For decades, American trade policy rested on an assumption that proved costly: that lowering barriers would naturally produce fairness, stability, and shared prosperity. Instead, the United States absorbed the downside of openness while many trading partners protected their own industries, subsidized exports, and exploited access to the American market. The result was dependency, not dividends.
President Donald Trump rejected that model. He treated trade not as an academic exercise, but as an extension of national power. Tariffs returned to the center of policy not as punishment, but as leverage. When incentives change, behavior changes. That principle explains much of what we are seeing today.
The past year has not delivered economic devastation or discord. It has delivered adjustment. Firms recalculated sourcing decisions. Manufacturers reconsidered where to build. Supply chains began to reflect risk and resilience, not just cost. These shifts were not driven by rhetoric, but by policy that altered the underlying economics of doing business.
The auto industry offers a clear example. Manufacturers facing higher costs on imported vehicles did not abandon the American market. They expanded U.S. production, emphasized American-built models, and absorbed some costs rather than passing them on to consumers. Access to the American market remains indispensable. Tariffs reinforce that reality.
Other sectors reveal where pressure points persist. As The Wall Street Journal recently reported, Independent Can Company, a third-generation manufacturer in Maryland, has faced higher input costs tied to tariffs on imported steel. The specialized tin-plated steel it relies on is produced largely overseas due to limited domestic supply, forcing the company to source from foreign suppliers and raise prices. Long-time customers have felt the strain.
This experience in the manufacturing industry underscores an important reality: trade policy inevitably creates friction and signals where refinement is needed. Tariffs do not operate in a vacuum, nor should they. They surface cost pressures, supply constraints, and sensitivities that policymakers must address if enforcement is to remain effective and politically sustainable. Thoughtful adjustments are critical.
Affordability is a real and immediate concern for Americans. They feel price increases quickly, whether at the gas station, grocery store, or the checkout counter. President Trump has been clear-eyed about that reality. Protecting American workers does not require ignoring American consumers.
That is why the administration has signaled that targeted adjustments to tariff and trade policy may be appropriate where necessary, particularly on goods that directly affect household budgets. Strong trade enforcement must also be durable. Accounting for affordability strengthens leverage rather than undermining it.
President Trump has also proposed tariff rebates that would return a portion of tariff revenue directly to Americans. If tariffs generate revenue, Americans should share in the benefit. Rebates recognize voter concerns without surrendering enforcement and reinforce the idea that trade policy exists to serve Americans, not abstract models.
Tariffs are most effective when they are targeted, purposeful, and flexible. Their value lies in leverage, not rigidity.
That leverage extends beyond economics. Trade policy is inseparable from foreign policy and national security, and the Trump administration has treated it accordingly. Economic pressure often communicates seriousness more clearly than diplomatic statements alone.
Venezuela offers a timely example. For years, Nicolás Maduro’s regime destabilized the region while foreign powers, including China, Iran, and Russia, exploited the country’s resources. Recent developments underscore that the United States is no longer willing to tolerate the status quo. By applying pressure through energy and trade policy, the Trump administration has made clear that “America First” is not a slogan; it is a government framework.
China remains the central test of this approach. For years, Beijing benefited from asymmetry and outsourcing, exploiting American openness while restricting its own markets. The Trump tariffs disrupted that imbalance. Supply chains diversified. Production shifted. Risk and redundancy were reassessed. Trade did not stop; it adjusted.
After a recent trip to Vietnam, I saw firsthand how the country’s expanding role in manufacturing illustrates how markets respond when incentives change. Diversification away from China reduces concentration risk and limits reliance on a single supplier. That outcome aligns with long-term American interests, even if it introduces short-term complexity and uncertainty.
Tariffs have also produced tangible benefits at home. Prices have improved on many goods, and employment has strengthened. These gains are modest, but they matter to communities that were too often written off in the name of efficiency.
Tariffs are not a cure-all. They require judgment, calibration, and an honest assessment of tradeoffs. What distinguishes the current approach is clarity of purpose. The objective is not isolation, but balance. Not retreat, but reciprocity.
For years, American trade policy relied on goodwill rather than enforcement. President Trump replaced assumption with leverage, while demonstrating a willingness to refine policy when voters’ concerns demand it. The result has been adjustment rather than collapse, negotiation rather than drift, and renewed recognition that American leadership still shapes global outcomes.
Done right, tariffs, paired with flexibility and accountability, send a clear message to the world: America is back and serious once again.
Ken Blackwell is a member of the Board of Directors at The Club for Growth. He is the former Treasurer of the State of Ohio and an ambassador to the United Nations.