Talk:Trump tariffs

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Presidents / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance). International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Taxation (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles Trade Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 2010s Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

@Classicwiki: You added a tag to the article, early in its life, that said the article may need cleanup or better organization or something. You added this to an article you yourself had created, and you didn't come to the talk page to explain what your concerns are. Could you please explain what the tag is about, or if you don't have a specific concern, could you please remove it? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, thanks for reaching out. True, I created the article. I thought this topic was important enough (seeing as it will have long and short term global economic implications) to create a dedicated article. I think the article reads a bit clunky, somethings could be better synthesized, and updated. I was hoping the tag would spur a collaborator to try to make it more cohesive. Hope that makes sense. Happy to address any concerns. Best, Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes I hope are improvements. The structure will continue to be clunky for the remainder of the month, as this is a currently-developing news story. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, power~enwiki. I'm sure we will find the right balance and structure in the coming weeks. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is too flippant. "Tariffs implemented by the Trump administration" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans, I didn't mean it to come off as "flippant." I don't think the long name is necessary. Naming convention is based on the {{US tax acts}} list. You will notice there are titles like McKinley Tariff, Black Tariff, Walker Tariff, etc. I didn't want to say "Tariffs of 2018" because it is still early days and no one calls it that. Tariffs and trade imbalance is one of Trump's most consistent policy positions dating back to the 1980s and is shaping up to be his presidency's key economic signatures. I evaluated news articles to determine a common name, and you can see numerous other reliable source refer to these moves as Trump tariffs, 1,2, 3, and 4. Finally, of course his administration enforces and codifies the tariffs, but there is widespread disagreement within his administration over the tariffs. Gary Cohn is planning his exit; US State, Treasury, and Defense are against the tariffs, while Trade and Commerce are in favor. Hope the naming is justified. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was skeptical of the name as well, but Classicwiki makes a compelling case to keep this name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It unintentionally comes off as flashy, due to the alliteration. Gravestep (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 15-35% tariffs on Mexico were statements made as a candidate, no? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were made as a candidate. But he also floated a non-specified 20% to pay for his wall. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Trump's spitballing deserves a separate heading. Actual tariffs that have been formally announced and implemented, yes. Not vague threats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my above response. He also floated a big border tax for Toyota's made in Mexico when he was president-elect. I understand the concern about having an automobile section, but seeing as he has made numerous statements about foreign cars I think the section deserves to be there. Especially, since he threatened Europe for their retaliation to his steel tariffs. Its complicated and inter-connected, and I feel like auto's are a piece of the puzzle. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article is a little out of date in regards to the temperary exemptions issued to Canada and Mexico. Mostly in the Steel and aluminum section and the response section there. How would be best to update those parts? Some sources for the exemptions Reuters, CBS, and NBC. PackMecEng (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it to this:

On March 1, 2018 Trump announced his intention to enforce a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports.[23] On March 8, he signed an order to impose the tariffs effective after 15 days. He said that Canada and Mexico, and possibly Australia and other countries, will be exempt from the levy.[24] An administration official later clarified that the exemptions for Canada and Mexico are not permanent, but depend on their renegotiating NAFTA to Trump's liking.[25][26]

How is that? As is often the case with this administration, it may be hard to get a definitive statement. They are emphasizing how "flexible" they intend to be. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And do we really need an "outdated" tag on this article? It is being updated on a daily basis. I propose to remove the tag. --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good thanks! I dunno about the update tag, maybe the current events one might be a better fit since it is more or less breaking and a moving target on what exactly is happening. PackMecEng (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That could be more appropriate. Or maybe we don't need a tag since many politics-related articles fall in the current-events category. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that, seems reasonable that pretty much every Trump related article is changing almost daily. PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Let's just try to stay on top of each day's news stories. (Noting that this is Friday, often a big news-dump day.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we have "A survey of leading economists by the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business showed a consensus that imposing new US tariffs on steel and aluminum will not improve Americans’ welfare." sourced to this. The sentence in general kind of bothers me. First the editorializing part like leading economists and the consensus feels forced. This is a primary source, so it would be us interpreting the leading economists and consensus. Also adding university of chicago and booth school of business seems redundant if we have initiative of global markets linked, since their article explains all of that. PackMecEng (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New round of tariffs allegedly coming this Friday: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-prepared-to-hit-china-with-60-billion-in-annual-tariffs/2018/03/19/fd5e5874-2bb7-11e8-b0b0-f706877db618_story.html Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSes, this is being called a trade war. We should follow the sources and rename the article to Trump Trade Wars. Casprings (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. Even tabloid-y sources say Theresa May slams 'UNJUSTIFIED' Trump tariffs as TRADE WAR with EU looms. The Washington Post says it threatened to escalate into a full-blown trade war but discusses tariffs much more, and as an actual thing happening now. What sources support this rename? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think RS are using this term consistently and with precision. Trump tariffs is a more appropriate name for a Wiki article on this subject. 01:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the current title is that it doesn't capture what the event is. Other countries responding to Trump's actions is essential.Casprings (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

Trump’s Trade War Sparks Congressional Backlash Inside the chaos of Donald Trump’s trade wars Trump’s Trade War Has a Bright Side for Canada Many, many, more.Casprings (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear case of WP: Common name. Just a few examples. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/24/trumps-trade-war-is-economic-suicide.amp.html https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-war-tariffs-effect-on-economy-prices-consumer-stocks-2018-7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/yuwahedrickwong/2018/08/05/chinas-japanese-lesson-for-fighting-trumps-trade-war/amp/ https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/929019002 https://www.newsweek.com/lobster-trump-trade-tariff-rock-crab-tariffs-new-england-1068106 https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/07/the-costs-of-trumps-trade-war/565208/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/30/effects-donald-trumps-trade-war/ http://theconversation.com/how-trumps-trade-war-affects-working-class-americans-100702 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/denim-makers-hurt-by-new-eu-tariffs-trade-war/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-03/made-in-usa-jeans-already-a-dying-breed-gutted-by-eu-tariffs

• support per WP: Common name. Clearly prescribed by policy. Besides, “Trump tariffs” is obviously an extraordinarily shitty name for this article. This goes beyond a mere tariff or two, into a full-blown trade war, with the causalties in human lives and jobs likely to number in the millions. “Trump’s trade war” sounds better than “Trump tarrifs” which is corny as fuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:b41e:6228:b0b2:25cf:5703:aaf (talk) 08:55, August 11, 2018‎ (UTC)
• No. See comments above and existing article 2018 China–United States trade war. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP: Common name. --Cornellier (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the introduction mentions how the Trump administration used the CCC to generate 12 billion dollars to compensate for the impact the tariffs are having on the U.S. agricultural sector, yet there is no more information on the topic in the article.

I plan to include a short section explaining the impact of the tariffs on the U.S. agricultural sector to explain why the administration is using the CCC to compensate them in the first place. I then plan to include a link to a separate Wikipedia article that will provide more details on the 'Market Facilitation Program' that was created using the CCC money.

Currently, I am thinking of calling the title: Impacts on U.S. Agriculture Sector

Where in the article do you think this section would best fit? Also, do you have any further suggestions on this plan?

Joslun01 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may be interested in adding this analysis to the article (or to the eco policy of the Trump administration article): https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/what-might-trump-withdrawal-world-trade-organization-mean-us-tariffs . It's by two of the greatest economists on trade, and they are estimating what the impact of Trump's proposed policies would be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor FloridaArmy has edit-warred to change the long-standing lede. (1) He has edit-warred to introduce cherry-picked reasons for why Trump implemented tariffs. (2) The lede also now includes the absurd statement that "Trump promised to protect and promote American jobs," as if this is something noteworthy or unique to any policy proposed by an American politician (FloridaArmy also edit-warred to keep this in the lede). (3) The lede also rambles about how the US has a large trade deficit (placed in the second sentence in the lede!), without noting that economists widely reject that trade deficit matter in and of themselves (FloridaArmy edit-warred to keep this in the lede with the stated rationale "trade deficit is not "fringe nonsense"."). Furthermore, the body clearly notes that Trump's trade deficit rhetoric is economic illiteracy, and that the trade deficit has increased during his tenure. The trade deficit statement is intended to mislead readers by (A) suggesting it matters, (B) by failing to identify it doesn't matter, and (C) by failing to note that the Trade deficit has increased under Trump. It fails WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and does not summarize the body per WP:LEDE requirements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy has now[2] also changed text in the body which clearly noted that economists reject that trade deficits matter in and of themselves. In the edit summary, the editor deceptively quoted one sentence from one of the three sources cited (all three of which 100% supported my version of the text) while leaving out the next sentence which literally rebuts the first one. FloridaArmy quoted the sentence in italics while leaving out the next sentence. The editor should self-revert immediately:

• "The administration is correct that when the trade deficit goes up, GDP will go down, all else equal. But economists are quick to point out that a larger trade deficit doesn’t actually reduce economic activity directly — it’s a product of the way GDP is calculated, not one of cause and effect." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about changes to the lede, particularly any effort to include the Administration's stated or political justifications for the tariffs as though the outcomes they claim for them were self-evidently true. JohnInDC (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about the POV leanings of some of the other text that's been recently added - "The notion that bilateral trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is overwhelmingly rejected by trade experts and economists" being one example. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the POV problem with that text? The text clearly adheres to RS and is clearly consistent with the consensus among economists. WP:FRINGE applies perfectly: "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because as it is now written it is baldy factual. Trump promised to reduce trade deficits. (He did promise.) He tried, but has so far failed. I agree that there's some POV pushing in this rewritten lead but the solution is to make the lead NPOV, and not to even things up by adding more of it. JohnInDC (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the article (at least so far in as this edit appears) doesn't claim that bilateral deficits are inherently harmful. It just says Trump wants to reduce them. And of course while deficits aren't inherently harmful, they aren't inherently good either. At this place this text refutes an assertion that doesn't appear. JohnInDC (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump has often asserted that trade deficits are harmful (BBC News: "Part of his justification for the move was his belief that US trade deficits have hurt the US economy.") - that's why he wants to reduce them and according to BBC News that's one of the reasons why he's launching trade wars. The body could have specified that, but you're right that it didn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, I agree. His understanding of the issue is primitive and wrongheaded and these tariffs aren't going to accomplish what he wants, and are going to make things worse for most Americans, through at least higher prices - and probably losses in the very jobs he claims to want to protect. But none of that is in the article (again, at least where this edit appears). Is there a better place for it below, where your (correct) point can be / should be laid up against claims that Trump is making for the tariffs? (I would look myself but I'll be away for a bit; happy to do it later.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have pinged Farcaster and Soibangla who wrote large parts of Economic policy of Donald Trump and may be interested in re-organizing this article. The big flaw with the article is that it lacks scholarly assessments of the subject (the motivations behind the administration's actions, what the econ literature says about these actions, and what the outcomes have been). It's a bit too time-consuming for me to work on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and me both. Thanks for doing that. I agree with you in any case that keeping cheerleading and sloganeering out of the lead is essential. JohnInDC (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content of these two articles cover exactly the same thing. These two articles should be combined 104.219.106.89 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we do keep this article, the title violates NPOV. It's like calling the Afordable Care Act "Obamacare". It's pejorative. 104.219.106.89 (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good title "United States Tariffs (2018-2019)" or something along those lines. 104.219.106.89 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ACA was drafted by Congress. Trump has personally ordered the tariffs by decree. soibangla (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that because there was more information about the trade dispute between the US and European Union for example WTO decision about airbus, it is necessary to split portion of this article and make the new article named "European Union-United States trade dispute" similar to China-US trade war. Yayan550 (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be included: https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/trumps-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs-are-cascading-out-control Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 6 § Some tariff deferrals; add here &/or ... ?:

Trump approved a proposal to delay payment of certain tariffs for 90 days. An executive could was expected as soon as this week and would give the Treasury Department the authority to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to delay collecting “most-favored nation” tariffs on imports.

• Jenny Leonard Trump Set to Announce Deferral for Some Tariff Payments March 31, 2020 Bloomberg.com

X1\ (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HyrumGriff (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by HyrumGriff (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]