Why Harris and Trump Are Both Wrong About Tariffs and Protectionism

As Kamala Harris and Donald Trump prepare for the 2024 presidential election, their visions for the future of the United States stand in stark contrast on many issues. From social topics like abortion to differing tax policies, the two candidates offer wildly opposing perspectives. This division extends to foreign policy, particularly in relation to America’s longstanding alliance with Europe. Yet, one surprising area of common ground between the two is protectionism—a stance that has gained bipartisan traction in recent years.

Trump’s proposal involves sweeping tariffs of 10–20 percent on most goods, while Harris, though more critical of across-the-board tariffs, has shown support for "targeted and strategic" tariffs. These policies reflect the broader trend in U.S. politics, where protectionism has become increasingly popular, despite being a departure from previous free-trade principles. Both Trump and Harris echo the belief that restricting foreign competition will boost American industries and revitalize jobs lost in manufacturing sectors.

However, recent data challenges the assumption that protectionism can effectively bring back American manufacturing jobs. The U.S. manufacturing sector, particularly in low-skill industries, suffered significantly from competition with China beginning in the 1990s. Research indicates that between 1991 and 2011, around 1.5 million jobs were lost due to the influx of Chinese imports. These losses led to spikes in poverty, addiction, and social instability in regions heavily reliant on manufacturing, ultimately pushing many voters toward Trump in the 2016 election.

Yet, the so-called “China shock” ended long before the introduction of tariffs. Between 2011 and 2018, the share of U.S. manufacturing jobs remained constant, even as imports from China continued to rise. The tariffs imposed during Trump’s presidency did little to increase employment in the sector, and the Biden administration has largely maintained these tariffs, despite a shift toward multilateralism. In short, protectionism has not delivered on its promises, and the data shows that import competition from China no longer drives job losses in U.S. manufacturing.

Instead, research suggests that trade with emerging economies such as Brazil, India, and Vietnam has positively contributed to U.S. manufacturing employment. Between 2011 and 2019, imports from these economies helped create nearly 500,000 jobs in the United States. The largest and most productive American manufacturers rely on global supply chains, using imported components to produce complex goods. Affordable imports enable these companies to expand production and hire more workers, highlighting the potential benefits of global trade.

Despite this, the protectionist approach continues to dominate U.S. economic policy discussions. Harris and Trump, along with current President Joe Biden, argue that tariffs protect national security and foster economic growth. However, imposing tariffs not only risks retaliation from trade partners but also distracts from the U.S. economy’s strengths. The American services sector, which includes industries such as software, engineering, and research and development, employs twice as many workers as manufacturing and often pays higher wages. By focusing on lowering barriers to trade in services, policymakers could tap into this sector’s potential for job creation and global leadership.

Moreover, the narrative that tariffs are essential for national security is flawed. While concerns about dependence on Chinese imports are valid, sweeping tariffs are blunt instruments that could backfire. Instead, Washington should focus on specific policies that address security risks in supply chains without undermining economic growth. Protectionism, particularly in the form of broad tariffs, could destabilize global trade relationships, fostering conflict rather than promoting security.

The broader issue is not globalization itself but the unequal distribution of its benefits within the United States. The rewards of trade and economic growth have disproportionately flowed to the wealthy, leaving many workers behind. Addressing this imbalance should be a priority for both parties. Investments in workforce training, vocational programs, and skills development, like those found in the CHIPS and Science Act, can help equip non-college-educated workers to succeed in the global economy. The Act’s focus on community colleges and technical training offers a path forward for creating a more resilient and adaptable workforce.

Ultimately, the solution lies in fostering economic interdependence and equipping workers with the skills they need to compete globally, rather than retreating into protectionism. Tariffs may offer temporary relief for struggling industries, but long-term success depends on policies that enhance workforce skills and global competitiveness.