Trump’s latest tariff tantrum unlikely to end well for the US

Lead

As the White House pivots from an unpopular military campaign in Iran to a renewed tariff offensive, historical parallels and current analyses suggest the trade wars may not deliver the promised economic revival. With tariffs imposed on Brazil and dozens of other countries, experts question whether the strategy will achieve its goals or further strain global alliances.

Coverage comparison

The South China Morning Post has published two analyses of President Donald Trump’s trade policy, each approaching the subject from a different angle. One piece focuses on the immediate political context, framing the tariff push as a potential distraction from the ongoing conflict in Iran. The other offers a historical perspective, comparing the current measures to earlier protectionist eras in American history.

Despite their differing emphases, both articles share a critical tone toward the administration’s trade agenda. The first describes the Iran conflict as "ineffectual, expensive and inconclusive," while the second suggests the tariffs have "reverberated" through the international economic order, reversing decades of open-market policies and penalising allies.

Key claims

The Iran factor The first article reports that Trump devoted the first half of 2026 to a military campaign in Iran that has been costly and inconclusive. The conflict remains unpopular, even among his base, and the White House appears to be shifting focus to tariff policy in the run-up to the November midterm elections. The article suggests the administration may be hoping trade wars will distract from the war’s inflationary effects and protect Republican candidates’ chances.

Tariffs on Brazil Just over a week before the article’s publication, Trump imposed 25 percent tariffs on imports from Brazil. The move followed a year-long probe under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act into what the administration deemed unacceptable unfair trade practices.

Section 301 tariffs on 60 countries On the heels of the Brazil tariffs, the US imposed a wave of Section 301 tariffs ranging from 10 to 12.5 percent on 60 countries, including China, Japan, South Korea, India, and European Union member states. These tariffs were justified as a response to investigations into forced labor practices.

Historical precedents The second article draws parallels between Trump’s trade policy and earlier protectionist measures. It notes that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, signed by President Herbert Hoover in June 1930, targeted more than 20,000 imported goods despite warnings from over 1,000 economists. It also recalls the Tariff Act of 1789, often called the "Alexander Hamilton tariff," which was the first major piece of legislation passed after the US Constitution was adopted. Trump himself cited these historical precedents when justifying his "Liberation Day" tariffs.

Critics’ response While the White House argues that its trade policy revives an economic agenda that fueled American growth for much of the country’s history, historians and trade analysts disagree. According to the second article, these analysts contend that the tariffs imposed in Trump’s second term have more far-reaching consequences than earlier measures—reversing decades of open-market policies, penalising allies, and falling short of the administration’s own promises, even as it moves to establish a more permanent tariff authority.