logo
How Trump's trade war could put John Thune in a very uncomfortable spot

How Trump's trade war could put John Thune in a very uncomfortable spot

Politico31-01-2025

No congressional leader is more at risk of getting caught in the crossfire of Donald Trump's coming trade wars than Senate Majority Leader John Thune.
Trump said Thursday he's ready to slap sweeping 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico as soon as Saturday, which will force the South Dakota Republican to decide whether he will use his leadership perch to push back on a tactic that has given him and other agriculture-state GOP lawmakers heartburn or align himself with a burgeoning bloc of MAGA-tinged protectionists in Congress.
Thune knows the stakes all too well: Retaliatory tariffs during Trump's 2018 trade war with China crippled South Dakota's agriculture-dependent economy — which relies on the billions of dollars worth of soybeans, corn, beef and other agricultural products it exports abroad every year, plus more in manufactured goods.
Farmers there are still reeling from their losses, and a standoff with Mexico and Canada — which are now American farmers' two largest export markets — would be devastating. U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico are expected to reach $29.9 billion this fiscal year and a record-high $29.2 billion to Canada, with China further behind, according to the Agriculture Department.
Other farm-state lawmakers and the agriculture industry are quietly counting on Thune to push back against Trump charging into another wave of catastrophic trade wars. But that's a tall order.
Thune, in keeping with his typically even-keeled approach to conflict, said in a brief interview that tariffs could be an 'effective tool' when used in a 'targeted and a selective way.' He also made reference to the ongoing debate within his party about the blanket levies that Trump has proposed.
'Obviously the president is somebody who sees great value in the use of tariffs as a tool and we'll have, I'm sure, lots of conversations,' he said. 'People up here have different views about how and when to use them but I see value when they are used in a targeted way.'
The president's new trade threats are the latest test Trump has thrown at Thune during his early weeks as top GOP leader. The two men have significantly improved their relationship over the past year, with Trump publicly and privately praising Thune — a far cry from the final days of 2020 when he was actively declaring Thune's 'political career over.'
But Trump is also pressuring Thune to more quickly confirm Cabinet nominees — using recess appointments, if necessary. And Trump undercut Thune's plans to split up the GOP's sweeping tax, border and energy package by instead backing Speaker Mike Johnson's plan for 'one big, beautiful bill' — then leaving the door open to two.
Fellow GOP senators say Thune appears to be playing ball with the White House so far and hasn't laid out any larger internal strategy on tariffs that would indicate a tip-of-the-spear approach to opposing Trump on sweeping levies. And he's been careful not to draw any hard red lines publicly, even as he works behind the scenes.
The strategy appears to be part of a careful approach that Thune has adopted on a range of issues: Be careful not to publicly criticize the president, which would likely only antagonize him, or overpromise what can get through the Senate. Instead, communicate quietly and frankly with the administration about what he and other Republicans can tolerate.
This past weekend, after Trump threatened Colombia with steep tariffs over blocked deportation flights Sunday, a bevy of congressional Republicans scrambled to provide backup.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) and three other GOP lawmakers rushed to write legislation doubling down on Trump's actions. 'Colombia and all nations should be on notice,' Johnson added in an X post.
But Thune said nothing publicly until a POLITICO reporter asked him about the situation a day later.
Trump is eager to threaten economic warfare as he tries to force concessions from Canada and Mexico — he cited drug trafficking and trade deficits in his comments Thursday. But even the risk of new levies can come at a cost to American farmers, as ag-state lawmakers know well.
'Most of us aren't, just as a matter of personality, tariff guys,' said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who added that he did not see Congress standing in Trump's way.
'We have seen how successful he's been with using them as a negotiating tool,' he said, adding that Trump 'wants to invoke the tariffs at least for a little while. He's not in an incremental mood right now.'
In the past, business-friendly Republicans on Capitol Hill have been leery of leveraging tariffs in non-trade disputes with foreign countries. But members of Thune's leadership team — including Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) — backed Trump's tariff threat against Colombia over illegal immigration.
'I think the president has a strategy, and it's working,' Capito said about the Colombia threat.
But for Thune and other ag-state Republicans, targeting Canada and Mexico is magnitudes more sensitive. Even Johnson, while vowing that there would be ' no daylight ' between Congress and Trump over his tariff threats over immigration, predicted that Trump won't levy tariffs across 'whole countries or whole industries.'
Thune has hinted at his own personal discomfort, telling reporters in the Capitol recently that he's 'not a big fan of, you know, across-the-board, universal, uniform tariffs, because in some cases, you know, the impact it has on the ag economy, which is critical to our state.'
Thune's comments are similar to those he made in an interview with POLITICO last year, where he noted that he 'pushed back' when broad tariffs were proposed during Trump's first term and vowed that if in the future 'it's a sort of uniform, across-the-board, just tariffs on everything — then yeah, we're going to have some serious conversations about that.'
But some congressional Republicans also acknowledge there is little they can do to stand in Trump's way, given the broad presidential authority over global trade. It's up to the negotiating countries, not Congress, to step in and work out a solution, they argue.
Several GOP lawmakers are even already privately drafting legislation to help Trump formally enact levies against Canada and Mexico, which could put additional pressure on Thune — even if the bills are just MAGA-aligned messaging tactics.
Farm-state Republicans, meanwhile, have been quietly bracing for weeks now for Trump to follow through on his trade threats on Canada and Mexico in the coming days — and potentially make some new ones.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Treasury Yields Rise on Stable Employment Ahead of CPI
Treasury Yields Rise on Stable Employment Ahead of CPI

Wall Street Journal

time19 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Treasury Yields Rise on Stable Employment Ahead of CPI

1600 ET – U.S. job creation slows less than expected, reducing odds of a dovish Fed. Bond markets react with a selloff that boosts yields. May's job creation slows less than forecast and unemployment remains at 4.2%. CME data show diminishing odds of a rate cut before September. Two or more cuts this year still represent the highest odds, but bets on only one or no cut rise. Wells Fargo foresees May's 12-month core CPI, due Wednesday, accelerating to 3.3% from April's 2.8%. The 10-year gains 0.089 percentage point this week, including 0.155 p.p. today, to 4.507%. The two-year rises 0.125 p.p. in the week and 0.115 p.p. today, to 4.039%. ( @ptrevisani) 0846 ET – U.S. job creation didn't slow as much as expected in May, spurring a bonds selloff that takes Treasury yields higher. May payrolls slowed to 139,000 from a downwardly revised 147,000. Economists surveyed by WSJ forecast 125,000. Unemployment was unchanged at 4.2%, as expected. The data likely supports expectations of a Fed hold. Yields were already rising ahead of payrolls, as markets watched the Trump-Musk break up. They rose faster after the data, particularly in longer maturities. The 10-year trades at 4.452%% and the two-year at 3.985%. ( @ptrevisani)

4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts
4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts

USA Today

time23 minutes ago

  • USA Today

4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts

4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts Show Caption Hide Caption Biden criticizes Trump administration's handling of Social Security Social Security overhaul sparks criticism from Biden over service disruptions, layoffs and automation as Trump defends changes as efficiency. Straight Arrow News Social Security is an important source of income for millions of Americans, but the program has a serious financial problem. Costs have increased faster than revenues in recent years because the aging population is growing more quickly than the working population. As a result, the trust fund, the financial account that pays benefits, is on track to be depleted within a decade. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the trust fund will be exhausted in 2034. That would eliminate one source of revenue (i.e., interest earned on trust fund reserves), and the remaining tax revenues would only cover 77% of scheduled payments. That means a 23% benefit cut would be necessary in 2035. Fortunately, the lawmakers in Washington have several years to find a better solution. Here are four Social Security changes that could prevent deep, across-the-board benefit cuts. 1. Apply the Social Security payroll tax to income above $400,000 Social Security is primarily funded by a dedicated payroll tax, which takes 6.2% of wages from workers and employers. But some income is exempt from the payroll tax. Specifically, the maximum taxable earnings limit is $176,100 in 2025. Income above that threshold is not taxed by Social Security. Importantly, the Social Security program is projected to run a $23 trillion deficit over the next 75 years as it's strained by shifting demographics. But the deficit could be slashed by applying the payroll tax to more income. For instance, including income above $400,000 would eliminate 60% of the 75-year funding shortfall, says the University of Maryland. 2. Gradually increase the Social Security payroll tax rate to 6.5% over six years Under current law, the Social Security payroll tax rate is 6.2% for workers and their employers. But gradually raising that figure would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit. For example, increasing thetax rate by 0.05% annually over a six-year period would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. Now that I've discussed two possible changes, let's step back and look at the big picture. There are basically three ways to resolve Social Security's financial problems: (1) increase revenue, (2) reduce costs or (3) some combination of the first two options. The changes discussed so far would increase revenue, but the next two changes would cut benefits. However, they are more subtle cuts than the 23% across-the-board reduction that would follow trust fund depletion. 3. Gradually increase full retirement age to 68 by 2033 Workers are eligible for retirement benefits at age 62, but they are not entitled to their full benefit — also called the primary insurance amount (PIA) — until full retirement age (FRA). Anyone that claims before full retirement age receives a smaller payout, meaning they get less than 100% of their PIA. FRA is currently defined as 67 years old for workers born in 1960 or later, but raising the figure would reduce the long-term deficit. For instance, increasing FRA to 68 years old by 2033, meaning it would apply to workers born in 1965 or later, would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. 4. Reduce benefits for retired workers with income in the top 20% Social Security benefits are determined as percentages of two bend points. Specifically, income from the 35 highest-paid years of work is adjusted for inflation and converted to a monthly figure called the average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) amount. The AIME is then run through a formula that uses two bend points to determine the PIA for each worker. Modifying the second (highest) bend point would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit by reducing benefits for high earners. For instance, the University of Maryland estimates that reducing benefits for individuals with income in the top 20% could reduce the 75-year funding deficit by 11%. Here's the big picture: The four changes I've discussed would eliminate 101% of Social Security's $23 trillion funding shortfall, which would prevent across-the-board benefit cuts in 2035. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »

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