To help offset the hefty price tag of the Republican tax package, President Trump this week has repeatedly held up another element of his agenda — expansive global tariffs — that he insists will deliver trillions of dollars in new revenue.
But Mr. Trump’s bold proclamations instead have helped to illustrate the inherent conflict in his economic plan. He can use tariffs as leverage to strike trade deals, or he can keep them in place to pay down the nation’s debt — but the president is limited in his ability to do both.
The tension is laid bare in a set of dueling figures released this week, as the Trump administration tried to renew a set of expiring tax cuts enacted in the president’s first term.
On Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that House Republicans’ domestic policy bill — which would slash taxes and welfare programs — would swell the federal debt by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. The budget office also estimated that Mr. Trump’s tariffs could reduce deficits by almost $3 trillion over 10 years.
While Republicans derided analysts’ projections on their tax agenda, they still heralded the office’s findings on tariffs. On Thursday, Mr. Trump said the two figures together reflected that his administration would deliver a “tremendous surplus” for the federal budget.
But the president omitted other key findings from the congressional scorekeepers. For one thing, they noted that steep duties on America’s closest trading partners could slow economic growth and cause consumer prices to rise — a conclusion that other economists have made in recent months as well.
The budget estimate also hinged on the tariffs remaining in place for the next 10 years, even though the president has signaled on different occasions that tariffs could be means to an end for negotiating better trade deals — suggesting that the import taxes may not be long lasting.
Brett Loper, the executive vice president of policy at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a group that supports deficit reduction, said this week that the tension reflected the adage that you “can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
“The goal they have clearly laid out is one of negotiation,” added Mr. Loper, who said revenues would fall if the government opted to “negotiate away the tariffs.”
Mr. Trump’s top aides have said they hope to broker as many as 90 deals in 90 days, suggesting they are open to lowering tariff rates in exchange for favorable agreements, much as they did with China after the two sides reached a deal in Geneva that has become the renewed subject of haggling.
The budget office specifically warned about these limitations in its estimate, citing the fact that the administration “could change how the tariff policies are administered,” and as a result, revenues could change considerably, too.
Many of Mr. Trump’s steepest tariffs remain the subject of a heated legal dispute, after a group of businesses and a coalition of states sued the administration and won an initial court ruling that declared many of the duties to be illegal. The government has appealed, and the tariffs remain in place, but the outcome of that litigation could greatly affect the amount of money that the president’s trade policies can generate.
Tony Romm is a reporter covering economic policy and the Trump administration for The Times, based in Washington.
The post To Pay for Tax Cuts, Trump Touts Tariff Revenues That May Be Fleeting appeared first on New York Times.
