Former President Trump's recent tariff theatrics might just be the most predictable show in politics right now. According to Morning Joe's Steve Rattner, Trump is flat-out "desperate" to show some—any—concrete wins on his tariff agenda before voters head to the polls in November.
And honestly? I get it.
When your entire political brand is built on being the guy who Gets Things Done, you need to, well... get things done. Or at least create the convincing appearance that you are.
Trump's been beating the tariff drum since he first rode down that golden escalator in 2015. Tariffs were going to save manufacturing. Punish China. Make America wealthy again. The whole economic enchilada.
There's just one teensy problem: reality.
Look, I've covered economic policy for years, and if there's one thing economists across the political spectrum generally agree on, it's this—tariffs are taxes. Period. When Trump slapped that 25% tariff on Chinese goods during his administration, it wasn't President Xi reaching for his wallet. It was American consumers and businesses footing the bill.
(The data isn't particularly ambiguous on this point. Studies from the Federal Reserve, University of Chicago, and others consistently found that nearly all costs of the 2018-2020 tariff experiment landed squarely on American shoulders.)
But here's where it gets interesting...
The political math and economic math don't add up the same way. Tariffs feel like action. They sound tough. They create the impression someone's fighting for American jobs, even when the actual result is often just higher prices at Target and Home Depot.
I call this the "Visible Hand Fallacy"—this stubborn belief that dramatic government interventions in complex systems like global trade will somehow produce simple, predictable outcomes that can be claimed as political victories.
Global trade isn't simple. It's a tangled web of suppliers, manufacturers, shippers, and retailers that's evolved over decades. Hitting it with across-the-board tariffs is like trying to fix a Swiss watch with a sledgehammer while yelling at the gears.
Have you noticed how Trump's tariff talk has evolved, though? We've gone from "trade wars are good and easy to win" to increasingly specific promises about which countries and products will be targeted. The messaging is narrowing, which suggests even Team Trump recognizes the collateral damage of broad tariff policies.
The desperation Rattner identifies tells us something crucial about campaign promises. Trump needs—desperately needs—something concrete to point to, some evidence his signature economic policy actually delivers.
It's particularly absurd because we've already run this experiment! The Trump administration imposed significant tariffs during its four years. The results?
The trade deficit with China shrank temporarily, then roared back to record highs. Manufacturing employment saw modest gains that COVID later wiped out. Consumer prices for tariffed goods went up.
Not exactly a slam-dunk success story.
I spoke with several economists after those first rounds of tariffs who confirmed what many suspected—that the gap between what works politically and what works economically can be Grand Canyon-wide. Policies that produce flashy headlines don't necessarily produce flashy outcomes, and sometimes the reverse is true.
As we barrel toward November, the tariff rhetoric will almost certainly intensify. The desperation to demonstrate "wins" will likely produce more dramatic pronouncements and perhaps even some hasty policy actions.
Just remember, in this particular political theater... it's the audience that picks up the tab.
