Comparative Analysis of Tariff Policies: President Trump vs. President Biden

Comparative Analysis of Tariff Policies: President Trump vs. President Biden

Comparative Analysis of Tariff Policies: President Trump vs. President Biden

The use of tariffs as a policy tool has been a defining feature of both the Trump and Biden administrations, albeit with starkly different approaches and objectives. President Donald Trump’s tenure (2017–2021) marked a significant departure from the post-World War II trend of reducing trade barriers. His administration implemented sweeping tariffs, targeting over $380 billion worth of imports, including steel, aluminum, washing machines, solar panels, and a wide array of Chinese goods. These measures were framed as a response to “unfair trade practices” and aimed at reducing the U.S. trade deficit, protecting domestic industries, and pressuring trade partners for concessions. However, critics argue that these tariffs often acted as an end in themselves, with limited success in achieving broader economic or diplomatic goals (New York Times).

In contrast, President Joe Biden’s administration (2021–2025) largely retained Trump-era tariffs but adopted a more strategic and multilateral approach. While maintaining tariffs on Chinese imports, Biden eased restrictions on allies by replacing tariffs with tariff-rate quotas for steel and aluminum imports from the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Japan (Ashurst). Biden’s trade policy has been closely tied to his broader industrial strategy, which includes significant public investments through legislation like the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. These measures aim to strengthen domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, particularly in critical sectors like semiconductors and clean energy (Washington Monthly).

While Trump’s tariffs were often unilateral and focused on immediate protectionism, Biden’s approach has sought to balance trade enforcement with long-term competitiveness and international cooperation. This divergence highlights the evolving role of tariffs in U.S. economic policy, reflecting broader ideological and strategic differences between the two administrations.

Table of Contents

Open Table of Contents

Overview of Tariff Policies Under Trump and Biden

Trump’s Broad-Based Tariff Strategy

Donald Trump’s presidency marked a significant shift in U.S. trade policy, with tariffs being used as a central tool to address trade imbalances and protect domestic industries. His administration implemented sweeping tariffs on a wide range of imports, particularly targeting China. These measures were part of a broader “America First” agenda aimed at reducing the U.S. trade deficit and revitalizing domestic manufacturing.

Tariffs on Chinese Imports

Trump imposed tariffs on approximately $360 billion worth of Chinese goods, affecting two-thirds of all imports from China. The tariffs included a 25% levy on steel, 10% on aluminum, and additional duties on consumer goods such as electronics, furniture, and apparel. These measures were justified under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing China’s unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers. (CNN)

“Studies showed that U.S. firms bore nearly 100% of the tariff burden, leading to higher costs for consumers and businesses alike.”\

China responded with tariffs on $101.4 billion worth of U.S. exports, targeting agricultural products like soybeans, pork, and corn, as well as industrial goods. This retaliation affected an estimated 294,000 American export-related jobs, according to the Brookings Institution. The trade war led to higher costs for U.S. consumers and businesses, with studies showing that U.S. firms bore nearly 100% of the tariff burden. (Tax Foundation)

Revenue and Economic Costs

The Trump administration collected over $80 billion in tariff revenue during its tenure. However, economic analyses indicated that the tariffs reduced U.S. GDP by 0.4% and increased consumer prices for goods like washing machines and electronics. Researchers also found that the tariffs did not significantly boost domestic manufacturing, as companies sought alternative supply chains outside of China. (Harvard Business Review)

Expansion to Other Countries

In addition to China, Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, citing national security concerns under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. These tariffs were later adjusted through tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) and bilateral agreements. For example, the U.S. lifted tariffs on Canadian aluminum in exchange for a cap on import volumes. (National Law Review)

Biden’s Targeted Tariff Approach

Joe Biden’s administration has largely maintained the tariffs imposed during Trump’s presidency but has adopted a more focused strategy. While Trump’s tariffs were broad-based, Biden’s measures target specific sectors deemed critical to U.S. national security and economic resilience.

Continuation and Review of Trump’s Tariffs

Biden retained most of Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods, conducting a multiyear review under Section 301. The administration decided to increase tariffs on $18 billion worth of Chinese imports, focusing on industries like clean energy, semiconductors, and critical minerals. These increases ranged from 25% to 100%, with electric vehicles and solar cells facing the highest rates. (BBC)

Strategic Focus on Domestic Manufacturing

Biden’s tariff policy aligns with his broader economic agenda, including the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS Act, which aim to boost domestic production of clean energy technologies and semiconductor chips. For instance, tariffs on lithium-ion batteries rose from 7.5% to 25%, incentivizing U.S. manufacturers to reduce reliance on Chinese imports. (CNN)

“While Biden’s tariffs have raised costs in specific sectors, such as solar cells and electric vehicles, their inflationary impact has been minimal, increasing overall inflation by only 0.01 percentage points.”\\

Unlike Trump’s tariffs, which were criticized for raising consumer prices, Biden’s measures are designed to minimize inflationary effects. Administration officials argued that the targeted nature of the tariffs would limit their impact on everyday goods. Economists estimated that the new tariffs would increase inflation by only 0.01 percentage points, a negligible effect compared to Trump’s broader measures. (HuffPost)

Retaliation and Diplomatic Challenges

China has criticized Biden’s tariffs as protectionist and hinted at potential retaliation. However, the administration has coordinated with allies in Europe, Brazil, and Turkey to investigate China’s trade practices, strengthening its negotiating position. Biden has also used tariffs as a bargaining tool in diplomatic engagements, such as discussions with China on intellectual property and market access. (CNN)

Comparative Analysis of Tariff Strategies

Scope and Scale

Trump’s tariffs were sweeping, covering a wide range of goods and industries, while Biden’s approach is more targeted, focusing on strategic sectors like clean energy and semiconductors. For example, Trump proposed a universal 10% tariff on all imports, whereas Biden’s measures apply to specific products like electric vehicles and solar cells. (Tax Foundation)

Economic Objectives

Trump’s tariffs aimed to reduce the trade deficit and protect domestic industries, but they often resulted in higher costs for consumers and limited economic benefits. In contrast, Biden’s tariffs are part of a broader industrial policy to promote domestic manufacturing and reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains. (Harvard Business Review)

Political Context

Both administrations used tariffs as a political tool to appeal to domestic constituencies. Trump’s tariffs were popular among blue-collar workers and manufacturing unions, while Biden’s measures are designed to align with his clean energy and infrastructure initiatives. However, both strategies have faced criticism for their economic costs and potential to escalate trade tensions. (BBC)

Retaliation and Global Trade Dynamics

China’s retaliation to Trump’s tariffs led to a tit-for-tat escalation, affecting global trade flows and supply chains. Biden has sought to avoid a similar spiral by coordinating with allies and focusing on sectors less likely to provoke widespread retaliation. For instance, the Biden administration has worked with the European Union to address shared concerns about China’s trade practices. (CNN)

Sectoral Impacts of Tariff Policies

Steel and Aluminum

Trump imposed a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum, citing national security concerns. These measures were later adjusted under Biden, who replaced them with TRQs for imports from the European Union, Japan, and the United Kingdom. While the TRQs reduced costs for some U.S. businesses, they continued to raise prices for industries reliant on steel and aluminum. (National Law Review)

Clean Energy Technologies

Biden’s tariffs on solar cells and electric vehicles aim to support domestic production and reduce reliance on Chinese imports. For example, tariffs on solar cells increased from 25% to 50%, while electric vehicle tariffs rose to 100%. These measures align with Biden’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. (BBC)

Consumer Goods

Trump’s tariffs on consumer goods like electronics and apparel led to higher prices for U.S. consumers, with studies showing that firms passed on the costs to buyers. Biden has avoided imposing new tariffs on consumer goods, focusing instead on industrial and strategic sectors. (HuffPost)

Semiconductor Chips

Both administrations have targeted semiconductors, a critical industry for national security. Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese-made chips, while Biden increased these tariffs to 50% and invested in domestic production through the CHIPS Act. These policies aim to reduce U.S. dependence on Chinese semiconductors and strengthen supply chain resilience. (CNN)

Long-Term Implications

Global Trade Relations

Trump’s tariffs strained U.S. relations with allies and trading partners, leading to retaliatory measures and disruptions in global supply chains. Biden has sought to rebuild alliances while maintaining a tough stance on China, using tariffs as part of a broader strategy to address unfair trade practices. (Tax Foundation)

Domestic Manufacturing

While both administrations aimed to boost domestic manufacturing, the results have been mixed. Trump’s tariffs did not significantly increase manufacturing jobs, as companies shifted supply chains to other countries. Biden’s targeted approach, combined with investments in clean energy and infrastructure, may yield better long-term results. (Harvard Business Review)

Economic Costs

Both strategies have imposed economic costs on U.S. consumers and businesses. Trump’s tariffs led to higher prices for everyday goods, while Biden’s measures could increase costs in specific sectors like clean energy. However, Biden’s targeted approach is less likely to have widespread inflationary effects. (HuffPost)

This analysis highlights the distinct approaches taken by Trump and Biden in using tariffs as a tool of economic and foreign policy. While Trump’s broad-based strategy aimed at addressing trade imbalances, Biden’s targeted measures focus on strategic sectors and align with his broader domestic agenda. Both approaches have had significant implications for the U.S. economy, global trade, and domestic manufacturing.

Economic and Sectoral Impacts of Tariffs

Tariff-Induced Price Increases and Consumer Spending

While previous sections have addressed the overall economic costs of tariffs, this section focuses on the specific price increases and their impact on consumer spending patterns. During Trump’s first term, tariffs on goods like washing machines and solar panels led to significant price hikes. For instance, washing machine prices rose by 12%, while the cost of solar panels increased by 16%, according to a 2019 analysis by the National Bureau of Economic Research. These increases disproportionately affected lower-income households, which spend a larger share of their income on goods subject to tariffs.

Under Biden, while many Trump-era tariffs were maintained, the administration sought to mitigate inflationary pressures by negotiating tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for steel and aluminum imports from the European Union and Japan. These measures aimed to stabilize prices in critical sectors while maintaining trade protections. However, Biden’s tariffs on clean energy technologies, such as solar cells and electric vehicle components, have added an estimated 4% to 7% to the cost of these products (U.S. International Trade Commission, 2021).

Employment Impacts Across Key Sectors

Manufacturing Sector

Trump’s tariffs were intended to boost domestic manufacturing by protecting industries like steel and aluminum from foreign competition. However, the results were mixed. While employment in the steel industry saw a modest increase of 1,800 jobs in 2018, the higher input costs led to job losses in downstream industries like automotive manufacturing. According to a 2019 study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, for every job gained in steel production, approximately 16 jobs were lost in steel-consuming industries.

Biden’s approach has focused on fostering domestic manufacturing through targeted tariffs and subsidies. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 included provisions to incentivize the production of solar panels and batteries within the U.S. However, these measures have yet to fully offset the job losses in sectors affected by retaliatory tariffs, such as agriculture and automotive manufacturing.

Agricultural Sector

The agricultural sector has been particularly vulnerable to retaliatory tariffs. During Trump’s first term, China imposed tariffs on $34 billion worth of U.S. agricultural exports, including soybeans, pork, and corn (Brookings Institution, 2020). This led to a 25% decline in soybean exports to China between 2017 and 2019. To offset these losses, the Trump administration provided $28 billion in subsidies to farmers, a measure criticized for its inefficiency and high cost.

Under Biden, retaliatory tariffs on agricultural goods have persisted, although the administration has sought to diversify export markets through trade agreements with countries like Vietnam and India. Nevertheless, the sector remains heavily impacted, with an estimated 15% decline in net farm income from 2018 levels (USDA Economic Research Service, 2024).

Revenue Generation and Fiscal Implications

Trump’s tariffs generated $89.1 billion in revenue during his first term, accounting for less than 2% of total federal revenue (Tax Foundation, 2025). While this revenue stream provided a short-term fiscal boost, it was offset by the broader economic costs, including reduced GDP growth and higher consumer prices.

The Biden administration has continued to collect tariff revenue, with estimates suggesting $144.3 billion in collections as of 2024. However, Biden’s approach has included reallocating some of this revenue to fund domestic manufacturing initiatives, such as the Advanced Manufacturing Fund established in 2023. This represents a shift from Trump’s broader revenue-collection strategy to a more targeted use of tariff proceeds.

Long-Term Fiscal Impacts

Both administrations have faced criticism for the long-term fiscal implications of their tariff policies. A 2024 report by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the combined Trump-Biden tariffs would reduce GDP by 0.2% over the next decade, primarily due to decreased trade volumes and higher input costs for businesses. Additionally, the reliance on tariff revenue as a fiscal tool has been questioned, given its limited contribution to overall federal revenue and its disproportionate impact on low-income households.

Global Supply Chain Disruptions

Relocation of Manufacturing

Trump’s tariffs aimed to incentivize companies to relocate manufacturing operations to the U.S. However, a 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that most firms opted to shift production to other low-cost countries, such as Vietnam and Thailand, rather than returning to the U.S. For example, Apple moved some of its production facilities to India, while Samsung expanded its operations in Vietnam.

Biden has sought to address these challenges by coupling tariffs with incentives for domestic production. The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 allocated $52 billion for semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S., a move aimed at reducing reliance on Chinese supply chains. While this has led to some reshoring of production, the overall impact on global supply chains remains limited, as many firms continue to prioritize cost efficiency over geographic proximity.

Trade Diversion and Retaliatory Measures

Both Trump and Biden’s tariffs have led to significant trade diversion, with countries like the European Union and Japan stepping in to fill the gaps left by reduced U.S.-China trade. For instance, EU exports of machinery to China increased by 15% between 2018 and 2022, partially offsetting the decline in U.S. exports (World Trade Organization, 2023).

Retaliatory tariffs have also exacerbated supply chain disruptions. During Trump’s first term, China imposed tariffs on $101.4 billion worth of U.S. goods, leading to delays and increased costs for U.S. exporters. Biden’s continuation of these tariffs has perpetuated these challenges, although efforts to negotiate tariff reductions with key trading partners have shown some promise.

Sector-Specific Impacts

Automotive Industry

The automotive industry has been one of the hardest-hit sectors under both administrations. Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum added an estimated $700 to the cost of producing a vehicle, leading to a $1 billion increase in costs for companies like Ford and General Motors (Bankrate, 2019). This contributed to a decline in motor vehicle manufacturing jobs for the first time since the Great Recession.

Biden’s tariffs have focused more on promoting electric vehicle (EV) production, with additional levies on Chinese EV components. While this has spurred some domestic investment in EV manufacturing, the higher costs have been passed on to consumers, with EV prices rising by an average of 5% in 2023 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2024).

Clean Energy Technologies

Trump’s tariffs on solar panels and wind turbines aimed to protect domestic manufacturers but led to a 16% increase in the cost of solar installations, according to a 2019 report by the Solar Energy Industries Association. This slowed the adoption of renewable energy technologies, particularly in states with high electricity costs.

Biden has sought to reverse this trend by coupling tariffs with subsidies for clean energy production. The Inflation Reduction Act allocated $369 billion for renewable energy projects, partially offsetting the cost increases caused by tariffs. However, the long-term impact on the clean energy sector remains uncertain, as companies continue to face supply chain challenges and higher input costs.

Consumer Electronics

Consumer electronics have also been significantly impacted by tariffs. Under Trump, tariffs on Chinese-made electronics led to a 2.3% increase in the cost of products like smartphones and laptops (U.S. International Trade Commission, 2021). This disproportionately affected lower-income households, which rely more heavily on affordable electronics.

Biden’s tariffs have maintained these cost increases, although efforts to negotiate tariff reductions with China have shown some promise. For example, the 2024 U.S.-China Trade Agreement included provisions to reduce tariffs on semiconductors and other high-tech goods, potentially easing cost pressures in the consumer electronics sector.

This report provides a detailed examination of the economic and sectoral impacts of tariffs under Trump and Biden, focusing on price increases, employment effects, revenue implications, supply chain disruptions, and sector-specific outcomes. Each section builds on existing analyses while introducing new data and perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of this complex issue.

Differences in Strategic Objectives and Implementation

Strategic Use of Tariffs as Leverage

Trump’s Transactional Approach to Tariffs

President Donald Trump’s tariff strategy was deeply rooted in his broader economic philosophy of “America First,” which emphasized reducing trade deficits, reshoring manufacturing jobs, and leveraging tariffs as a bargaining tool in international negotiations. Trump’s administration often used tariffs as a transactional tool to extract concessions from trading partners. For example, the imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act was justified on national security grounds but also aimed at pressuring countries like Canada and Mexico to renegotiate trade agreements, culminating in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods, which affected over $380 billion worth of trade, were part of a broader strategy to address what his administration described as China’s unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers (Tax Foundation). These tariffs were often implemented unilaterally, bypassing multilateral frameworks, and were intended to exert maximum pressure on China to comply with U.S. demands, including commitments outlined in the Phase One trade deal.

Biden’s Targeted and Strategic Tariffs

In contrast, President Joe Biden’s approach to tariffs has been more targeted and strategic, focusing on specific industries critical to U.S. economic and national security. While Biden retained most of Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods, his administration introduced additional tariffs on sectors such as electric vehicles, semiconductors, and solar cells, with rates as high as 100% (Marketplace). These measures were designed to complement domestic investment initiatives, such as those outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act, by protecting emerging industries and reducing reliance on foreign supply chains.

Unlike Trump, Biden has sought to align tariff policies with broader multilateral efforts, including cooperation with allies to counter China’s economic practices. For instance, the Biden administration replaced tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the European Union, United Kingdom, and Japan with tariff-rate quotas, easing tensions with key allies (Tax Foundation).

National Security and Economic Objectives

Trump’s Focus on Trade Deficits and Domestic Manufacturing

Trump’s tariff policies were heavily influenced by his administration’s focus on reducing the U.S. trade deficit, which exceeded $1 trillion in goods in 2023 (White House Fact Sheet). By imposing tariffs on a wide range of imports, including steel, aluminum, and consumer goods, Trump aimed to incentivize domestic production and reduce dependency on foreign manufacturers.

However, the results were mixed. While some sectors, such as steel and aluminum, saw increased domestic production, the broader economic impact included higher costs for U.S. businesses and consumers. For example, tariffs on auto parts and other manufacturing inputs disrupted supply chains and increased production costs, leading to job losses in some industries (New York Times).

Biden’s Emphasis on Strategic Industries

Biden’s tariff policies have been more narrowly focused on strategic industries critical to U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. For instance, tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and advanced batteries were designed to protect emerging U.S. industries and reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains (HuffPost). This approach aligns with Biden’s broader economic agenda, which includes significant investments in clean energy technologies and domestic manufacturing.

Additionally, Biden’s administration has framed tariffs as part of a broader strategy to counter China’s geopolitical influence. By targeting sectors where China has a dominant market share, such as semiconductors and solar cells, Biden aims to weaken China’s economic leverage while strengthening U.S. industrial capacity (Marketplace).

Trump’s Use of Executive Authority

Trump’s administration relied extensively on executive authority to implement tariffs, often invoking statutes such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. These legal frameworks allowed Trump to bypass Congress and impose tariffs unilaterally, citing national security and unfair trade practices as justifications (Covington & Burling LLP).

For example, Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods were implemented following an investigation into China’s trade practices, which found evidence of intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers. These tariffs were imposed in multiple rounds, with rates ranging from 10% to 25%, and covered a wide array of products, from consumer electronics to industrial machinery (Tax Foundation).

Biden’s Multilateral and Legislative Approach

While Biden has also used executive authority to implement tariffs, his administration has placed greater emphasis on working within multilateral frameworks and seeking congressional support for broader trade initiatives. For instance, the Biden administration’s decision to replace tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the European Union with tariff-rate quotas was part of a broader effort to rebuild alliances and reduce trade tensions (Tax Foundation).

Additionally, Biden’s tariffs on Chinese goods have been framed as part of a comprehensive strategy that includes domestic investments in critical industries and collaboration with allies to counter China’s economic practices. This approach reflects a shift from Trump’s unilateralism to a more coordinated and strategic use of tariffs as part of U.S. trade policy (Marketplace).

Retaliation and Global Trade Dynamics

Trump’s Escalation of Trade Wars

Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs often led to retaliatory measures from trading partners, including China, the European Union, and Canada. For example, in response to U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum, China imposed tariffs on U.S. agricultural products, autos, and other goods, targeting politically sensitive sectors (Covington & Burling LLP).

These retaliatory measures disrupted global supply chains and led to significant economic costs for U.S. businesses and consumers. For instance, tariffs on Chinese goods raised prices for a wide range of products, contributing to inflationary pressures and reducing consumer spending (Tax Foundation).

Biden’s Mitigation of Retaliatory Risks

Biden’s more targeted approach to tariffs has sought to mitigate the risks of retaliation by focusing on sectors where the U.S. has a strategic advantage or where trade volumes are relatively low. For example, Biden’s tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and advanced batteries were designed to protect emerging U.S. industries without significantly disrupting global trade (HuffPost).

Additionally, Biden’s administration has worked to rebuild alliances and reduce trade tensions with key partners, such as the European Union and Japan. By replacing tariffs with tariff-rate quotas and seeking multilateral cooperation, Biden has aimed to create a more stable and predictable trade environment (Tax Foundation).

Inflationary and Consumer Impacts

Trump’s Broad-Based Tariffs and Inflation

Trump’s tariffs, which covered a wide range of products, had significant inflationary impacts, as importers often passed the costs onto consumers. For example, tariffs on consumer goods, such as clothing and electronics, contributed to higher prices for American households, reducing disposable income and consumer spending (TIME).

Biden’s Efforts to Minimize Inflationary Effects

In contrast, Biden’s tariffs have been more narrowly targeted to minimize inflationary impacts. For instance, while Biden imposed high tariffs on strategic sectors like semiconductors and solar cells, these measures were designed to complement domestic investments and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, thereby mitigating long-term inflationary pressures (HuffPost).

By focusing on sectors critical to U.S. economic and national security, Biden’s tariff policies aim to balance the need for protectionism with the goal of minimizing economic disruptions for consumers and businesses (Marketplace).

Conclusion

The comparison of tariff policies under Presidents Trump and Biden reveals distinct strategic approaches with significant implications for the U.S. economy, global trade, and domestic industries. President Trump employed broad-based tariffs as a central tool of his “America First” agenda, targeting a wide range of imports, particularly from China, to address trade imbalances and protect domestic industries. These measures, while generating $89.1 billion in revenue (Tax Foundation), often resulted in higher costs for U.S. consumers and businesses, with studies showing that firms bore nearly 100% of the tariff burden (Harvard Business Review). Retaliatory tariffs from China further exacerbated economic disruptions, particularly in sectors like agriculture, where soybean exports to China fell by 25% (Brookings Institution). Despite these costs, the tariffs did not significantly boost domestic manufacturing, as many firms shifted supply chains to other low-cost countries.

In contrast, President Biden has maintained many of Trump’s tariffs but adopted a more targeted approach, focusing on strategic sectors such as clean energy, semiconductors, and critical minerals. This strategy aligns with his broader economic agenda, including the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS Act, which aim to bolster domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains (CNN). While Biden’s tariffs have raised costs in specific sectors, such as solar cells and electric vehicles, their inflationary impact has been minimal, increasing overall inflation by only 0.01 percentage points (HuffPost). Additionally, Biden has sought to mitigate trade tensions by coordinating with allies and replacing some tariffs with tariff-rate quotas, fostering a more stable global trade environment (Tax Foundation).

The findings suggest that while Trump’s broad-based tariffs prioritized immediate trade deficit reductions, they often led to unintended economic consequences, including higher consumer prices and strained global trade relations. Biden’s more focused and multilateral approach, coupled with domestic investments, may yield better long-term results in strengthening U.S. industrial capacity and addressing strategic vulnerabilities. Moving forward, policymakers should evaluate the effectiveness of targeted tariffs in achieving economic resilience while minimizing global trade disruptions and inflationary pressures.

References