President Donald Trump has long held a belief in tariffs as a way to level the economic playing field between nations, many of whom — in Trump’s calculus — are “ripping off” America.
When it comes to using tariffs against powerful economic adversaries like China — to reverse the free-trade-induced “China Shock” of the 21st century — many economists, liberal and conservative, agree that tariffs have value in resetting artificially created trade imbalances.
OREN CASS: Every AI chip we sell to China speeds them up and slows us down.
We don’t need “deals” with adversaries.
We need a hard cutoff and a government that puts America’s future over Nvidia’s profits.@oren_cass pic.twitter.com/zFF41zP0E8
— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) July 28, 2025
(That’s even if the same China hawk economists and investors are wary of high tariffs on the EU and other nations with more organically-derived trade imbalances.)
But “reciprocal” economic realignment is not all Trump is now using tariff threats for, says Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), slamming a recent remark by Trump tying any potential Canada trade deal to its stance on Palestine, an issue seemingly far from fair trade.
Sanders is responding to Trump’s indication last week that Canada’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state — something France and the UK are also doing — would make it “very hard” for the U.S. to complete a tariff deal with Canada. The President’s remark essentially asserting that if Canada doesn’t align with the U.S. positions on Israel and Middle East policy, Trump will keep tariffs on Canadian goods high.]
Tariffs must be seriously thought out and used to help American workers & consumers. They should not be used to punish the political decisions of our allies.
Canada has a right to set its own policy on Palestine. Americans shouldn’t pay the price because Trump doesn’t like it. https://t.co/zUoWtTOA6Q
— Sen. Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) August 1, 2025
(NOTE: A potential Canada-US tariff deal excludes goods presently covered by the USMCA — the so-called “new NAFTA” — signed during the first Trump administration.)
In his critique, Sanders is careful not to dismiss tariffs altogether — or even question their legality — but says rather that tariffs should be used “to help American workers” and “should not be used to punish the political decisions of our allies.”
The Trump administration sees the power — if not the goals — of tariffs differently, viewing them as leverage to demand changes beyond more favorable reciprocity on trade. Republicans in support of this approach laud Trump for effectively wielding tariffs as tools of diplomacy; dissenting Democrats say the President is abusing power and interfering with the autonomy of its allies.
These arguments over the purpose of tariffs and potential limits on how they should be applied are all taking place above the larger — and as yet undecided question — about whether Trump’s claim of emergency powers to implement the tariffs is legal in the first place.