Trump / Vance 2028 wrote:
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
If in fact this policy is carried out consistently, it's hard to see much objection to it. I realize that this is likely overly simplistic and that there might need to be some tweaks for national security and other genuinely important purposes (not for purposes of self-enrichment), but as a general policy I think it's unobjectionable.
Obviously the final assessment will depend mightily on the details and the actual agreements reached.
