The Weekly Lemur publication aims to inform readers about the most pressing issues domestically, internationally, and on Duke University’s campus through bite-sized and digestible coverage, filtered through the prism of “big ideas.” We like to take readers out of just the headlines and situate ongoing events in a larger intellectual and historical context. Alejandro Nina Duran contributed to this edition.
On April 2nd, President Trump took the Blue Goose lectern to prophetically proclaim, “My fellow Americans, this is Liberation Day.” Trump proceeded to paint a grim picture of America’s position within the global free market as having been “looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.” With the stroke of a Sharpie, Trump enacted what he deemed were “kind reciprocal tariffs,” which involved a simplistic mathematical formula that levied tariffs based on a country’s tariff against the U.S., imposing half that rate back onto them. The announcement sent Wall Street tumbling down as the Nasdaq, one of the three most significant stock indices, fell 5%, and the S&P 500 fell 3%. Alongside domestic uncertainty, U.S. allies such as Japan, Germany, and the European Union (EU) immediately repudiated Trump’s efforts as mistaken and shallow. This edition of the “Weekly Lemur” seeks to contextualize Trump’s protectionist agenda stemming from a misunderstanding of the William McKinley era and how this misunderstanding could significantly impact American foreign policy.
After eleven weeks in the Oval Office, Trump has wielded tariffs to reshape U.S. foreign policy, aiming to rein in an America ostensibly in decline and bring in a “golden age of America,” as he declared in his 2nd Inaugural Address. This use of tariffs, a policy with deep historical roots, threatens longstanding Eastern alliances in favor of American self-sufficiency, ushers in international uncertainty, and undermines American credibility. Despite America’s contemporary international influence in foreign policy, Trump seeks to rewrite the longstanding rules to leverage Washington’s global economic posture. Trump seems to be guided by his veneration of his predecessor, former President William McKinley, whom he regards as a “natural businessman.” As a congressman, McKinley’s final act in Congress involved spearheading the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890. McKinley, similar to Trump, considered economics and national security to be the cornerstone of America’s strength rather than the size of the military. Amid endemic financial crises, President McKinley’s tariff model gave a nascent GOP platform a longstanding strategy that enjoyed ebbs and flows of political support.
Tariffs, albeit economically favorable, were politically advantageous in promulgating a Northern industrial narrative that reshaped its political efficacy during the 19th century. In his book The Tariff: A Review of the Tariff Legislation of the United States from 1812 to 1896, McKinley emphasizes the broad political support tariffs had domestically within the House of Representatives and the Senate. After the War of 1812 with Britain, Alexander Hamilton’s idea of a strong central government and strengthening domestic production took root inside Washington. As a result, the early 19th century saw tariffs quickly becoming a safety net for an indebted American nation against foreign influence. Influential figures like Henry Clay derided more unrestricted trade policies as political malfeasance—a way for Great Britain to regain a “commercial dominion” over the United States through a “recolonization of the States.”
However, tariffs also played a significant role in the North-South divide, particularly in the context of slavery. Between 1802 and 1860, the Southern economy heavily relied on European markets, with cotton exports rising from $5 million to $192 million a year. Tariffs not only served a political purpose by providing government revenue, but they also disproportionately undermined the Southern economy and political power, favoring the rapidly industrializing North. Protective measures like the Tariff of Abominations led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832, further exacerbating sectional tensions that eventually led to the Civil War.
After the Civil War, tariffs were the centerpiece of economic policy. They were politically symbolic of the North vs. South divide, where McKinley envisaged Northern industrialism heralding a new era of a self-sufficient America. While Trump admires McKinley’s aggressive tariff policies that aim to enrich a nation in rags, they operate within different parameters and objectives. President Trump has entered an increasingly multipolar and hostile arena against American interests abroad. Trump has shown that he is willing to compromise on enduring American commitments such as humanitarian concerns, which are evident in the dismantling of USAID and cuts to humanitarian aid. Trump misunderstood McKinley because his vision was chiefly internal, while Trump’s is external. In McKinley’s world, his tariff model hinged on America’s geopolitical position, economic potential, and bipartisan isolationist sentiments. In President Trump’s world, his tariffs have created tension between us and key alliances in the hopes of realigning American foreign policy under a banner of “reciprocity” that fits his worldview of international trade equilibrium among nations. However, as much flack as we throw on Trump, there is further nuance to be found within his policies. Domestically, tariffs might serve to curb the worrisome trend of American overconsumption and shore up domestic savings. While macroeconomists will ring the alarm bells if consumption as a share of GDP goes down, this might foster stronger economic growth as manufacturing might increase and wages go up.
It is increasingly clear that Trump’s tariffs are not just a policy tool but a strategic weapon aimed at forcing allies to reduce their tariff rates against the United States. However, the timing of these tariffs is less than ideal. The emergence of a Middle Eastern axis of resistance, including Yemen, Lebanon, and Iran, threatens the balance of nuclear power and Eastern stability. Furthermore, the rise of nation-states like Russia and China is reshaping global power dynamics. Given the unpredictable nature of President Trump, one thing is certain: he is unapologetic about imposing his foreign policy vision around the world. The potential implications of Trump’s tariffs on this evolving global landscape are significant and demand our close attention.
