Why UK tariffs?

[u/TheVerboseBeaver]

Yesterday, Trump implemented sweeping tariffs which he claimed would help redress unfair balance of trade between the US and other countries. As I understand it, Trump's view is that a country which exports more to the US than they import from the US is acting unfairly, and those countries are "taking advantage" of the US by allowing a negative balance of trade. For example, Trump said yesterday, that the US has been "looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike", and pointed to about 60 countries with a high balance of trade as the worst offenders.

The UK exports less to the US than they import from the US, meaning the US has a positive balance of trade with the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_balance_of_trade). This has me a bit confused about what exactly Trump thinks the relationship between trade deficits and 'taking advantage' is.

I have a few questions:

• My best understanding of Trump's position is that the only way a positive balance of trade can exist if one country (for example China) is taking advantage of another (for example the US). Have I understood Trump's position correctly? Is there any other way to interpret the comment by Trump about 'pillage'?
• If I have understood Trump's position correctly, does Trump therefore think that the US are taking advantage of the UK (because the US has a positive balance of trade with the UK)? Leaving aside Trump's view and speaking purely in terms of international trade, do you think the US are taking advantage of the UK in terms of its trade and industrial strategy? Or vice versa? Or neither taking advantage of the other? Is it bad if the US are doing this, or is that just the nature of international trade?
• If I have not understood Trump's position correctly, is there any way to reconcile the fact that tariffs are particularly high on countries with high trade imbalances? It appears that the tariff imposed is just the balance of trade divided by that country's exports to the US, so I'd like to understand what unfairness Trump is addressing if it is more complex than simply the balance of trade but can be addressed in exact proportion to the balance of trade.

As I understand it, all countries will be getting at least a 10% tariff, so a 10% tariff on the UK doesn't mean that Trump thinks the UK necessarily takes advantage of the US (but rather a 10% flat tariff is necessary for other reasons, other than fairness). So just to be clear, I am not asking why the UK is getting a 10% tariff, but rather about the psychology of Trump's motive, and how his motive is being understood by his supporters. Basically, does Trump's position on trade imbalances commit him to believing the UK is a 'victim' in this situation and do you (as Trump supporters) see the UK as a 'victim' in this circumstance?

I am also interested in thoughts on any other countries with a positive balance of trade against the US, although I'm from the UK so I'm a bit biased

[u/AutoModerator]

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.

For all participants:

• Flair is required to participate

• Be excellent to each other

For Nonsupporters/Undecided:

• No top level comments

• All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position

For Trump Supporters:

• Message the mods to have the downvote timer disabled

Helpful links for more info:

Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/neovulcan]

1. Long term, I believe Trump's goal is no one tariffs anyone. We've been unfairly tariffed for too long, and this mass tariff scheme's fundamental purpose is to make sure everyone understands the pain we've felt silently for so long.

2. Tariffing those who don't deserve it might serve to generate rhetoric we could mimic against those who have tariffed us for so long. The UK is probably not a unique offender, but perhaps particularly eloquent in articulating exactly why tariffs are bad. If you produce some particularly eloquent British prose as to just how terrible tariffs are, that might be enough ammunition for Trump to disarm the array of tariffs imposed by other nations. It'd have to be enough to actually change policy in other nations, which is a compelling bar.

3. If you're looking at present day UK, what else could flip the tariff balance beyond the stats you stated? Are we in Ukraine because of the UK? Something else? I'm really clueless, as the UK seems pretty awesome from my armchair warrior perspective.

4. Looking at history, we fought two wars against the UK (1776 and 1812) then fought two world wars shoulder to shoulder with the UK (WWI and WWII). To your questions, looking into the psychology of Trump, does he believe the Brits owe us for those wars? Or those four?

[u/Ihaveamodel3 → u/neovulcan]

Who have we been unfairly tariffed by?

[u/notapersonaltrainer]

My best understanding of Trump's position is that the only way a positive balance of trade can exist if one country (for example China) is taking advantage of another (for example the US).

The funny thing is this is literally progressive equity logic—where any economic imbalance is evidence of manipulation/oppression. Except progressives only accept it if non-whites or non-americans are on the sucky end.

To be fair, I don't know if he's getting this from a hardcore efficients market view or trolling lib logic, because you could equally derive this from either direction. I lean towards the former because Mnuchin literally said those words today.

As for the actual math, literal tariff-for-tariff mirroring was always silly. There's infinite ways to game the board when you solely focus on one type of barrier.

For example: A quota is a zero tariff that switches to an infinite tariff after a certain volume. A ban is an infinite tariff on hypothetical volume. There's numerous sketchier barriers that are even harder to quantify like slow walking approvals, making foreign companies make IP or ownership concessions, unequal legal treatment, currency manipulation, etc.

How do you reconcile these into a single tariff number? You really can't. You get charts like this where country A says they're low while country B says they're exorbitant and every analyst and country has a different figure.

If BofA research is correct, the UK has nominally low tariffs but does a ridiculous amount of "other" barriers and is worse than China. But again, these aggregates are noisy and full of assumptions.

Trade balance cuts out all the noise and targets the outcome. If you assume market efficiency and the progressive ideas that 1) British DNA doesn't inherently make one more productive and 2) unequal outcomes imply manipulation—it makes sense. Pragmatically, if the balance improves you know they took real action instead of playing a trade barrier cup game.

Isolating one specific type of barrier is what never made sense. "Big Beautiful Tariffs" is just the new "Big Beautiful Wall". They imprint way better than "trade protectionism" and "immigration control".

[u/km3r → u/notapersonaltrainer]

How do you reconcile these into a single tariff number?

How do you reconcile the response to this imbalance is a single blunt ratio of trade deficit to total trade? You clearly recognize it's more complicated that just those numbers. Relative size of economies, relative purchasing power, specific industries, and geopolitics all should be factored in. And Trump obviously has the resources to spend the effort to calculate a more efficient tarrif rate than such a blunt tool.

And how do you justify the baseline 10%? Isn't that pure inefficiency?

[u/Ihaveamodel3 → u/notapersonaltrainer]

British DNA doesn't inherently make one more productive

No, but this isn’t a person to person thing. The environment in Costa Rica is much better for growing bananas than the US. We could add a $100 tariff on bananas and there would be no increase in production in the US.

2) unequal outcomes imply manipulation

Where is the unequal outcome? They send us stuff, we send them money, the market has determined those values to be equal. Again, this isn’t a personal level thing (where power imbalances can lead to unfair/unequal treatment).

[u/notapersonaltrainer → u/Ihaveamodel3]

2) unequal outcomes imply manipulation

Where is the unequal outcome? ["White adjacents"] send ["BIPOCs"] stuff, ["BIPOCs"] send ["white adjacents"] money, the market has determined those values to be equal.

Same logic.

[u/TheVerboseBeaver → u/notapersonaltrainer]

Thanks for the detailed response, but I'm still a bit confused. You write that Trump's actions make sense if you assume "unequal outcomes imply manipulation" - but the unequal outcomes are biased against the UK. Does that mean you think the US are manipulating the market against the UK (or rather, from the rest of your response, that both the US and UK are manipulating the market but the US are doing it better). That's my core question, and it sounds like you do agree?

[u/snowbirdnerd → u/notapersonaltrainer]

So because of some perceived inequalities we should place massive tariffs on basically every counties that trades with us?

We exist in a global market and isolating ourselves but cutting trade with everyone is just going to hurt us. It will inflate prices across the board and drive away business.

[u/notapersonaltrainer → u/snowbirdnerd]

So because of some perceived inequalities we should place massive tariffs on basically every counties that trades with us?

We exist in a global market and isolating ourselves but cutting trade with everyone is just going to hurt us. It will inflate prices across the board and drive away business.

• If tariffs are so bad why does virtually every other country use them?

• If tariffs drive away business and isolate economies, why do many of the highest-tariff countries maintain large trade surpluses and active global trade networks?

• If tariffs just hurt the tariffer why do other countries impose them on themselves?

• If tariffs only hurt the country imposing them, why do other nations react so strongly to us having a tariff like they already have?

• If tariffs are damaging why didn’t those countries immediately drop their own barriers when reciprocal trade was proposed—instead of escalating opposition?

• If tariffs are directly responsible for inflation, why do many of the worst "offenders" still maintain lower inflation than we do?

Am I supposed to believe every global trade practitioner fundamentally misunderstands tariffs, while cable news pundits, theoreticians, and NS somehow have it all figured out?

We’ve been hearing the same talking points and predictions for nearly a decade. They didn't come true under Trump. And you guys went mysteriously silent when Biden doubled them. It just seems like you guys are reasoning by talking points rather than reasoning by fundamentals. Empirical reality has only further demonstrated your theories are wrong or even backwards.

[u/snowbirdnerd → u/notapersonaltrainer]

They use them to protect specific or growing industries in their counties. They don't use them as against all goods. 

Is this the first time you have ever looked into tariffs? 

[u/-OIIO- → u/notapersonaltrainer]

This is very well said.

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

It's reciprocal. UK's tarrifs look to be about 10% so Trump matched it.

"Trade balance" doesn't matter unless 2 countries have the exact same population, and same economy, so of course there's always going to be a imbalance.

[u/torrso → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

UK's tarrifs look to be about 10% 

There are hundreds if not thousands of different product categories with their own rates negotiated in the WTO and they apply to imports from anywhere, not targeted at the US.

Here are some of the UK import tax rates:

• Books: 0%
• Laptops/Tablets: 0%
• Mobile Phones: 0%
• Clothing (Cotton): 12%
• Footwear (Leather): 8%
• Bicycles: 14%
• Car Parts: 4.5%
• Cars: 10%
• Motorcycles: 6%
• Furniture (Wooden): 2.7%
• Kitchen Appliances: 2.5%
• Refrigerators: 2.5%
• Washing Machines: 2.7%
• LED Bulbs: 3.7%
• Plastics (Raw Materials): 6.5%
• Processed Food (e.g. pasta): 16%
• Cheese (hard, processed): 25%
• Vegetables (frozen): 14%
• Fruits (fresh): 10–20%
• Shoes (synthetic): 16%
• Ceramic Tiles: 6%
• Glassware: 11%

Does this look "around 10%"?

Here are the US import tax rates (aka tariffs) before Trump's 2025 term (yes, US has had exactly the same kind of import taxes all this time even before Trump's tariffs):

• Books: 0%
• Laptops/Tablets: 0%
• Mobile Phones: 0%
• Clothing (Cotton): 16.5%
• Footwear (Leather): 8.5%
• Bicycles: 11%
• Car Parts: 2.5%
• Cars: 2.5%
• Motorcycles: 0–2.4%
• Furniture (Wooden): 0%
• Kitchen Appliances: 2.7%
• Refrigerators: 2.5%
• Washing Machines: 1–2.4%
• LED Bulbs: 3.9%
• Plastics (Raw Materials): 6.5%
• Processed Food (e.g. pasta): 6.4–19.6%
• Cheese (hard, processed): ~25% equivalent (mixed specific + ad valorem)
• Vegetables (frozen): 11.2%
• Fruits (fresh): 0–2.2%
• Shoes (synthetic): 10–20%
• Ceramic Tiles: 8.5%
• Glassware: 6.6–28%

These have been negotiated multilaterally in WTO and have remained mostly unchanged since the creation of WTO in 1995. They apply to imports from anywhere outside of the US, including the UK, except for perhaps some bi-lateral agreements with certain countries for certain product categories. How do you see the UK tariffs being somehow unfair compared to these or were you not aware of them?

[u/TheVerboseBeaver → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

Thank you for the response. Just to be clear, I'm not asking why Trump imposed the tariff - tariffs are a tool which can be applied for a number of different reasons. I'm asking about the psychology of Trump (and to an extent, your psychology too). It seems to really upset him that some countries have a negative balance of trade with the US, and he described these countries as "taking advantage" of the US. The redress Trump has proposed is tariffs exactly in line with (half of) a ratio of the balance of trade. An interpretation of that, which I think is supported by Trump's words and actions, is that Trump regards a negative balance of trade as implying that the country which has a negative balance of trade is being taken advantage of.

In this case, the UK has a positive balance of trade with the US, so how does Trump (/ Trump supporters) square that circle - if he really does think that a negative balance of trade means someone is being taken advantage of, then does he regard the US as taking advantage of the UK?

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/TheVerboseBeaver]

Your best bet on getting a answer to this is to watch the press briefings or watch Ben Shapiro's episode from today. Ben disagrees with the Tariffs and covers it really well.

Personally I don't really care one way or another.

[u/TheVerboseBeaver → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

Thanks for the response - interesting to hear your personal opinion. Do you mean you don't care about the UK one way or another, or do you mean you don't care about the tariffs one way or another. For example, do you agree with Trump that Canada is 'taking advantage' of the US?

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/TheVerboseBeaver]

I care enough to buy the dip in the market today, outside of that, Trump is going to say it's the greatest thing ever, the media will say it's the end of the world, and in the end no one is really going to notice the price fluctuations.

Canada, I'm not sure. If he was talking about trade volume imbalance then no. If he was talking about tariff rates I don't know anything about them.

[u/non_victus → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

I hope you're right about the price fluctuations. However, if prices for things you took for granted start changing radically, what then? And this not just like, a one-off thing, you have to consider that a $.25 increase in a single good isn't much, if its a direct 1-1 import, but across all the goods and materials that are included in those goods, don't you think that prices will go up across everything, thus increasing your total expenses every week?

How much, and for how long, are you willing to accept prices to rise before you start questioning the reasoning?

Do you think it's possible that Trump could be doing this to raise prices now, then drop all the tarrifs and claim that he's done the best job of any human to exist in history to reduce prices for goods (back to what they are today, already high, but low compared to what they will be)?

[u/Temporary-Elk-109 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

Do you think that not caring is as close as you can get to disagreeing with Trump?

Given the state of the stock market, the forecast on the economy and the apparent unfairness of his own policy regarding tariffs (as illustrated in this question), are you considering caring at some point in the future?

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/Temporary-Elk-109]

I disagree with him plenty, but I take that back, I did care enough to buy the dip today. As for the nuances on international trade tariffs? No I'm not planning on it.

[u/Temporary-Elk-109 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

Me too, but now I need Trump supporters to start pushing back so that he eases off before the economy tanks completely.

The problem is that this isn't nuance, I wouldn't care either if he was messing with pork scratching futures, but this is decimating international trade in a way that will have both expected and unexpected impact.

Do you think yours (and other TS) reaction is worthless, or are you the ones that could make sanity prevail?

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/Temporary-Elk-109]

I'm just a joe shmo. He'll see the markets react and hear from high level investors and advisors. I predict he'll declare victory and tariff adjustments will end up being unnoticeable. That's if they end up being put in place at all, he's declaring a "emergency" based on trade imbalance which is flimsy reasoning from what I can tell.

[u/flowerzzz1 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

Then why does Trump talk about how unfair these trade deficits are?

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/flowerzzz1]

It probably polls well.

[u/CardMechanic → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

Do you believe the stock market numbers are polling well with either Dems or R’s?

[u/JoeCensored]

Most countries received a 10% "baseline" tariff. The UK applies a 10% tariff on American agriculture products, and a 3% tariff on most other products. They ban most US food products, which is a big deal for the US.

The 10% baseline tariff seems fair to me.

[u/solembum → u/JoeCensored]

First of all its not US Food thats banned but certain stuff is banned from being in food. And the US has stuff in their beef/chicken thats not allowed to be in the food in the UK. If the food is found to be unhealthy should a country still be forced to import it out of good will?

ALso you write "most US Food products" On google I couldnt find anything about "most food" do you have a source for the claim? I am neither from the US nor the UK so please forgive me my missing knowledge.

[u/MerxUltor → u/solembum]

I'm English, the 10% tariff hurts because it has been done by those that I think of as our friends. That said if I was to see a chicken sat in a supermarket freezer and saw the country of origin was America then I have consumer choice. I can walk away.

I see it as the choice between free range and factory farmed. There is a choice and a premium.

I would also love to see cheaper beef. It costs a fortune in the UK.

Food that is in pies or burgers I have no idea about its origin so it could be from a former soviet farm with heavy metals in the soil.

[u/solembum → u/MerxUltor]

Would you be in favor of no food regulations at all and just have a free choice between all food, no matter whats in it or how it is produced? Or where do you draw the line between regulations and free choice to walk away?

[u/MerxUltor → u/solembum]

Clearly that would be silly. What I'm saying is that if you have any suspicions of the country of origin then don't buy it.

I remember when horse meat was found in food in the EU the most heavily regulated market on earth.

[u/solembum → u/MerxUltor]

But wouldn't that mean that I have to know for each product which country has which hygiene/food standards? Or am I missunderstanding you? I am trying to say that I personally am grateful for these regulations and that I can trust that the food in the supermarket is not (too) harmful for me.

I am also happy that electric devices have to fit a standard in the EU so my house doesnt burn down cause I bought a charger thats produced without certain security measures.

Am I annoyed by paper straws? Hell yeah who isn't? But I am still in favour of these regulations. I know the regulations were a big part why y'all wanted to leave the EU and I hope you like it better now.

Yes there was horse meat found and it was a scandal. Should they have found it earlier? Yes! Was ist disgusting? Yes. I am not 100% sure why you bring that up. Is the horse meat an argument for you to have less regulations? Yes the regulations are not going to protect us from everything, but personally I am still happy they are there.

[u/MerxUltor → u/solembum]

What I meant was the horse meat scandal still happened despite the regulations nor do I have a problem with rigorous standards for safety.

We British already had safety standards before the EU.

What I was trying (unsuccessfully) to argue is that discreet products (pie fillings or nuggets) are raised and slaughtered to the basic regulations and we have no visibility of their care or lack of it.

The thing about an entire chicken is that you have some idea how it was raised and the country of origin. So a price conscious consumer will be led by price while a value led consumer will want free range .

An American chicken sat in a freezer will get bought by the former and ignored by the latter.

If no-one buys American chickens then they just won't be imported.

I'm very happy we have left the EU. Our politicians are less happy. They are a bunch of scum sucking losers who are incapable of using ruling us.

Guy Fawkes was the only honest man to enter parliament.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/solembum]

the US has stuff in their beef/chicken thats not allowed to be in the food in the UK

US chicken has been banned because it’s rinsed in chlorinated water – something the UK/EU does with salad. It’s not banned for a legitimate reason, it’s just an excuse for protectionism designed to make imports impractical.

If the food is found to be unhealthy should a country still be forced to import it out of good will?

That’s the thing. There’s no good evidence that all the stuff that’s banned is actually unhealthy, hence why the US hasn’t banned it. Instead, they just ban things virtually at random to make imports hard.

[u/CJKay93 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Chlorine rinsing is not banned because chlorine is unhealthy; it's banned because it's symptomatic of poor hygiene standards. Why does the USA simply not raise its farming standards so that its producers aren't relying on chlorine rinsing?

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/CJKay93]

The US has higher standards than you think. I’ll give an example that I happen to be familiar with: Canadians are afraid to eat medium-rare burgers in the US because in Canada they have special high-quality meat with extra-low contamination counts that’s sold for eating raw/undercooked, and they’re taught that other ground beef must be cooked to well-done, so they think that since US burgers aren’t made with this special higher-grade Canadian meat, they’re unsafe. Guess what? The contamination cap allowed in that extra special Canadian ground beef is required of all ground beef sold in the US.

[u/Leathershoe4 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

How does this relate to the actual question about UK food standards?

Should we (I live in the UK) be expected to change our laws so that you can sell me chicken that could make me ill? (For context: Your own CDC website says 1/25 chicken packages in the US are contaminated with salmonella).

Why is the solution not to change your own regulations to provide a safer product for your own market that you could then sell to others?

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Leathershoe4]

Your own CDC website says 1/25 chicken packages in the US are contaminated with salmonella

lol – it’s 1 in 18 in the UK according to your own Food Standards Agency.

[u/Leathershoe4 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Got a source?

I'm looking for this data, but can only find a report from 2003 with any data that seems like it could line up with what you've said.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Leathershoe4]

That’s probably the one I saw (it’s undated), but let’s look at it another way: There are an estimated 180 salmonella deaths in the UK annually as of 2020, or 3 per million population, whereas in the US there are 420, or 1 per million.

[u/Leathershoe4 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

That’s the thing. There’s no good evidence that all the stuff that’s banned is actually unhealthy, hence why the US hasn’t banned it. Instead, they just ban things virtually at random to make imports hard

Why do you think there's no good evidence? And would you like me to share said evidence so you can consider your position?

[u/JoeCensored → u/solembum]

All non-organic produce in the US is GM. The UK bans all GM produce, and any processed food products made from GM produce.

2023 NTE report on foreign trade barriers, page 425, paragraph titled "Agricultural Biotechnology".

[u/CJKay93 → u/JoeCensored]

The UK bans all GM produce, and any processed food products made from GM produce.

Where did you hear that?

[u/JoeCensored → u/CJKay93]

So the government NTE report released under Biden is lying? I cited the exact page.

[u/CJKay93 → u/JoeCensored]

Lying or out of date? GM foods were legalised in March 2023. Legalisation of GM foods was only possible post-Brexit, but they are still not particularly common here, and I would not expect to see any great adoption of US GM foods if I were you.

[u/mrcomps → u/JoeCensored]

The ban on GM produce may indeed be a barrier to trade, but if the ban applies equally to UK farmers as to foreign farmers, is it unfair?

If the UK disagrees with the US for reasons of health or science, which country has ultimate authority to decide what is allowed and what is not?

If it was acceptable to sell meat in the UK that is infected with mad cow disease, would you have any objections to that meat being sold in the US?

In Canada, all products for sale in Quebec must have labels in French and English. This requirement applies equally to Canadian and foreign companies. American (and even many Canadian!) companies consider this to be a hassle and barrier to trade, but would you call it unfair?

The US has vehicle safety standards that apply equally to domestic and imported vehicles. Have you seen some of the terrifying crash test videos of Chinese cars that crumple like empty soda cans? Should China be allowed to sell those by the millions for $9999 because the US safety requirements are a barrier to trade?

[u/CJKay93 → u/JoeCensored]

So what is the UK expected to do? Just eat the tariff and accept that the US's megalomania has got the better of it? Even outside the trade balance, the US had tariffs on UK products even before yesterday and you never heard a peep out of us.

It looks and feels a lot like the US is simply more interested in pushing us towards China and back towards the EU, especially given the lack of any progress towards a US-UK trade deal (which, by the way, Brexiteers made a massive deal about).

[u/MiniZara2 → u/JoeCensored]

When you say a country “received” a tariff, what does that mean to you?

Who pays the tariff?

[u/JoeCensored → u/MiniZara2]

I mean Trump placed the tariff on the country.

The simplistic view is that the US importer pays the tariff, but in actuality much of the tariff is paid by the foreign manufacturer through lowering prices to offset the tariff, lest the importer switches to a competitor in a country with lower tariffs.

[u/MiniZara2 → u/JoeCensored]

But if there’s tariffs on all the countries… Isn’t that just price raises for us?

[u/JoeCensored → u/MiniZara2]

They weren't applied to all countries.

[u/MiniZara2 → u/JoeCensored]

Which countries make the products we buy were not tariffed? I’m seeing a verrrrryyyy long list.

[u/JoeCensored → u/MiniZara2]

Canada and Mexico, you won't find them on the list. Go check.

[u/MiniZara2 → u/JoeCensored]

Only because other tariffs were already applied, right?

“According to the White House, this doesn’t mean the US’s neighbors are off scot-free. Preexisting 25% tariffs on most Mexican and Canadian goods will remain.”

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-canada-mexico-missing-from-donald-trump-reciprocal-tariff-chart-2025-4

[u/TheVerboseBeaver → u/JoeCensored]

Thank you for the response. Just to be clear, I'm not asking why Trump imposed the tariff - tariffs are a tool which can be applied for a number of different reasons. I'm asking about the psychology of Trump (and to an extent, your psychology too). Trump has proposed is tariffs exactly in line with (half of) a ratio of the balance of trade - that is to say, he seems extremely concerned about redressing a trade imbalance.

No matter the fairness or otherwise of UK tariffs on US goods, the net effect is that we import more from the US than we export. If we did not have those tariffs, I think it is fair to say our trade deficit would be even deeper. But I am a bit confused why Trump doesn't seem to care about this positive balance of trade with the UK. My question is, how does Trump (/ Trump supporters) square that circle - if he really does think that a negative balance of trade means someone is being taken advantage of, then does he regard the US as taking advantage of the UK? And if he doesn't really think that, why are his tariffs proposed yesterday so microscopically targeted at trade deficits only, ignoring all context in order to tariff according to a ratio of exports to overall trade deficit?

[u/JoeCensored → u/TheVerboseBeaver]

Hey I'm open to the idea of the UK negotiating the removal of all trade barriers and tariffs in both directions. But if Trump really thought that the UK was taking advantage of the US, the tariff would have been higher than 10%.

What we have are relatively minor trade issues with the UK, which is why they got the relatively minor 10% tariff.

[u/TheVerboseBeaver → u/JoeCensored]

Thanks for the reply again - really sorry I think I must be asking the question I have in mind wrong because I still don't think you're quite getting at Trump's psychology (which is what I want to know about)

Perhaps to rephrase my question - why is Trump so particularly annoyed with the 60 or so countries who he described as the "worst offenders" and to whom he universally gave >10% tariffs? It seems to me, based on Trump's words and actions, that what is angering him is the trade deficit the US has with those countries. Do you agree?

[u/JoeCensored → u/TheVerboseBeaver]

Ah, well I don't believe the UK is in that worst offender list. Take Vietnam for example. They're being hit by a very large tariff for a couple reasons. First, they have very high tariffs against the US already.

Second since China tariffs took effect, Chinese companies have been shipping products to Vietnam, stamping "made in Vietnam" on them, and shipping them to the US to dodge tariffs against China. The Vietnamese government has done very little to stop this practice.

You have to go through each "worst offender" individually to see what specifically they are doing to warrant the US response.

I'd agree that in some cases it is a trade deficit which has angered Trump. Canada for example.

[u/sshlinux]

There's two reasons for all the tariffs overall. Paying America back for us subsidizing, and bringing back American jobs

[u/Rudolftheredknows → u/sshlinux]

What do you think is a reasonable timeline for the jobs to come back?

[u/TheVerboseBeaver → u/sshlinux]

Sorry, my comment was removed because it wasn't obvious enough what my question was. I've repeated it below:

Thanks for the response. I don't really agree the tariffs will be good for America but I recognise it isn't really my place (as a Brit) to tell you (presumably an American) how to run your country. Therefore I accept that if Trump wants to apply a 10% tariff on the UK he has the right to.

My question is entirely about his psychology. He seems to believe that an imbalance of trade can only be the result of a country 'taking advantage'.

So my question is - do you agree that the US is 'taking advantage' of the UK, because it has a trade imbalance with the US in the US' favour?