Trump’s tariffs challenge the global neoliberal order while benefiting the wealthy.

combination of soft power and hard power allows it to pay for imports in dollars. This luxury is not available to most countries, and it explains why the U.S. has been able to run trade deficits of record-breaking size for so long.
Are tariffs the right tool to address the U.S. trade deficit? Trump appears to think so. In your view, are tariffs a legitimate policy tool to use in order to reduce trade deficits and tackle unfair trade practices by other countries?
Tariffs are a blunt instrument, akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. They can indeed protect some businesses in the short run, but at a cost — raising prices for domestic consumers, disrupting complex value chains of global production, and inviting retaliation by foreign trading partners. When Trump slaps tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, he causes prices to go up for canned goods, cars and other goods made of steel and aluminum in the U.S., and he lays the groundwork for U.S. trading partners — notably Canada and the European Union — to respond with tariffs on U.S. exports. The net effect can be a loss of U.S. jobs and perhaps an increase in the U.S. trade deficit.
Many workers in manufacturing industries that have been hardest hit by imports are hostile to “free” trade, and with good reason. It has cost them their jobs, their wages and their self-respect. Do tariffs offer disappointment workers a false hope of reversing this, or do they offer a brighter future? What should Mexico be demanding from its trade negotiators?
The blame for loss of jobs does not lie with Mexico, China, Canada, Japan, Indonesia, etc. — it lies with the failure to invest in U.S. workers who are now thrown into the dumpster of rust belt unemployment. What matters is not whether to trade, but how to trade. Retaliatory tariffs are like a shooter firing back after being fired upon. Escalation benefits no one. Millions of jobs could be created with investments in decent, green energy, schooling, healthcare, houses, public transportation and more. The key is not retaliatory tariffs, but finding ways for the U.S. to invest in decent jobs that workers need. The main victims are the workers in manufacturing, the laborers and small business owners. They must be protected and respected.
Trump has used a national security clause as the legal basis for his steel and aluminum tariffs targeted on China. This is an abuse of the “national security” exception in the World Trade Organization agreements. What does this legal move by the Trump administration tell us about its economic nationalism and how do you expect China to react?
This misuse of the national security exception is apocalyptic. The WTO has never been able to enforce its rules about national security and that is what concerns China. Every country must shield some industries, but strategic industries should not be used as pawns on a chessboard. A trade-off needs to be found between these two positions. A breach depends mostly on what happens next. Retaliation from China or the U.S. would be a lose-lose situation. The sole opportunity could be an agreement to begin round table talks in order to avoid retaliation. Moreover, the misuses of the WTO procedures would need to be considered. The trade issues have to be addressed at the highest level of government.