How the U.S. has used tariffs through history — and why Trump is different

Published

3 months ago

February 6, 2025

Shipping containers are seen at the Port of Montreal in Montreal, Canada, on Feb. 3, 2025.

Andrej Ivanov | Afp | Getty Images

President Donald Trump imposed broad tariffs on China on Tuesday, while tariff threats hang over other major trading partners like Canada, the European Union and Mexico.

That may lead some to wonder: How have tariffs been wielded through U.S. history, and is Trump unique in his use of them?

The ‘three Rs’ of tariffs

The U.S. has used tariffs since its founding in the 18^th century.

In fact, the Tariff Act of 1789 was among the first bills ever passed by Congress.

Since then, the U.S. has used tariffs to achieve three broad goals, said Douglas Irwin, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and past president of the Economic History Association.

Irwin calls them the “three Rs” — revenue, restriction (import barriers to protect domestic industry) and reciprocity (a bargaining chip to cut deals with other countries).

Using tariffs for revenue

Tariffs are taxes on U.S. imports, paid by the entity that’s importing the foreign good. Those taxes raise revenue to help fund the federal government.

For roughly the first third of the nation’s history — from its founding until the Civil War — the revenue motivation was “paramount” as a driver to impose import duties, Irwin said. The federal government relied on tariffs for about 90% or more of its revenue during that period, he said.

China is likely to retaliate far stronger on tariffs than others, says SoFi’s Liz Young Thomas

But things changed after the Civil War, Irwin said. The U.S. started to impose other taxes, like excise taxes, that made the nation less reliant on tariffs.

Tariffs generated about half of federal revenue from about 1860 to 1913, when the income tax was created, Irwin said.

The scale of the government expanded significantly in the 1930s — with the creation of New Deal programs like Social Security — and later for defense spending during WWII and the Cold War, said Kris James Mitchener, an economics professor at Santa Clara University who studies economic history and political economy.

Today, “tariffs simply cannot raise enough revenue to fund government expenditure,” Mitchener said. “There’s no possible way you could support the size of the U.S. military on tariff revenue.”

Restriction and reciprocity

From the Civil War to the Great Depression, the U.S. primarily used tariffs as a restrictive measure on imports, to insulate the domestic market from foreign competition, Irwin said.

For example, the Tariff Act of 1930, popularly known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, levied protective tariffs on roughly 800 to 900 different types of goods, accounting for about 25% of all goods imported to the U.S., Mitchener said.

Then, the post-Depression era — especially the post-World War II period — ushered in an era of “reciprocity,” Irwin said.

The U.S. helped create the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1948, the precursor to the World Trade Organization, which set global rules for trade and ushered in an era of low tariffs.

That said, the U.S. also used tariffs as a reciprocal bargaining chip before WWII.

For example, before the U.S. annexed Hawaii, it signed a free-trade agreement with the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1875. The treaty allowed for duty-free imports of Hawaiian sugar and other agricultural products into the U.S. In exchange, the U.S. got exclusive access to the harbor that would later be known as Pearl Harbor.

How the president’s tariff power grew

U.S. import taxes before the WWII era were pretty high, ranging from 20% to 50%, sometimes even reaching 60%, Irwin said. They have been “very low” since 1950 or so, he said.

The average duty on goods subject to a tariff was about 2% to 4% in the 2010s before Trump’s first term, Mitchener said.

“That’s what President Trump is trying to overturn, this sort of low period of tariffs we’ve had since World War II,” Irwin said.

Trump likely to deploy tariffs 'freely and liberally,' says U.S. think tank

Before 1934, it was Congress — not presidents — that had power over tariff rates and negotiations, said Andrew Wender Cohen, a history professor at Syracuse University.

But Democrats — then known as the political party of free trade — had an enormous majority around the New Deal era and passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, granting the president the right to negotiate tariffs in certain cases, Cohen said.

“That’s when the president gains a much more substantial authority,” Cohen said.

That power accelerated after 1948 during the “transformation of the whole global economic order,” he said.

Why Trump tariff policy is ‘very unusual,’ economists say

President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 03, 2025.

Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images News | Getty Images

That said, Trump’s use of tariff policy is “very unusual” among modern U.S. presidents, Cohen said.

For one, Trump “likes all three Rs” — revenue, restriction and reciprocity, Irwin said.

For example, on the campaign trail, he suggested that tariffs could replace the U.S. income tax to fund the government. He said during his campaign that they would create U.S. factory jobs and has threatened to use them to strongarm Denmark to give up Greenland.

However, there are tradeoffs, Irwin said. For example, restricting imports somewhat negates tariffs’ ability to raise revenue, because it diminishes the tax base for tariffs, he said. (Those additional duties may cause companies to import less or push people to buy less, for instance.)

“You can’t really achieve all three objectives at same time,” he said.

Additionally, no previous president has tried to link a U.S. drug crisis to trade policy, as Trump did with fentanyl.

“That’s a novel take,” Mitchener said.

Many presidents have used tariffs. For example, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon applied tariffs to protect the U.S. steel industry, as Trump did in his first term, Irwin said.

“What’s unusual about Trump is, he’s not just picking out particular industries that he thinks are of strategic importance, but he’s blocking imports across the board almost with some of these countries,” Irwin said.

Trump imposed a 10% additional tariff on all Chinese goods, for example, and threatened a 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico.

“No president in recent memory has really used tariffs across the board or in a broad-brush way to achieve various objectives,” Irwin said. “They’ve sort of adhered to the rule that we belong to the WTO. That means we keep our tariffs low as long as other countries keep their tariffs low.”

Cohen agreed.

Trump pauses Mexico tariffs for one month after agreement on border troops

Global trade treaties, like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Trump signed in his first term, establish a mechanism for nations to file grievances for alleged unfair trade practices, Cohen said. Nations can generally raise tariffs as a retaliatory measure if trade rules are breached, per the treaty terms, he said.

Trump’s recent unilateral tariff announcements are unique in this regard, he said.

“I can’t think of any precedent for that,” Cohen said.

“While the executive branch was given much more power since 1934, it’s always been subject to the specific terms of the agreements,” he said.

Personal Finance

What student loan forgiveness opportunities still remain under Trump

Published

27 minutes ago

April 26, 2025

Business Finance News

Halfpoint Images | Moment | Getty Images

Under the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Education made regular announcements that it was forgiving student debt for thousands of people under various relief programs and repayment plans.

That’s changed under President Donald Trump.

In his first few months in office, Trump — who has long been critical of education debt cancellation — signed an executive order aimed at limiting eligibility for the popular Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, and his Education Department revised some student loan repayment plans to no longer conclude in debt erasure.

“You have the administration trying to limit PSLF credits, and clear attacks on the income-based repayment with forgiveness options,” said Malissa Giles, a consumer bankruptcy attorney in Virginia.

The White House did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

Here’s what to know about the current status of federal student loan forgiveness opportunities.

Forgiveness chances narrow on repayment plans

The Biden administration’s new student loan repayment plan, Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, isn’t expected to survive under Trump, experts say. A U.S. appeals court already blocked the plan in February after a GOP-led challenge to the program.

SAVE came with two key provisions that lawsuits targeted: It had lower monthly payments than any other federal student loan repayment plan, and it led to quicker debt erasure for those with small balances.

“I personally think you will see SAVE dismantled through the courts or the administration,” Giles said.

But the Education Department under Trump is now arguing that the ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals required it to end the loan forgiveness under repayment plans beyond SAVE. As a result, the Pay As You Earn and Income-Contingent Repayment options no longer wipe debt away after a certain number of years.

There’s some good news: At least one repayment plan still leads to debt erasure, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz. That plan is called Income-Based Repayment.

If a borrower enrolled in ICR or PAYE eventually switches to IBR, their previous payments made under the other plans will count toward loan forgiveness under IBR, as long as they meet the IBR’s other requirements, Kantrowitz said. (Some borrowers may opt to take that strategy if they have a lower monthly bill under ICR or PAYE than they would on IBR.)

Public Service Loan Forgiveness remains

Despite Trump‘s executive order in March aimed at limiting eligibility for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, the program remains intact. Any changes to the program would likely take months or longer to materialize, and may even need congressional approval, experts say.

PSLF, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2007, allows many not-for-profit and government employees to have their federal student loans canceled after 10 years of payments.

What’s more, any changes to PSLF can’t be retroactive, consumer advocates say. That means that if you are currently working for or previously worked for an organization that the Trump administration later excludes from the program, you’ll still get credit for that time — at least up until when the changes go into effect.

For now, the language in the president’s executive order was fairly vague. As a result, it remains unclear exactly which organizations will no longer be considered a qualifying employer under PSLF, experts said.

However, in his first few months in office, Trump has targeted immigrants, transgender and nonbinary people and those who work to increase diversity across the private and public sector. Many nonprofits work in these spaces, providing legal support or doing advocacy and education work.

For now, those pursuing PSLF should print out a copy of their payment history on StudentAid.gov or request one from their loan servicer. They should keep a record of the number of qualifying payments they’ve made so far, said Jessica Thompson, senior vice president of The Institute for College Access & Success.

“We urge borrowers to save all documentation of their payments, payment counts, and employer certifications to ensure they have any information that might be useful in the future,” Thompson said.

Other loan cancellation opportunities to consider

Federal student loan borrowers also remain entitled to a number of other student loan forgiveness opportunities.

The Teacher Loan Forgiveness program offers up to $17,500 in loan cancellation to those who’ve worked full time for “complete and consecutive academic years in a low-income school or educational service agency,” among other requirements, according to the Education Department.

(One thing to note: This program can’t be combined with PSLF, and so borrowers should decide which avenue makes the most sense for them.)

In less common circumstances, you may be eligible for a full discharge of your federal student loans under Borrower Defense if your school closed while you were enrolled or if you were misled by your school or didn’t receive a quality education.

Borrowers may qualify for a Total and Permanent Disability discharge if they suffer from a mental or physical disability that is severe and permanent and prevents them from working. Proof of the disability can come from a doctor, the Social Security Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

With the federal government rolling back student loan forgiveness measures, experts also recommend that borrowers explore the many state-level relief programs available. The Institute of Student Loan Advisors has a database of student loan forgiveness programs by state.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Personal Finance

Many Americans are worried about running out of money in retirement

Published

20 hours ago

April 25, 2025

Business Finance News

M Swiet Productions | Getty Images

Many Americans are worried they’ll run out of money in retirement.

In fact, a new survey from Allianz Life finds that 64% Americans worry more about running out of money than they do about dying. Among the reasons cited for those fears include high inflation, Social Security benefits not providing enough support and high taxes.

The fear of running out of money was most prominent for Gen Xers who are approaching retirement. However, a majority of millennials and baby boomers also said they worry about their money lasting, according to the online survey of 1,000 individuals conducted between January and February.

Separately, a new Employee Benefit Research Institute report finds most retirees say they are living the lifestyle they envisioned and are able to spend money within reason. Yet more than half of those surveyed agreed at least somewhat that they spend less because of worries they will run out of money, according to the survey of more than 2,700 individuals conducted between January and February.

Meanwhile, a Northwestern Mutual survey reported that 51% of Americans think it’s “somewhat or very likely” they will outlive their savings. The survey polled 4,626 U.S. adults aged 18 and older in January.

Since those studies were conducted, new tariff policies have caused disturbance in the stock markets and prompted speculation that inflation may increase. Meanwhile, new leadership at the Social Security Administration has prompted fears about the continuity of benefits. Those headlines may negatively affect retirement confidence, experts say.

With employers now providing a 401(k) plan and other savings plans versus pensions, it is largely up to workers to manage how much they save heading into retirement and how much they spend once they reach that life stage. That responsibility can also lead to worries of running out of money in the future, experts say.

How to manage the ‘fear of outliving your resources’

Because of the unique risks every individual or couple faces when planning for retirement, the best approach is typically to transfer some of that burden to a third party, said David Blanchett, head of retirement research at PGIM DC Solutions.

Creating a guaranteed lifetime income stream that covers essential expenses can help reduce the financial impact of any events that require retirees to cut back on spending, Blanchett explained.

That should first start with delaying Social Security benefits, he said. While eligible retirees can claim benefits as early as 62, holding off up until age 70 can provide the biggest monthly benefits. Social Security is also unique in that it provides annual adjustments for inflation.

73% of Americans are financially stressed

Next, retirees may want to consider buying a lifetime income annuity that can help amplify the monthly income they can expect. Admittedly, those products can be complicated to understand. Therefore Blanchett recommends starting out by comparing very basic products like single premium immediate annuities that are easier to compare.

“Unless you do those things, you just can’t get rid of that fear of outliving your resources,” Blanchett said.

Without a guaranteed income stream, retirees bear all of the financial risk themselves, he said.

“Retirement could last 10 years; it could last 40 years,” Blanchett said. “You just don’t know how long it’s going to be.”

Among retirees, there has been some hesitation to buy annuities, said Craig Copeland, EBRI’s director of wealth benefits research. Such a purchase requires parting with a lump sum of money in exchange for the promise of a guaranteed income stream.

“We see great increase in interest, but we aren’t seeing upticks in take up yet,” Copeland said. “I do think that’s going to start to change.”

What can help boost retirement confidence

To effectively plan for retirement, it helps to seek professional financial assistance, experts say.

Meanwhile, few people have a plan of their own for how they may live on the assets they’ve worked hard to accumulate, according to Kelly LaVigne, vice president of consumer insights at Allianz Life.

“This is something that you should not plan on doing on your own,” LaVigne said.

While the survey from Northwestern Mutual separately found individuals think they need $1.26 million to retire comfortably, the real number individuals need is based on their personal situation, said Kyle Menke, founder and wealth management advisor at Menke Financial, a Northwestern Mutual company.

In thinking about how life will look in 30 years, there are a variety of things to consider, Menke said. This includes stock market returns, taxes, inflation and medical expenses, he said.

Even people who have enough money for retirement often don’t feel confident in their ability to manage all of those factors on their own, he said. Financial advisors have the ability to run different simulations and stress test a plan, which can help give retirees and aspiring retirees the confidence they’re lacking.

“I think that’s where the biggest gap is,” said Menke, referring to the confidence Americans are lacking without a plan.

Personal Finance

Trump tariffs will hurt lower income Americans more than the rich: study

Published

22 hours ago

April 25, 2025

Business Finance News

Shipping containers at the Port of Seattle on April 16, 2025.

David Ryder/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Tariffs levied by President Donald Trump during his second term would hurt the poorest U.S. households more than the richest over the short term, according to a new analysis.

Tariffs are a tax that importers pay on foreign goods. Economists expect consumers to shoulder at least some of that tax burden in the form of higher prices, depending on how businesses pass along the costs.

In 2026, taxes for the poorest 20% of households would rise about four times more than those in the top 1%, if the current tariff policies were to stay in place. Those were findings according to an analysis published Wednesday by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Car prices are going up from Trump's auto tariffs 'unless something changes': Liberty Subaru owner

For the bottom 20% of households — who will have incomes of less than $29,000 in 2026 — the tariffs will impose a tax increase equal to 6.2% of their income that year, on average, according to ITEP’s analysis.

Meanwhile, those in the top 1%, with an income of more than $915,000 a year, would see their taxes rise 1.7% relative to their income, on average, ITEP found.

Economists analyze the financial impact of policy relative to household income because it illustrates how their disposable income — and quality of life — are impacted.

Taxes by ‘another name’

“Tariffs are just taxes on Americans by another name,” researchers at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, wrote in 2017, during Trump’s first term.

“[They] raise the price of food and clothing, which make up a larger share of a low-income household’s budget,” they wrote, adding: “In fact, cutting tariffs could be the biggest tax cut low-income families will ever see.”

Meanwhile, there’s already evidence that some retailers are raising costs.

A recent analysis by the Yale Budget Lab also found that Trump tariffs are a “regressive” policy, meaning they hurt those at the bottom more than the top.

The short-term tax burden of tariffs is about 2.5 times greater for those at the bottom, the Yale analysis found. It examined tariffs and retaliatory trade measures through April 15.

“Lower income consumers are going to get pinched more by tariffs,” said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and former chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Biden administration.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said tariffs may lead to a “one-time price adjustment” for consumers. But he also coupled trade policy as part of a broader White House economic agenda that includes a forthcoming legislative package of tax cuts.

“We’re also working on the tax bill and for working Americans, I believe that the reduction in taxes is going to be substantially more,” Bessent said April 2.

It’s also unclear how current tariff policy might change. The White House has signaled trade deals with certain nations and exemptions for certain products may be in the offing.

Trump has imposed a 10% tariff on imports from most U.S. trading partners. Mexico and Canada face 25% levies on a tranche of goods, and many Chinese goods face import duties of 145%. Specific products also face tariffs, like a 25% duty on aluminum, steel and automobiles.