The latest boondoggle to hit the airwaves: the Trump Tariffs. But what exactly IS a tariff, anyway?

Well, according to any dictionary out there, a tariff is simply a tax on a particular import or export. Historically, tariffs were enacted to foster income for the federal government and to insulate domestic industries; they were heavily enforced to protect the fledgling colonies by providing an immediate solution to an urgent need for revenue, as well as to balance the trade scales between England and America. Until 1913, when the Federal Income Tax was implemented, tariffs were the greatest source of federal revenue and pretty much the only thing that kept our government running.

This system of practice, known as Protectionism, was America's de facto policy until around World War 2 when the majority of America's industrial competitors had been effectively neutralized by the war, all but ending the need for such austere fiscal methods. Since the 1940's, America (and the rest of the first-world countries) has shifted to a free market trade structure, a.k.a. 'laissez-faire', relying very little on tariff revenue or governmental interference.

In 1962, the United States passed the Trade Expansion Act, which provides the legal basis for the most recent tariffs imposed by President Trump. Section 232 of the Act allows tariffs to be imposed by the president, via the US Secretary of Commerce, if "an article is being imported into the United States… as to threaten or impair national security." Not only is this section rarely used, but it hasn't even been invoked in over 30 years.

Further, Trump has enormous discretion under this law; he is able to unilaterally decide on the size and form of the restrictions without needing Congress' approval, as well as to whether or not the restrictions can ever be terminated. On June 9th, 2018, Trump tweeted that American tariffs targeting Canada "are in response to [Trudeau's tariffs] of 270% on [American] dairy!", unmistakably positioning at least a portion of these tariffs as retaliatory, rather than as a threat to national security.

Not only are some retaliatory, but the particular Canadian tariffs in question are massively misunderstood, contextually, by the President — the admittance of US dairy products into the Canadian market, which relies on a supply-management system with quotas and restrictions rather than that of the heavily subsidized system the US employs, would absolutely decimate the Canadian Dairy Industry, putting thousands of Canadian farmers and families out of business… but that discussion is for another article at another time.

According to Anna-Lisa Laca of AgWeb.com, farmers will be the group most impacted by this escalating trade war, with US soybean farmers and pork producers bracing for one of the worst markets to date. Now, you may be asking, "how does that work? Trump only imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, how can that affect our farmers?!" Well, the EU, Canada, Mexico, and most predominately China, having been hit hardest by these taxes, are planning hundreds of billions of dollars worth of their own retaliatory tariffs on US agricultural goods exported to those respective countries.

For example, the US exports over $14 billion worth of soybeans to China. Due to the Trump Tariffs, China is expected to cancel ALL soybean shipments for the rest of the year, affecting well over 300,000 soybean farmers. Welcome to your first ever, home-grown Trade War, Gen Z! (And you too, my fellow millennials.)

Now, onto what the experts are saying about the Trump Tariffs: almost 80% of the 60 economists surveyed by Reuters said the tariffs, specifically on steel and aluminum imports, would be a net harm to the US economy, with the remainder of those economists saying the tariffs would have little-to-no effect.

So, let's be clear: none (0%) of the economists surveyed said that the tariffs would benefit the US Economy in any way. In other words, the majority of economists believe that these tariffs will do more harm than good, and since I am in no way, shape, or form a trained economist (I would rather break the same toe in four different places that have to take Intro to Macroeconomics again), I'm obliged to listen to the experts in this matter.

But why would the president do harm to the country that he is sworn to protect? Is it sheer ignorance? Egotistical pride? Personal financial gain? A way to pay for the recent tax cuts? Only time will tell, and at this time, I can only be certain that Protectionism is back in full force.

While it served our country well once upon a time, global politics and trade policies have changed drastically and irrevocably since the early 20th century; the global markets are more intricately connected than ever, and returning to policies of old may not be the most prudent long-term decision. Let's just keep our fingers crossed that the majority of the nation's economists are wrong and that this Trade War will be nothing more than yet another passing news headline.