President Trump affirmed the establishment of tariffs on imported steel and aluminum on March 8 in an effort to bolster American companies that struggle to compete with foreign companies. The tariffs were passed amid pushback from Trump’s own cabinet and party due to fears that they may begin a trade war and induce unforeseen consequences to the economy, such as higher costs for buyers and hindrances to global economic growth.

The tariffs, which took effect last Friday, comprise of a 25 percent tax on imported steel and a 10 percent tax on imported aluminum.

While Trump’s initial proposition seemed to signal this policy would have no exceptions, he later added that Canada and Mexico, partners with the U.S. in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), would be exempt. He also alluded to a possibility of countries being excluded from the policy on an individual basis.

“Part of the slipperiness of this or the transitory nature of these tariffs comes from the kind of ‘declare the policy first and then before actually signing it, make it more specific,'” Modern International Affairs teacher Damon Halback said.

The main purpose of implementing tariffs is to dissuade the purchase of foreign goods and encourage using domestic products.

“From an economics standpoint, the purpose of tariffs is to protect a domestic industry [and] try to boost employment in that industry under the theory or the hope of creating more steel and aluminum domestically and therefore growing the economy,” economics teacher Sam Lepler said.

In addition to the tariffs being a reaction to taxes against U.S. exports that have been put into place by various foreign countries, proponents of the tariffs cite the necessity for aluminum and steel to be made domestically, deeming it imperative to national security.

While tariffs might benefit domestic steel workers, most economists agree that the problems induced by tariffs outweigh the benefits. Major concerns cited by opponents of tariffs include higher costs for those involved in the purchase of taxed goods, the possibility of retaliatory tariffs by other countries and economic harm to foreign countries due to the rising prices of selling their goods in the U.S.

“All of them [the economists], with very few exceptions, believe that tariffs have a net negative effect,” Lepler said. “You will see contractions in all steel-using industries both domestically and internationally, so the net loss exceeds the net gain.”

Creating the possibility of economic retaliation and a trade war, the tariffs move the international commercial stage away from free trade dynamics towards more protectionist practices.

“The U.S., by removing itself from its traditional stance as a country that promotes a legalist and open system of trade, undermines some of the long-running relationships in this trade system,” Halback said. “It’s an erosion of trust, and that’s problematic when essentially you’re engaged in a voluntary trade agreement.”

This piece was originally published in the pages of the Winged Post on March 29, 2018.