Trump’s Trade Tariffs and the “Cheating” Rhetoric
When former President Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs in early April, a familiar term surfaced again: “cheating”. His new tariff plan—initially affecting nearly every country—aimed to punish what he called “unfair trade practices.” Though implementation was delayed by 90 days, tariffs on China increased, and a 10% baseline tariff remained for most other trading partners.
During the announcement, Trump justified the move by citing foreign nations’ tariffs, regulations, and other “forms of cheating.” However, critics argue there is little hard evidence behind these broad accusations.
Does Trade Cheating Actually Exist?
Trade cheating, such as dumping, unfair subsidies, and currency manipulation, does occur and can be addressed through the World Trade Organization (WTO). For example, China has faced repeated WTO disputes over its subsidies and market behavior. Similarly, currency manipulation—a tactic to keep exports competitively priced—has drawn accusations, especially from the U.S.
However, Trump’s tariff formula wasn’t based on such violations. Instead, it leaned on trade imbalances—specifically, the size of a bilateral goods trade deficit with the U.S.—as justification for punitive tariffs, regardless of whether any actual cheating occurred.
Experts Dispute the “Cheating” Claims
Trade experts say Trump’s definition of cheating is flawed. “Cheating,” as used by his administration, often equated to simply having a trade surplus with the U.S., not evidence of rule-breaking.
Kent Jones, trade policy expert and professor emeritus at Babson College, notes that trade balances are shaped by economic structure, not policy manipulation. Small, poor nations naturally export more to the U.S. than they import—not due to cheating, but because of income disparity, resource limitations, and population differences.
Who’s Targeted by the Tariffs—and Why?
Among the top 10 nations hit hardest by Trump’s tariff proposal were countries like Lesotho, Madagascar, Laos, and Sri Lanka—nations with limited economies and high export-to-import ratios. These countries export commodities like vanilla, tea, textiles, and minerals, which the U.S. demands but cannot easily produce domestically.
Despite their minimal role in U.S. global trade, they faced tariffs as high as 50%, largely due to the formula Trump used:
Trade deficit ÷ total imports × 0.5, with a minimum 10% tariff applied.
Is the U.S. Also Guilty of Trade Cheating?
Trade violations aren’t exclusive to America’s partners. Critics have accused the U.S. of blocking imports on national security grounds or violating agreements like the USMCA by adding tariffs on Canada and Mexico—actions seen by some as undermining trust in global trade agreements.
The Bottom Line: Trade Deficits ≠ Cheating
While trade cheating exists, Trump’s blanket approach of using tariff rates tied to trade deficits lacks support from international trade norms. Most of the countries facing the steepest tariffs aren’t cheating, experts say—they’re simply small, resource-based economies unable to import high-value U.S. goods.
If there are genuine concerns—like subsidies or dumping—U.S. law and WTO mechanisms provide ways to address them. But penalizing countries purely for running a trade surplus oversimplifies complex global trade dynamics.
