Tariffs Under Reagan Were a Strategy but Under Trump They Are a Threat
A cultural analysis of how Reagan used tariffs to protect fair trade while Trump uses them to destabilize global markets.
Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump both used tariffs—but for vastly different reasons.
Reagan understood tariffs were a last resort. Trump thinks they are a weapon used to control others.
The difference is the shift in how Republicans see economic power, cooperation, and global influence.
What’s Happening
Reagan believed in free trade but enforced specific and minimal tariffs only when agreements were violated.
Trump imposes tariffs for no reason retarding trade and raising prices.
This change reflects the Republican move from a rules-based trade system to a ‘tough guy’ trade model.
Here’s what everyone’s missing: this is a cultural shift, not short-term political maneuvering.
Reagan’s 1987 radio address on tariffs made one clear: Tariffs should be a tool to enforce agreements, not a permanent strategy. That was the Republican cultural ethos of the time.
When Japan violated its semiconductor trade deal in the late 1980s, Reagan reluctantly imposed tariffs—but clarified that cooperation, not isolation, was the goal.
He warned against protectionism, citing the Great Depression as proof that trade wars destroy economies.
The new Republican culture, which is driven by Trump, sees tariffs as a show of strength. Trump’s latest round of steel and aluminum tariffs was not a response to a broken agreement. It was not standing up to a country that broke the rules.
Instead, the US has now become the bully, breaking the rules. Republicans are not using tariffs to preserve fair trade. They are using them to isolate the U.S. and strengthen Europe, China, and trading blocs around the world.
Should trade policy be based on mutual agreements and enforcement, or should it be dictated by one country? It all depends on your cultural perspective.
Why It Matters
What many analysts miss is that trade isn’t just about money—it’s about relationships, national relationships. Reagan and Trump represent two opposite visions of America’s relation to other countries:
Regan understood the power of cooperation, rules, and stability. One hand washes the other. When other countries become prosperous through free trade, they have the money to buy more American goods. Free trade makes America rich and powerful.
Trump thinks threats and dominance will force other countries to spend more to buy American goods. He does not understand that other countries will stop trading with the US. And isolation makes America poor and weak.
But here’s what everyone misses: This shift isn’t just about tariffs—it’s about how the US engages with the world.
Reagan’s trade policy was low-power distance - equality. It relied on shared rules, mutual respect, and strategic enforcement.
Trump’s approach to tariffs is high-power distance - authoritarianism. It rejects negotiation for control and demands obedience.
Reagan’s policies strengthened US alliances and economic growth.
Trump’s tariffs isolate America and trigger global retaliation against the common enemy: the United States.
Under Reagan, tariffs were a temporary measure to ensure fairness. Under Trump, tariffs are a permanent strategy to reshape trade through force. The result? Soaring prices, trade wars, economic instability, and a loss of American power around the world
If the US continues down Trump’s path, countries will stop trading with the US, trade blocs will form without America, and the economic dominance the US once held will be gone.
What’s Next?
Americans can expect higher consumer prices, shrinking export markets, and increased global resistance unless trade policy returns to a rules-based culture.
The more Republicans change to an authoritarian culture, the more trade partners retaliate, markets shrink, and US influence fades.
Once American power is gone, it’s gone for good - Europe and China will not give it back.