President Trump’s trade agenda is the most ambitious and transformative in modern history. By implementing a universal 10 percent tariff, employing higher tariffs to protect sectors critical for national security, and imposing steep, targeted tariffs on China, he has reset the foundation of US trade policy toward reshoring American industrial capacity.
But there is still much work to be done to ensure the United States truly reindustrializes and delivers lasting prosperity for American workers. Rather than rely on reciprocal tariffs, the administration should seek to protect crucial industries through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which empowers the president to impose tariffs or otherwise adjust imports if an investigation by the Department of Commerce finds that these imports threaten national security. Utilizing Section 232 to strategically reshore critical industries is fundamental to the president’s economic and national-security agenda, particularly because 232 tariffs—imposed on national-security grounds—cannot be negotiated away as part of traditional trade agreements.
The Trump administration has already launched a comprehensive Section 232 strategy, initiating investigations into steel and aluminum, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, copper, timber and lumber, medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and critical minerals, all vital to ensuring America's long-term security and economic independence. But these efforts have received less attention than the announcement of reciprocal tariffs.
“The idea that reciprocal tariffs will yield true reciprocity is naïve.”
This is unfortunate. The idea that reciprocal tariffs will yield true reciprocity is naïve and historically unsupported. Reciprocal tariffs lack permanence, are vulnerable to political manipulation, and ultimately enable foreign countries to keep out American goods while flooding our market with theirs. Worse, they tie US trade policy to foreign countries’ actions, when what we need is sovereign control over our own economic future.
Last year, the United States amassed an alarming $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit. The rising US trade deficit is the direct result of competing against nations that heavily subsidize their industries, exploit cheap labor, and erect numerous non-tariff barriers to American exports. In 2024, we ran a staggering $295 billion goods trade deficit with China, powered by Beijing’s state-backed economic model, which includes massive subsidies, currency manipulation, and industrial espionage. These aren’t the actions of a trading partner—they’re the tactics of a strategic adversary.
When the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Chinese solar panels in 2018, Chinese companies simply rerouted their exports through third countries like Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. By 2022, the Department of Commerce confirmed that China was evading tariffs by laundering solar components through these nations. This kind of transshipment isn’t a bug in the system—it’s a central feature of Beijing’s strategy. Just last month, the Commerce Department’s final determination in its solar case found that China is once again guilty of systematically violating US trade laws.
Today, countries like Vietnam and Mexico are staging grounds for Chinese products seeking tariff-free entry into America. Vietnam, in particular, has positioned itself as the beneficiary of Chinese supply chains looking to avoid US scrutiny. Just last month, China and Vietnam signed 45 economic agreements to strengthen ties between the two countries. Meanwhile, Mexico’s membership in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) allows Chinese products to enter US markets duty-free—undermining both American manufacturers and the intent of US trade policy.
If America is serious about confronting China, then President Trump must use trade negotiations not as one-off deals, but as leverage to force our trading partners to choose a side. Nations that want access to America’s enormous consumer market must demonstrate that they are not going to absorb China’s overcapacity, be transshipment hubs for Chinese goods, and will not be staging grounds for Chinese industry to receive preferential access to the US market. That means aggressive enforcement of Section 232 tariffs, the imposition of country-specific quotas in strategic sectors like pharmaceuticals and steel, and a refusal to tolerate transshipment schemes dressed up as “reciprocal trade.”
Equally important, Trump must resist the temptation to view exports as the primary metric of success. For too long, US trade policy has focused on gaining market access abroad—when in fact, the path to real prosperity lies in rebuilding at home. In 2024, US exports represented only 11 percent of GDP. By contrast, domestic consumption made up nearly 70 percent. The US economy is driven by the American consumer, and our trade policy must reflect that reality.
Section 232 actions must be prioritized above any potential trade agreement because they remain the most strategic tool we have to reshore critical industries. Unlike trade deals that often come loaded with vague promises of “export opportunities” that rarely materialize, 232s offer direct, enforceable protections for American producers. We should not sacrifice the chance to rebuild US industrial capacity in exchange for another trade pact negotiated around the idea that other countries will suddenly open their markets. If the choice is between a 232 that delivers domestic production or a deal that might deliver theoretical exports, the decision should be easy—bet on America.
Building industrial capacity to serve the US domestic market is the surest way to restore economic strength. It’s how we rebuild the steel industry, revitalize the heartland, and create millions of good-paying jobs. Exports may supplement growth, but they will never be the foundation of American prosperity.
President Trump’s first 100 days have made his intentions clear: rebuild American industry, contain China’s economic predation, and prioritize the American worker. The job is just beginning. Now is the time to build on the 10 percent tariff, expand strategic protections in key sectors, and reject the false promises of reciprocity and export-led growth.