Tariff Poker: The Return of the Trade War Playbook
On a tense Sunday morning roundtable, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent didn’t mince words: If America’s trading partners fail to negotiate “in good faith,” tariffs could snap back to their record-high “Liberation Day” rates. As Bessent put it, this isn’t just a hypothetical. The Trump administration had already unleashed a wave of aggressive tariffs on April 2—145% on Chinese goods, a baseline 10% on others—before an abrupt market panic spurred a 90-day truce. Now, that reprieve hangs by a thread.
The rationale, according to Bessent, is pure hardball. “If we were to give too much certainty to the other countries, then they would play us in the negotiations,” he told CNN. In other words: Leverage is the name of the game, and uncertainty its sharpest tool. But behind the theatrics, questions swirl—about the costs Americans are already bearing, the wisdom of such brinkmanship, and just whose interests are really being served.
Walmart, the nation’s retail juggernaut, has emerged as an unwilling symbol of the strain. Forced to raise prices on everyday goods, Walmart’s predicament undercuts the repeated White House refrain that “China pays the tariffs.” Scott Bessent himself appeared uncomfortably candid when asked about the fallout: The administration, he said, recognizes that businesses can’t always shoulder those costs—sometimes, consumers must. President Trump’s response to Walmart? “Eat the tariffs.” For American families and small businesses, that’s easier said than done.
The Cost of Leverage: Who Feels the Pain?
Trade wars, as history reminds us, almost never unfold without collateral damage at home. The current attempt to wring concessions from foreign governments by weaponizing tariffs is straight from the conservative playbook—and its flaws are showing. After the original tariff blitz in April, jittery markets staged a nosedive, compelling Trump to step back and pursue a 90-day negotiation window. The administration touts headline gains—a UK trade deal, a cooling of tensions with China—but beneath those headlines, American consumers and businesses are already paying more.
Contradictions run deep within the administration’s own talking points. Early promises that consumers would remain unscathed are falling flat. Scott Bessent admitted as much this week, noting that major retailers like Walmart are passing along tariff-induced price hikes. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, the average American family could end up spending hundreds more per year if the threatened tariffs are reinstated. Harvard economist Laura Alfaro argues that these costs hit lower- and middle-income families the hardest—the very constituency Trump claims to champion. “Tariffs are a regressive tax,” Alfaro notes. “They disproportionately impact those who spend a greater share of their income on consumer goods.”
A closer look at history reveals what’s at stake. During the Smoot-Hawley era of the 1930s, a global web of retaliatory tariffs deepened the Great Depression—a cautionary tale some in Trump’s orbit seem determined to ignore. Today’s markets are even more interconnected, and supply chains more fragile. As the Economic Policy Institute observes, “Restoring tariffs to punitive levels can trigger tit-for-tat escalation, putting American exporters and workers at risk as foreign governments respond in kind.” Recall the 2018-2019 trade war with China, which devastated American soybean farmers and manufacturers, costing the economy billions before a partial ceasefire was reached.
“Tariffs are a regressive tax. They disproportionately impact those who spend a greater share of their income on consumer goods.” – Harvard economist Laura Alfaro
Beyond that, the administration’s threat of sending “official letters” to noncompliant countries outlining new tariff rates smacks more of intimidation than diplomacy. It’s rule by ultimatum, not consensus.
Uncertainty as Policy: The Path Forward—Or Backward?
Leveraging uncertainty as a negotiating tool may win short-term concessions, but at what cost to America’s reputation and economic stability? Trade is not a zero-sum game. When the U.S. hurls tariffs as cudgels, allies may question our reliability—and adversaries may sniff out weakness amid the bluster. The administration focuses on its “18 most important trading relationships,” yet lurches between threats and half-measures, leaving global partners, American business leaders, and everyday workers unsure what comes next.
Progressive values call for a smarter, fairer approach to trade. Instead of clinging to outdated protectionism, the U.S. should lead by championing multilateral cooperation, safeguarding worker rights and environmental standards, and building economic security from the bottom up. The UK deal, with its promised “billions in market access,” shows what’s possible through negotiation—not intimidation. But such agreements require trust, consistency, and respect for the rule of law—qualities often drowned out by tariff bravado.
Some voices in the GOP have broken ranks. Former Congressman Joe Walsh lambasted the White House’s stance, arguing that “Americans are paying, not China” and calling for relief for both business and consumers. Meanwhile, Wall Street’s initial panic after April’s tariff announcements speaks volumes about how the markets perceive these brinkmanship tactics: as a recipe for volatility, not growth.
The question facing Americans is simple yet profound: Will we double down on policies that increase costs and uncertainty for ordinary families, or will we demand a trade strategy rooted in fairness, stability, and shared prosperity? Bessent and Trump may bet on bluster, but history, data, and lived experience suggest there’s a better way forward. The power to choose rests, as it always does, with the people.
