logo
: America's trade wars: Past and present

: America's trade wars: Past and present

Trade policy has been a contested issue for governments as long as separate governments have existed.
In the modern era, many economists have argued that reducing barriers to international trade, such as tariffs or export restrictions, can benefit all parties. However, national governments often face political tradeoffs between increasing trade and protecting domestic industries.
When such conflicts arise, barriers imposed by one country can lead trade partners to respond with barriers of their own, creating a back-and-forth escalation known as a trade war.
Throughout the Cold War and afterward, the United States was often seen as a champion of free trade and led efforts to establish the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. But like many other countries, the U.S. has periodically engaged in its own trade wars, both recently and historically.
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
(1930)
(1930)
(Chin Soo Park/VOA News)
The early 20th century had seen the U.S. make massive economic strides. But when the Great Depression began in 1929, the Republican-dominated Congress sought to help hard-hit American farmers by using tariffs on imported goods to shield them from foreign competition.
Economists and business leaders opposed the idea, pointing out that the U.S. was already running a trade surplus, exporting more than it imported. Nevertheless, the bill was signed into law by President Herbert Hoover in 1930, taxing nearly 2,000 categories of imports at rates upward of 50% – some of the highest in U.S. history.
The bill's passage drew an immediate outcry from America's largest trading partners, with 10 of them passing retaliatory measures. France imposed heavy charges on American-made automobiles and Canada increased tariffs on many American imports while lowering them for British goods. Countries like Italy and Switzerland also saw calls for boycotting American products altogether.
As the retaliatory measures combined with the ongoing impact of the Great Depression, over the next few years U.S. exports decreased by 66%.
The tariffs were eventually repealed in 1934 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who replaced them with bilateral agreements negotiated directly with individual countries. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act has since been cited as an example of harmful 'beggar-thy-neighbor' trade policy.
U.S.-Japan semiconductor and manufacturing conflict
(1980s)
(1980s)
(Chin Soo Park/VOA News)
After defeating Japan in World War II, the United States guaranteed its defense while encouraging its industrial and economic development as a counterbalance to the spread of communism in Asia.
But the strategy worked too well. Helped by protectionist economic policies and a favorable exchange rate with the U.S. dollar, Japan become a powerhouse in high-end manufacturing exports like automobiles and electronics. By the middle of the 1980s, the U.S. trade imbalance with Japan stood at over $40 billion, or nearly one-third of the total trade deficit, spurring fears of Japanese economic dominance.
Several diplomatic approaches were tried to resolve the trade deficit. Because Japan relied on the U.S. for its defense, it agreed to a voluntary quota on its automobile and steel exports even as the U.S. imposed tariffs on Japanese semiconductors.
Meanwhile, the multilateral Plaza Accord signed in 1985 at the Plaza Hotel in New York City sought to increase U.S. exports by allowing the dollar to depreciate in value against other currencies.
Despite these efforts, the trade deficit with Japan remained high throughout the 1980s. Ultimately, it would be resolved not by trade policy but by broader economic factors, as a Japanese asset bubble in the 1990s resulted in over a decade of economic stagnation.
Banana Wars
(1993-2009)
(1993-2009)
(Chin Soo Park/VOA News)
Over the 20th century, the global banana market became dominated by U.S.-linked companies in Central and South America. However, the EU had carved out favorable quotas for bananas imported from former colonies in the Caribbean.
This led to five Latin American countries and the U.S. filing a complaint in 1993, with the WTO ruling in their favor four years later. Although the EU changed its rules, the action was seen as a largely cosmetic move that did not address key issues.
In response, the U.S. imposed trade sanctions on European products totaling nearly $200 million.
The dispute would drag on for another decade until it was finally resolved in 2009. The EU agreed to lower tariffs on Latin American banana imports, while Caribbean countries continued to receive tariff-free access to the EU market as well as a one-time payment from the EU to offset the costs of increased competition.
U.S.-EU steel tariffs
(2002-2003)
(2002-2003)
(Chin Soo Park/VOA News)
American steelmaking, once responsible for more than half of global production, had been struggling since the 1980s, declining to less than 10% by the early 2000s. In response to industry lobbying, the George W. Bush administration in 2002 imposed 'safeguard' tariffs on imported steel of up to 30%.
The move drew outcry from U.S. trading partners such as South Korea, Russia and the European Union, which immediately drew up proposals for retaliatory tariffs on American chicken, textiles and airlines.
Furthermore, the tariffs raised prices for American industries that bought steel for input materials, leading to an estimated loss of nearly 200,000 jobs in the steel-consuming sector — more than the total employment of the U.S. steel industry. In 2003, the World Trade Organization ruled against the tariffs, and they were repealed shortly after.
U.S.-China trade war
(2018-present)
(2018-present)
(Chin Soo Park/VOA News)
After China opened to world markets and entered the WTO in 2001, it became a manufacturing and export giant, accumulating a trade surplus with the United States.
This has long been a concern for U.S. politicians like President Donald Trump, who accused China of taking advantage of America's open trade policy, stealing intellectual property, and being responsible for job losses in U.S. manufacturing sectors.
During his first presidential term, which began in 2017, Trump imposed wide-ranging tariffs on Chinese goods, including consumer electronics, medical devices and mechanical parts. China retaliated with tariffs targeting U.S. industries, such as automobiles and agriculture, particularly impacting the American soybean industry.
Tensions cooled toward the end of Trump's first term as China agreed to relax ownership rules for companies receiving foreign investment and the Trump administration suspended additional planned tariffs. However, the Biden administration that succeeded Trump did not repeal his initial tariffs and imposed additional trade restrictions, such as export limits and investment bans.
The present day
(Chin Soo Park/VOA News)
The U.S.-China trade war has continued into Trump's second term, with the president announcing a 10% tariff on Chinese goods shortly after taking office. Trump also introduced a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada — America's other largest trading partners – as well as close allies.
Targeting allies with tariffs is not unprecedented, as previous disputes with Japan and the EU show. But the current round of tariffs involves factors beyond trade.
Following discussions with Canadian and Mexican leaders, Trump announced that he would pause implementing the tariffs in exchange for commitments made by both countries on border security and drug enforcement — two key issues for the president's agenda.
As the international free trade consensus unravels, trade policy is becoming a lever with which to pursue broader political objectives.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump vows accountability for those who pursued him in court cases
Trump vows accountability for those who pursued him in court cases

Voice of America

time15-03-2025

  • Voice of America

Trump vows accountability for those who pursued him in court cases

U.S. President Donald Trump promised to seek accountability for those who pursued legal cases against him when he was out of office, speaking Friday at the Justice Department. "Our predecessors turned this Department of Justice into the Department of Injustice. But I stand before you today to declare that those days are over, and they are never going to come back. They're never coming back," Trump said. During his years out of office, the department twice indicted Trump on charges that he illegally stored classified documents at his Florida estate and that he worked to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Both cases were dismissed after Trump won election in November, with the department citing a long-standing policy of not prosecuting a sitting president. "Now, as the chief law enforcement officer in our country, I will insist upon and demand full and complete accountability for the wrongs and abuses that have occurred. The American people have given us a mandate, a mandate like few people thought possible," Trump said. Trump has fired prosecutors who investigated him during the Biden administration and scrutinized thousands of FBI agents who investigated some supporters of the president who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Representative Jamie Raskin, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called Trump's speech a "staggering violation of [the] traditional boundary between independent criminal law enforcement and presidential political power." Speaking outside Justice shortly after Trump spoke, Raskin said, "No other president in American history has stood at the Department of Justice to proclaim an agenda of criminal prosecution and retaliation against his political foes." Trump has long been critical of both the department and the FBI. He has installed political allies into top leadership positions at both of those agencies. FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi attended Friday's talk. In introducing Trump, Bondi said, "We all work for the greatest president in the history of our country. ... He will never stop fighting for us, and we will never stop fighting for him and for our country." During his speech, Trump promised "historic reforms" at the agencies and said, "Under the Trump administration, the DOJ and the FBI will once again become the premier crime fighting agencies on the face of the Earth." His speech had echos of his campaign rallies, with music blaring from speakers before Trump entered the department's Great Hall and his address hitting on some of the main themes from his campaign, including border security and fighting violent crime. On crime, Trump said that homicides, property crime and robberies rose during the Biden administration. "I have no higher mission as president of the United States than to end this killing and stop this law breaking and to making America safe again. And that's what you're all about in this room. We want to protect Americans, and we protect everybody that's in our country," he said.

Russian foreign minister exaggerates Russia-China relations, ignores nuances
Russian foreign minister exaggerates Russia-China relations, ignores nuances

Voice of America

time15-03-2025

  • Voice of America

Russian foreign minister exaggerates Russia-China relations, ignores nuances

On March 12, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke with American bloggers Mario Nawfal, Larry C. Johnson and Andrew Napolitano in Moscow. When asked whether the U.S. administration's efforts to normalize relations with Moscow are just to use Russia "cynically against the Chinese," Lavrov rejected such possibility. He described Russia-China relations as long-term, stronger and more confidential, based in deep trust and mutual understanding, and he emphasized widespread public support in both countries. That is misleading. The claim overlooks the underlying complexities and skepticism in the Russia-China relationship. Underlying tensions: Despite the appearance of a strong partnership, ongoing tensions underlie the relationship. This includes skepticism on both sides, especially about economic stability, military strength and the extent of mutual trust. Economic imbalance: China has become a dominant economic partner for Russia, but many Russians are concerned about China's increasing influence and the lack of substantial Chinese investment in Russia. Military relations: Unlike the strong military alignment seen in the Sino-Soviet alliance of 1950, today's cooperation is not as deeply integrated, particularly in military terms. China has not provided direct military aid to Russia in the Ukraine conflict, which would have been expected in a deeply allied relationship. Public sentiment: There is skepticism about the partnership in both Russia and China. Russian citizens are not entirely supportive of Chinese products or investments, and many Chinese question the long-term economic and military viability of Russia. Historical context Sino-Soviet Alliance (1950s): This period marked a high point of cooperation, with the Soviet Union providing substantial economic, technological and military support to China. Yet, the alliance ended with the Sino-Soviet split by the late 1950s. This contradicts Lavrov's characterization that current relations are unprecedented in their depth. Strategic Partnership (1996-2014): The strategic partnership strengthened after the Cold War, especially under Vladimir Putin and Jiang Zemin. However, China still balanced its relations with the West, highlighting that the partnership was pragmatic, not based purely on mutual trust. Anti-Western Alignment (2014-2025): The relations have become closer since Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the Ukraine invasion. China has been providing crucial economic support. Beijing, however, avoids direct military aid to evade Western sanctions and maintains neutrality. This signals that the cooperation is based on shared opposition to the West, not genuine trust or an alliance akin to that of the 1950s. Current economic dependence Moscow is now heavily dependent on Beijing: China has become Russia's largest trading partner, and Russia plays a key role in supplying China with oil and gas. The economic relationship has its imbalances, however. China's total investments in Russia remain relatively low compared with its global investments. China still prioritizes its global economic ties, while Russia has become increasingly dependent on Beijing. Vedomosti, Russia's leading business daily, reported that China rarely invests directly in Russia, noting that while Russia seeks high-tech investments, China prioritizes mining, real estate, and banking. Since 2023, China has been Russia's largest trading partner, whereas Russia ranks only sixth among China's top trade partners. Skepticism in both countries Russians question Chinese investment and the long-term benefits, while many Chinese doubt Russia's economic resilience and military strength. In February 2025, FilterLabs released the results of research that used its Talisman data tool to analyze Chinese and Russian news and social media. Talisman's analysis reveals deep skepticism about Russia among Chinese social media users, many of whom question whether Russia's economy is truly as resilient as Moscow claims, whether its military strength matches its rhetoric, and what its long-term intentions are. These doubts suggest that despite official narratives of strong ties, public confidence in Russia within China is far from unanimous. The research also shows that online sentiments in Russia toward economic cooperation with China are more negative than official narratives suggest. International sanctions have pushed many Western products out of Russia, allowing Chinese goods to fill the gap in sectors such as automobiles and technology. While their market share grows due to affordability and geopolitical shifts, many Russians remain skeptical and dissatisfied with Chinese products, FilterLabs reported. In both countries, social media discussions are consistently less positive than mainstream press coverage, which itself was not uniformly supportive, revealing underlying skepticism about the partnership. "Their partnership is vulnerable," FilterLabs founder Jonathan Teubner told VOA. Conclusion While Lavrov's statement reflects an official narrative of a strong and enduring partnership, the truth is more nuanced. Relations are indeed closer than at any point since the 1950s, but they are shaped more by pragmatism, economic necessity and shared opposition to Western influence than by deep trust or historical affinity. In both countries, public opinion reveals skepticism, and the economic and military cooperation, while growing, is not without concerns.

US government shutdown likely averted; Democrats fracture
US government shutdown likely averted; Democrats fracture

Voice of America

time14-03-2025

  • Voice of America

US government shutdown likely averted; Democrats fracture

The U.S. Senate is set to pass a stopgap spending bill Friday that would avert a partial government shutdown, although many Democrats are expressing anger over plans by their party's leadership to support the measure. The measure cleared its first Senate hurdle early Friday evening, 62-38. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the bill earlier this week to meet a March 14 deadline to keep the government running. Senate Democrats have fractured over whether to support the short-term continuing resolution (CR) that would fund the government for the next six months, reduce total government spending by about $7 billion from last year's levels and shift money to the military and away from non-defense spending. Much of the party's anger Friday was directed at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer who announced Thursday night that while he disliked the bill, a shutdown was a "far worse option." Speaking on the Senate floor Friday morning, Schumer said not passing the Republican funding bill would give more power to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) effort led by Elon Musk, including which agencies would be shut down. "A shutdown would allow DOGE to shift into overdrive," he said. Dozens of House Democrats, who opposed the funding measure in the lower chamber, sent a letter to Schumer on Friday, expressing their "strong opposition" to his plan to vote for the bill. Former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Senate Democrats to go against their leader. In a Friday statement, she wrote, "America has experienced a Trump shutdown before — but this damaging legislation only makes matters worse." Trump has called on Congress to pass the funding bill and on Friday praised Schumer for supporting it. "Congratulations to Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing — Took 'guts' and courage!" he wrote on his Truth Social platform. Appropriations bills require a 60-vote threshold for passage in the Senate, which means Republicans need to secure at least eight Democratic votes. Schumer previously called for the Senate to pass an earlier version of the CR that Democrats were involved in negotiating. "Funding the government should be a bipartisan effort. But Republicans chose a partisan path, drafting their continuing resolution without any input, any input, from congressional Democrats," Schumer said on the Senate floor late Wednesday. The House passed the short-term spending measure Tuesday by a vote of 217-213. One Democrat voted for the bill and one Republican against it. The chamber went out of session for the rest of the week starting Tuesday afternoon, putting pressure on senators to pass its version of the CR. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson quelled dissent from within his Republican Party to pass the spending measure. He told reporters Tuesday the seven-month continuing resolution was an important step toward implementing Trump's agenda of rooting out government waste and abuse through DOGE. "It allows us to move forward with changing the size and scope of the federal government. There is a seismic shift going on in Washington right now. This is a different moment than we have ever been in. The DOGE work is finding massive amounts of fraud, waste and abuse," Johnson said. "We have a White House that is actually dedicated to getting us back onto a fiscally responsible track." Independent watchdogs and analysts, however, say DOGE is using overly broad claims of fraud to generate support for large-scale cuts to federal programs and offices. Representative Thomas Massie was the lone Republican holdout, despite Trump's post Monday night on Truth Social calling for Massie to lose his seat if he voted against the spending measure. The continuing resolution buys lawmakers time to reach a compromise on Senate and House versions of government spending for the next fiscal year, which begins in October, a key tool for implementing Trump's domestic policy agenda. At question is how and when to enact a proposed extension of the 2017 tax cuts and how to pay down the U.S. deficit without cutting key safety net programs that help American voters.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store