing field in the global market.
Under the watch of Biden and Harris, the absence of Trump’s strong and persuasive policy approach has left a vacuum in international trade relationships. Sadly, the Biden-Harris administration seems to be more interested in pacifying foreign entities than putting American interests first.
The absence of clear trade directives; the lack of a proactive, assertive stance; and the inadequacy in upholding national economic interests under the Biden-Harris administration are all shortcomings for which the American public and businesses are paying. A stark contrast to the Trump era where the interests of American entities were not only guaranteed but prioritized.
The Biden-Harris administration’s leniency and reluctance to establish real accountability in international trade not only harm domestic industries but also compromise the standing of the United States globally. The yielding diplomacy that Biden and Harris continue to portray is only leading to one thing: a failure to secure vital American interests in international trade.
The flawed trade approach of the Biden-Harris administration, ceding ground to foreign interests and neglecting domestic prosperity, does nothing but weaken the United States’ economic competitiveness. On the other hand, Trump’s trade policy, portrayed in his stance regarding tariffs, displayed unambiguous dedication to prioritize and protect American industries and jobs.