The speed and scope of the import duties that President Trump unveiled in executive orders prompted widespread criticism from many lawmakers, economists and business groups. Photo / Haiyun Jiang, The New York Times
The invoking of national security to unravel trade agreements could scramble the international trading system in China’s favour.
President Donald Trump’s move this weekend to slap sweeping tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China is threatening to fracture the global trading system and a world economic order that once revolved around a US economy that prized open investment and free markets.
The speed and scope of the import duties that Trump unveiled in executive orders Saturday prompted widespread criticism from many lawmakers, economists and business groups, who assailed the actions as economic malpractice. They warned that the tariffs, which were levied in response to Trump’s concerns about fentanyl smuggling and illegal immigration, could inflame inflation, cripple American industries and make China an even more powerful global trade hub.
Trump on Sunday defended the tariffs while acknowledging that there could be some negative consequences.
“WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!),” he wrote on social media.
The executive orders mean that at 12.01am Tuesday, all goods imported from Canada and Mexico will be subject to a 25% tariff, except Canadian energy products, which will face a 10% tariff. All Chinese goods will also face a 10% tariff.
Canada and Mexico have vowed to retaliate swiftly with tariffs of their own, and China said it would pursue unspecified “countermeasures” to safeguard its interests.
Speaking on NewsNation on Sunday, Trump’s senior trade adviser, Peter Navarro, said it was unlikely that the tariffs would be stopped at the last minute.
“The magnitude of this particular problem is huge,” Navarro said, pointing to drugs entering the United States and killing Americans. “It’s time to stop the carnage.”
Although Trump’s tariffs were clearly telegraphed for months, they were broader than many analysts expected. The President’s top economic aides, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, have defended the use of tariffs, but have suggested that they would be used as a tool for negotiations or that they should be phased in gradually to allow businesses time to adjust.
“The tariff gun will always be loaded and on the table but rarely discharged,” Bessent wrote in a letter to partners of his hedge fund Key Square Group last year.
But Trump did not hesitate to use tariffs as a weapon against America’s largest trading partners, imposing levies that will hit everything from auto parts to avocados.
Economists said the pain of an escalating trade war could come in the form of slower economic growth and higher prices.
“The resulting surge in US inflation from these tariffs and other future measures is going to come even faster and be larger than we initially expected,” said Paul Ashworth, the senior economist for North America at Capital Economics.
Trump is using a rarely deployed national security law, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to legally justify imposing tariffs on countries that have trade agreements with the United States.
During his first term, Trump pushed for a rewrite of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he had criticised as the “worst” trade deal ever, and ultimately signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. He also reached a trade deal with China that required Beijing to purchase a certain level of products from the United States. Those promises have not been met.
Trump’s legal rationale for the tariffs is likely to be challenged in US courts. It could also dissuade other countries from negotiating trade pacts with the United States out of fear that the President could arbitrarily scrap them by using emergency powers.
“If the President can with the stroke of a pen and for no good reason completely upend a North American supply chain that has been in place for more than 30 years, why would a foreign government be willing to expend all the political capital needed to enter into a trade agreement?” said Scott Lincicome, vice-president for economics and trade at the Cato Institute, which supports free trade.
Lincicome added that the cloud of uncertainty that the United States was casting over international commerce only stood to benefit China, which Republicans and Democrats largely view as an economic adversary.
Trump has threatened to impose a universal tariff on all imports, with additional levies on the European Union. Those moves could encourage more countries to deepen economic ties with China. While the tariffs could sting China’s already soft economy, the disruption to US supply chains and Trump’s plans to back away from investments in clean energy and electric vehicles could ultimately benefit the world’s second-largest economy.
“Beijing has long looked for ways to drive wedges between the United States and its allies, and tariffs on America’s closest partners make this much easier,” said Jonas Nahm, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a former industrial policy economist in the Biden administration.
Congress, in theory, could try to take action to override the tariffs, but there does not appear to be the political will for such an effort.
Democrats, who also tend to embrace protectionist trade measures, criticised Trump’s actions as reckless but have little influence because they are in the minority in Congress. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said that “it would be nice if Donald Trump could start focusing on getting the prices down instead of making them go up”.
Most Republican lawmakers, who traditionally have deep concerns about tariffs, were silent or appeared to fall in line with Trump. Among the few dissenters was Senator Rand Paul, R-Kentucky.
“Conservatives once united against new taxes,” Paul wrote on social media. “Taxing trade will mean less trade and higher prices.”
Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, who represents a district won by Kamala Harris last year and remains one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the House, also voiced scepticism of the policy. He said he was confused about using tariffs to negotiate a better trade deal with Canada.
“We already had a trade agreement and it was a good trade agreement,” he said on CNN. “It’s hard for me to square that circle. We’ll see what the impacts are over the next couple of weeks, maybe it’s a chance to maybe rethink we’re at that point.”
Bacon did not criticise Trump outright, but he tried to offer some carefully worded advice. “I would suggest focusing on China and Russia,” he said.
The pushback from major industry groups that have been bracing for the tariffs has been less restrained. US spirits, cars and farm products are all ripe targets for retaliation from Canada, Mexico and China, and retaliatory tariffs could deal a blow to the US economy.
Big lobbying groups urged the Trump administration to consider other ways to address border and fentanyl concerns and warned that tariffs would only harm American workers and businesses.
“Ultimately, manufacturers will bear the brunt of these tariffs, undermining our ability to sell our products at a competitive price and putting American jobs at risk,” said Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers.
Representatives for agricultural interests, which were among the hardest hit during the trade wars in Trump’s first term, warned Sunday that Trump had put the sector in a “tough spot”.
“Farm and ranch families answer the call to feed America’s families and the world, and the tariffs and promised retaliation will put further stress on their livelihoods,” said Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Alan Rappeport
Photographs by: Haiyun Jiang and Anna Moneymaker
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Starship, at 123m tall, is key to the billionaire's Mars colonisation plans.