Would Trump’s tariffs trigger a global trade war? Experts weigh in

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump has proposed tariffs as the solution for a host of perceived ills: the decline of U.S. manufacturing, the arrival of undocumented immigrants and the costs of childcare, among others.

“To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariff,'” Trump said this week during an appearance at the Economic Club of Chicago.

On the campaign trail, Trump has rarely mentioned the threat of a potential trade war, in which foreign nations could respond to tariffs by slapping U.S. imports with taxes of their own.

Economists who spoke to ABC News said Trump’s tariff proposals would all but certainly trigger a global trade war, diminishing sales for U.S. exporters, which account for about 10% of the nation’s economy. The disruption would likely trigger job cuts and slow the nation’s economic performance, economists added.

On the other hand, the move would bring more of the supply chain back to U.S. soil, economists said, and it would likely spur growth and hiring at some firms by protecting them from foreign competition. But the same experts cautioned that such benefits would be far outweighed by the consequences.

“The essence of a trade war is you impose tariffs and other countries respond by putting high tariffs on your exports. It’s tit for tat,” Douglas Irwin, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College who specializes in the history of U.S. trade policy, told ABC News.

“Tariffs are easy to impose but hard to remove,” Irwin added.

In response to ABC News’ request for comment, the Trump campaign pointed to a series of statements about tariffs made by Trump and his allies, including remarks from Trump Campaign Senior Advisor Brian Hughes.

“Time warp alert! Just like 2016, Wall Street and so-called expert forecasts said that Trump policies would result in lower growth and higher inflation, the media took these forecasts at face value, and the record was never corrected when actual growth and job gains widely outperformed these opinions,” Hughes said.

“These Wall Street elites would be wise to review the record and acknowledge the shortcomings of their past work if they’d like their new forecasts to be seen as credible,” he added.

On the campaign trail, Trump has promised a sharp escalation of tariffs during his first term. He has proposed tariffs of between 60% and 100% on Chinese goods.

Envisioning a far-reaching policy, Trump has proposed a tax of between 10% and 20% on all imported products. On Tuesday, he told the audience at the Economic Club of Chicago that such a tariff could reach as high as 50%.

Economists widely expect that tariffs of this magnitude would increase prices paid by U.S. shoppers, since importers typically pass along the cost of higher taxes to consumers. Trump’s tariffs would cost the typical U.S. household about $2,600 per year, according to an estimate from the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Meanwhile, there could be a second wave of consequences if foreign countries were to impose retaliatory tariffs, economists said.

“You might see a dramatic decrease in U.S. exports, which could then have employment effects for people working in those sectors,” Kara Reynolds, an economist at American University, told ABC News. She pointed to the manufacturing and farming as industries especially vulnerable to a trade war.

For evidence of such an outcome, one need look no further than Trump’s first term, during which a slew of tariffs often induced a retaliatory response.

Tariffs imposed during Trump’s first term often induced retaliatory tariffs. The European Union and Canada responded to tariffs on steel and aluminum with tariffs of their own. Trump slapped tariffs on about $360 billion worth of Chinese goods, but China responded with tariffs on tens of billions of dollars worth of U.S exports.

Chinese tariffs on U.S. soybean exports caused a steep decline in sales to Chinese customers, dropping exports from $12.3 billion in 2017 to $3.1 billion in 2018, according to the Georgetown University Journal of International Affairs. In response, the Trump administration paid billions of dollars in direct aid to farmers to make up for the losses.

“He felt obligated to bail out the farmers,” Robert Lawrence, a professor of trade and investment at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, told ABC News. “Now, we’re talking about potential actions on a much grander scale.”

Alongside retaliatory tariffs, many countries would seek suppliers in places where such tariffs are not on the books, Lawrence added.

“Trump is likely to isolate the U.S. and drive other countries to do business with each other,” Lawrence said. “This would have a very adverse effect.”

On the campaign trail, Trump has sharply disagreed with such fears, saying large-scale tariffs would rejuvenate U.S. manufacturing and propel economic growth.

At the Chicago Economic Club on Tuesday, Trump said tariffs would force companies to locate factories in the U.S. as a way of circumventing the tariffs, which in turn would boost domestic production and employment.

“We’re going to have thousands of companies coming into this country,” Trump said. “We’re going to grow it like it’s never grown before, and we’re going to protect them when they come in because we’re not going to have somebody undercut them.”

Economists said higher tariffs could expand certain areas of U.S. manufacturing that face stiff competition from abroad, but the policy also risks raising input costs and slowing output at U.S. producers that import their raw materials.

Trump’s tariffs decreased U.S. employment by 166,000 jobs, according to a study from the nonprofit Tax Foundation, which cited an increase in import costs for U.S. employers. A separate study from the U.S.-China Business Council estimated up to nearly 250,000 lost jobs as a result of the tariffs.

“It certainly would make the U.S. more self-reliant, but it would come with far greater costs,” Lawrence said.