So far it has not worked out that way, forcing Mr. Trump to move to contain the economic and political damage.
Tariffs continue to put upward pressure on prices, putting the Trump administration on the defensive over deep public concern about the cost of living. On Tuesday, the president will go to Pennsylvania for the first of what the White House calls a series of speeches addressing the “affordability” problem, which last week he dismissed as “the greatest con job” ever conceived by Democrats.
China, the world’s second-largest economy and the United States’ main economic and technological competitor, released figures on Monday showing that it continues to run a record trade surplus with the rest of the world, even as its overall trade and surplus with the U.S. narrows. That suggests Beijing is quickly learning how to thrive even in a world in which the United States becomes a tougher place to do business.
And there is scant evidence to date of any wholesale return to American towns and cities of the manufacturing jobs lost to decades of automation and globalization.
Mr. Trump insists that his signature decision to impose the highest tariffs on American imports since 1930 is working, or will soon. He continues to blame his predecessor, Joseph R. Biden Jr., for every economic woe, though the argument is getting thinner and thinner as he approaches, in just six weeks, his first anniversary in office.
He finds himself in roughly the place Mr. Biden did in early 2024: Telling the American people that they are doing great, when many don’t feel that way. He has dismissed talk of high prices at grocery stores, insisting they are coming down. But inflation edged upward in September, to about a 3 percent annual increase, almost exactly where it was when his predecessor left office.
Manufacturing jobs have continued to decline gradually this year, with losses of roughly 50,000 since January. (Such numbers contributed to the dismissal in July of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, after Mr. Trump announced that downward revisions to the official jobs reports were “rigged.”)
Not surprisingly, Mr. Trump tried on Monday to portray the $12 billion in emergency relief for farmers as a victory, another piece of evidence — at least to him — that his decision to impose the highest tariffs on American imports since 1930 are working, or will soon. (...)
The numbers don’t quite add up: The U.S. has collected about $250 billion in tariff revenue this year — a bit shy of the $2.66 trillion in federal individual income taxes in the 2025 fiscal year.
The president has promised that tariff revenue will pay down the national debt, now at $38.45 trillion. Over the summer, he told lawmakers that other deals he is striking — some in return for lowering tariffs — would reduce some drug prices by 1,500 percent, a piece of mathematical gymnastics that left some in his audience mystified.
The numeric magic continued on Monday, when Mr. Trump said he was using some of those tariff revenues as a “bridge payment,” to tide American farmers over Chinese until purchases resume, a commitment Mr. Trump says he extracted from President Xi Jinping when they met in late October.
The repeated use of the word “bridge” by the president and his top economic aides seemed intended to signal to Americans that they just needed to hold on, and the promised benefits from tariff plan would pay off.
“This money would not be possible without tariffs,” he told a small group of farmers and rice refiners who were brought into the White House for the event. “The tariffs are taking in, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we’re giving some up to the farmers because they were mistreated by other countries, for maybe the right reasons, maybe wrong reasons.”
He was skipping by the fact that the imposition of the tariffs, primarily on China, led to a Chinese boycott of American farm goods. And now, to stem the bleeding for a core constituency, he was boasting that he was using tariffs receipts to compensate them. (Most of the payments will come through the Agriculture Department’s Farmer Bridge Assistance program, and are not directly funded by tariff income.) (...)
“The farmers problem is not entirely government-grown, but there is a big trade policy aspect to it,’’ said Scott Lincicome, director of general economics at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank that has objected to Mr. Trump’s moves toward state-directed capitalism.
“Prices are depressed because the Chinese boycotted our farm goods much of the year,” he noted. “But fertilizer, machinery, those costs have remained elevated, and subject to tariffs. You’ve heard Caterpillar and John Deere complain,” he said, referring to two of the biggest manufacturers of farm equipment, which Mr. Trump said on Monday he would also help by paying them tariff revenues. (...)
Mr. Lincicome said that the tariffs have also introduced a new level of “unprecedented, crippling and truly insane complexity” to operating businesses. It has only gotten more confusing as Mr. Trump has slashed some tariffs — on imported beef, for example — to mitigate supermarket prices.
by David Sanger, NY Times | Read more:
Image: Bob Brawdy/Tri-City Herald
[ed. Just making shit up as they go along, band aids for self-inflicted foot wounds. These bridge subsidies are apparently in addition to what farmers receive through the Farm Bill each year (roughly 13.5 percent of annual net farm income) and, since January 2025, $30 billion in "Ad Hoc" assistance (because... Biden's fault). See also: Federal farm subsidies: What the data says (USA Facts).]
