Trump's ‘Liberation Day' tariffs are the highest in decades
Monty Rakusen | Getty Images
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping new tariff plan on April 2, 2025, to reshape U.S. trade and boost domestic industry.
Framing the announcement as 'Liberation Day,' he proposed a 10% tariff on essentially all imports, with steeper rates for major trade partners, including 34% on Chinese goods and 20% on those from the European Union. Starting April 3, a 25% tariff on all foreign-made cars and auto parts will take effect – a move that he says will revive U.S. manufacturing and reset America's trade agenda.
But the fanfare surrounding the announcement masks a much larger gamble. What's really at stake is trust – America's long-standing reputation as a stable and predictable destination for global investment. And once that trust is lost, it's incredibly hard to win back.
The strategy is presented as a robust defense of American manufacturing and the middle class. But foreign direct investment – when overseas companies build factories or expand operations in the U.S. – depends on more than just opportunity. It depends on certainty.
If global investors start to worry that U.S. trade policy can shift abruptly, they may relocate their capital elsewhere. As such, the administration's aggressive approach to tariffs risks undermining the very confidence that has long made the U.S. a top destination for global capital.
Nowhere is this risk more visible than in the auto industry.
In 2023 alone, the United States attracted over US$148 billion in foreign direct investment, with nearly $42.9 billion tied to manufacturing, including in the automotive sector. Over the past few decades, major global automakers such as Toyota, BMW and Hyundai have established expansive plants in states including Alabama, Ohio and Kentucky.
These facilities – many of which have seen significant reinvestment and expansion in recent years, especially in response to the shift toward electric vehicles – employ thousands of Americans and contribute significantly to local economies.
Trump's tariff push aims to get automakers to manufacture more vehicles on U.S. soil to overcome rising import costs. It's a strategy with precedent. During his first term, the threat of auto tariffs, alongside existing plans, helped spur Toyota's $1.6 billion investment in a North Carolina plant and Volkswagen's expansion of its operations in Tennessee. It's not far-fetched to imagine Honda or Mercedes following suit with new factories in Indiana or Texas.
But here's the catch: 'Made in the USA' doesn't always mean 'made for less.' American auto plants often face productivity and efficiency gaps compared with foreign competitors. Labor costs are higher. Assembly lines move more slowly, partly due to stricter labor protections, less automation and aging infrastructure. And U.S. automakers such as Ford and GM still depend heavily on global supply chains. Even for vehicles assembled in America, about 40% of the parts, such as engines from Canada and wiring harnesses from Mexico, are imported.
When those parts are taxed, production costs go up. Moody's estimates that pickups such as the Ford F-150 and Chevy Silverado could cost $2,000 to $3,000 more as a result. Goldman Sachs projects price hikes of up to $15,000, depending on the vehicle. Automakers then face a dilemma: raise prices and risk losing customers or absorb the costs and cut into their margins.
Tariffs may protect one industry, but their ripple effects reach much further. They raise costs for other sectors that rely on imported inputs, slow down production by making supply chains more expensive and less efficient, squeeze profit margins, and leave businesses and consumers with harder choices.
Factories represent billion-dollar investments that take years to recoup their costs. Mixed signals, such as the president calling tariffs 'permanent' one moment and negotiable the next, create a climate of uncertainty. That makes companies more hesitant to build, hire and expand.
And investors are watching closely. If building in the U.S. becomes more expensive and less predictable, is it still a smart long-term bet? When a company is deciding where to build its next battery plant or chip facility, volatility in U.S. policy can be a deal breaker.
The consequences could surface soon. Goldman Sachs has already lowered its 2025 U.S. GDP growth forecast to 1.7%, down from an earlier 2.2%, citing the administration's trade policy risks. Consumers, still grappling with inflation and high interest rates, may begin to delay big-ticket purchases, especially as tariffs push prices even higher.
America's trading partners aren't standing still. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney says his country 'will fight back – with purpose and with force.' The European Union is exploring duties on American tech firms. Japan, a longtime ally, is signaling unease. If these countries redirect investment to other countries, the U.S. could lose its competitive edge for years to come.
And while roughly 1 million Americans work in the auto manufacturing industry, more than 150 million make up the total American labor force. When tariffs drive up input costs, it can trigger a chain reaction, hurting retailers, stalling service-sector jobs and slowing overall economic growth.
Consumers will feel it too. Higher prices mean lower sales, reduced tax revenues and shrinking profits. All of that weakens the economy at a time when household budgets are already strained.
The U.S. has seen how trade policy can shape investment decisions – just in reverse. In the 1980s, Japanese automakers responded to U.S. import quotas not by withdrawing but by building plants in the United States. That response was possible because policies were clear and negotiated, not abrupt or adversarial.
Today, the story is different. Volatile, unilateral tariffs don't build trust – they erode it. And when trust erodes, so does investment.
Yes, a factory in Indiana or Kentucky might reopen. Yet if that comes at the cost of deterring billions of dollars in long-term investment, is it worth it?
So while the president may celebrate April 2 as Liberation Day, markets may come to see it as the tipping point – when global confidence in the U.S. economy began to falter in earnest.
Bedassa Tadesse, Professor of Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Tax Bill Hits Senate With GOP Torn by Competing Demands
(Bloomberg) -- Senate Majority Leader John Thune is rushing to meet President Donald Trump's July 4 deadline for pushing through his massive tax and spending bill, but first he has to work through a list of approximately eight Republican senators who have expressed opposition to portions of it. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown Sao Paulo Pushes Out Favela Residents, Drug Users to Revive Its City Center Within the next two days, he needs to find a way to appease most of them. The South Dakota Republican has one of the least enviable jobs in Washington in the coming hours — trying to knit a compromise between factions of his party: one side pushing for more spending cuts in the legislation and senators who are threatening to withhold their support unless there is more funding for health benefits, renewable energy subsidies and other priorities. Thune can afford to lose only three his 53 members in the chamber, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie. Trump is closely watching the talks, quick to issue a harsh social media broadside to anyone who criticize his signature tax-cut legislation. Just ask North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, one of two Republicans who voted against a late-night Saturday procedural vote to begin debate on the legislation. Trump unleashed a series of scathing posts, threatening to primary Tillis. The president took personal swipes, calling him a 'talker and complainer, NOT A DOER!' before also getting in a jab at Rand Paul, the other GOP senator to oppose the vote to advance the bill. Tillis on Sunday announced he wouldn't be running for reelection, a decision that unshackles him from any need to show fidelity to Trump to preserve his political career. He's indicated he's likely to oppose the bill. Paul has said he is also likely to vote 'no' on the legislation based on the price tag and the inclusion of a $5 trillion debt ceiling increase. If both Tillis and Paul remain in opposition, Thune can only lose one more. Polls show that Americans are wary of the bill. A recent Pew Research survey found that 49% of Americans oppose the bill, while 29% supported it. Some 21% weren't sure what to think. Republicans in Congress broadly support the $4.5 trillion worth of tax cuts in the package, which extend the 2017 tax cuts and create new breaks for tipped and hourly workers, along with seniors and car buyers. But the $1.2 trillion worth of spending cuts have created numerous problems. Moderates including Tillis, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are pushing to scale back cuts to Medicaid benefits, warning that those reductions could come at a great political cost if millions of Americans lose health coverage as a result of the bill. Some 11.8 million people could lose access to insurance benefits over the course of a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office's most recent estimate. Murkowski and Tillis have also called to slow down planned phaseouts of solar, wind and other renewable energy credits that have spurred job creation in their states. Those asks are in direct opposition to demands from Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and others to bake in more Medicaid cuts in a bid to shrink the overall price tag of the bill. He says Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming will join with him to back an amendment to include faster health coverage cuts during an a marathon voting session slated to start late Sunday or early Monday. Trump has not delved into the details of the legislation. Instead, the president has pushed for speed, demanding that Congress deliver the bill to him by July 4. The House will also need to vote on the Senate-passed version before it can go the president's desk to be signed into law. Meeting the July 4 deadline is ambitious — but possible if Republican leaders can successfully navigate thorny fights. Senators are expected to remain in the Capitol Sunday into Monday for an overnight voting session. Final passage of the bill could come sometime Monday if Thune is able to cut deals with enough senators for passage. The House then will need to vote on the Senate package. That likely means Speaker Mike Johnson will have to wrangle House Republicans to support the Senate package. Several members have already signaled they aren't satisfied with aspects of the bill, but any further changes likely mean missing Trump's July 4 deadline and risking his ire. America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Senate pushes ahead on Trump tax cuts as nonpartisan analysis raises price tag
By Bo Erickson and Phil Stewart WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Senate version of President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill will add $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt, about $800 billion more than the version passed last month by the House of Representatives, a nonpartisan forecaster said on Sunday. The Congressional Budget Office issued its estimate of the bill's hit to the $36.2 trillion federal debt as Senate Republicans sought to push the bill forward in a marathon weekend session. Republicans, who have long voiced concern about growing U.S. deficits and debt, have rejected the CBO's longstanding methodology to calculate the cost of legislation. But Democrats hope the latest, eye-widening figure could stoke enough anxiety among fiscally-minded conservatives to get them to buck their party, which controls both chambers of Congress. The Senate only narrowly advanced the tax-cut, immigration, border and military spending bill in a procedural vote late on Saturday, voting 51-49 to open debate on the 940-page megabill. Trump on social media hailed Saturday's vote as a "great victory" for his "great, big, beautiful bill." In an illustration of the depths of the divide within the Republican Party over the bill, Senator Thom Tillis said he would not seek re-election next year, after Trump threatened to back a primary challenger in retribution for Tillis' Saturday night vote against the bill. Tillis' North Carolina seat is one of the few Republican Senate seats seen as vulnerable in next year's midterm elections. He was one of just two Republicans to vote no on Saturday. Trump wants the bill passed before the July 4 Independence Day holiday. While that deadline is one of choice, lawmakers will face a far more serious deadline later this summer when they must raise the nation's self-imposed debt ceiling or risk a devastating default on $36.2 trillion in debt. 'We are going to make sure hardworking people can keep more of their money,' Senator Katie Britt, an Alabama Republican, told CNN's State of the Union on Sunday. HITS TO BENEFITS Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, said this legislation would come to haunt Republicans if it gets approved, predicting 16 million Americans would lose their health insurance. "Many of my Republican friends know ... they're walking the plank on this and we'll see if those who've expressed quiet consternation will actually have the courage of their convictions," Warner told CBS News' "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." The legislation has been the sole focus of a marathon weekend congressional session marked by political drama, division and lengthy delays as Democrats seek to slow the legislation's path to passage. Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer called for the entire text of the bill to be read on the Senate floor, a process that began before midnight Saturday and ran well into Sunday afternoon. Following that lawmakers will begin up to 20 hours of debate on the legislation. That will be followed by an amendment session, known as a "vote-a-rama," before the Senate votes on passage. Lawmakers said they hoped to complete work on the bill on Monday. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, the other Republican "no" vote, opposed the legislation because it would raise the federal borrowing limit by an additional $5 trillion. "Did Rand Paul Vote 'NO' again tonight? What's wrong with this guy???" Trump said on social media. The megabill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative achievement during his first term as president, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. Representative Michael McCaul, however, warned that fellow Republicans who do not back Trump on the bill could face payback from voters. "They know that their jobs are at risk. Not just from the president, but from the voting -- the American people. Our base back home will not reelect us to office if we vote no on this," McCaul also told CBS News. Senate Republicans, who reject the CBO's estimates on the cost of the legislation, are set on using an alternative calculation method that does not factor in costs from extending the 2017 tax cuts. Outside tax experts, like Andrew Lautz from the nonpartisan think tank Bipartisan Policy Center, call it a "magic trick." Using this calculation method, the Senate Republicans' budget bill appears to cost substantially less and seems to save $500 billion, according to the BPC analysis. If the Senate passes the bill, it will then return to the House of Representatives for final passage before Trump can sign it into law. The House passed its version of the bill last month. (Writing by Phil Stewart; Editing by Scott Malone and Chris Reese)

Politico
30 minutes ago
- Politico
Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling ‘dangerous'
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday condemned the Supreme Court's decision to rule in President Donald Trump's favor over nationwide injunctions in its birthright citizenship case. Murphy on Sunday told MSNBC's Kirsten Welker that the ruling allows Trump to 'undermine' democracy. 'Taking away the power of courts to restrain the president when he's clearly acting in an unlawful manner, as he is when he says that children born in the United States are no longer citizens, you are assisting him in trying to undermine the rule of law and undermine our democracy,' Murphy said on 'Meet the Press.' Though the Supreme Court's decision did not give Trump a complete win, it did narrow nationwide injunctions that blocked his January executive order trying to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said that federal judges can't, with perhaps limited exceptions, issue injunctions that go beyond their regional authority. 'It's really dangerous because it will incentivize the president to act in a lawless manner,' Murphy added. 'Because now only the Supreme Court, who can only take a handful of cases a year, can ever stop him from violating the laws and the Constitution.' Trump has long supported ending birthright citizenship. On his first day in office this year, Trump signed an order to deny American citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. to foreigners on short-term visas or without legal status. But the 14th Amendment declares anyone 'born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as a citizen of the United States. The 6-3 decision down ideological lines did not weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's order or interpret the meaning of that clause, but the White House declared Friday's ruling to be a major victory for the administration. 'I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple,' Trump said of the ruling. Still, Murphy said the ruling, which will take effect later in July, only creates a 'patchwork' of citizenship laws that could differ from state to state. 'Both the Constitution and the law is clear. If you're born in the United States of America, you're a U.S. citizen,' Murphy said. 'But now because there's no longer going to be a federal policy, it's going to be different in every state. A child born in the United States, born in Connecticut will be a citizen. But that same child if they were born in Oklahoma might not be. That's chaos.'