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

Published

2 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

Trump administration loses appeal of DOGE Social Security restraining order

Published

14 hours ago

April 2, 2025

Business Finance News

A person holds a sign during a protest against cuts made by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to the Social Security Administration, in White Plains, New York, U.S., March 22, 2025.

Nathan Layne | Reuters

The Trump administration’s appeal of a temporary restraining order blocking the so-called Department of Government Efficiency from accessing sensitive personal Social Security Administration data has been dismissed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Tuesday dismissed the government’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case will proceed in the district court. A motion for a preliminary injunction will be filed later this week, according to national legal organization Democracy Forward.

The temporary restraining order was issued on March 20 by federal Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander and blocks DOGE and related agents and employees from accessing agency systems that contain personally identifiable information.

That includes information such as Social Security numbers, medical provider information and treatment records, employer and employee payment records, employee earnings, addresses, bank records, and tax information.

DOGE team members were also ordered to delete all nonanonymized personally identifiable information in their possession.

The plaintiffs include unions and retiree advocacy groups, namely the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Alliance for Retired Americans and the American Federation of Teachers.

“We are pleased the 4th Circuit agreed to let this important case continue in district court,” Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said in a written statement. “Every American retiree must be able to trust that the Social Security Administration will protect their most sensitive and personal data from unwarranted disclosure.”

The Trump administration’s appeal ignored standard legal procedure, according to Democracy Forward. The administration’s efforts to halt the enforcement of the temporary restraining order have also been denied.

“The president will continue to seek all legal remedies available to ensure the will of the American people is executed,” Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, said via email.

Fiserv CEO on the nomination to Social Security Commisioner role

The Social Security Administration did not respond to a request from CNBC for comment.

Immediately after the March 20 temporary restraining order was put in place, Social Security Administration Acting Commissioner Lee Dudek said in press interviews that he may have to shut down the agency since it “applies to almost all SSA employees.”

Dudek was admonished by Hollander, who called that assertion “inaccurate” and said the court order “expressly applies only to SSA employees working on the DOGE agenda.”

Dudek then said that the “clarifying guidance” issued by the court meant he would not shut down the agency. “SSA employees and their work will continue under the [temporary restraining order],” Dudek said in a March 21 statement.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Personal Finance

Most credit card users carry debt, pay over 20% interest: Fed report

Published

15 hours ago

April 2, 2025

Business Finance News

Julpo | E+ | Getty Images

Many Americans are paying a hefty price for their credit card debt.

As a primary source of unsecured borrowing, 60% of credit cardholders carry debt from month to month, according to a new report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

At the same time, credit card interest rates are “very high,” averaging 23% annually in 2023, the New York Fed found, also making credit cards one of the most expensive ways to borrow money.

“With the vast majority of the American public using credit cards for their purchases, the interest rate that is attached to these products is significant,” said Erica Sandberg, consumer finance expert at CardRates.com. “The more a debt costs, the more stress this puts on an already tight budget.”

Most credit cards have a variable rate, which means there’s a direct connection to the Federal Reserve’s benchmark. And yet, credit card lenders set annual percentage rates well above the central bank’s key borrowing rate, currently targeted in a range between 4.25% to 4.5%, where it has been since December.

Following the Federal Reserve’s rate hike in 2022 and 2023, the average credit card rate rose from 16.34% to more than 20% today — a significant increase fueled by the Fed’s actions to combat inflation.

“Card issuers have determined what the market will bear and are comfortable within this range of interest rates,” said Matt Schulz, chief credit analyst at LendingTree.

APRs will come down as the central bank reduces rates, but they will still only ease off extremely high levels. With just a few potential quarter-point cuts on deck, APRs aren’t likely to fall much, according to Schulz.

Despite the steep cost, consumers often turn to credit cards, in part because they are more accessible than other types of loans, Schulz said.

In fact, credit cards are the No. 1 source of unsecured borrowing and Americans’ credit card tab continues to creep higher. In the last year, credit card debt rose to a record $1.21 trillion.

Because credit card lending is unsecured, it is also banks’ riskiest type of lending.

“Lenders adjust interest rates for two primary reasons: cost and risk,” CardRates’ Sandberg said.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s research shows that credit card charge-offs averaged 3.96% of total balances between 2010 and 2023. That compares to only 0.46% and 0.43% for business loans and residential mortgages, respectively.

As a result, roughly 53% of banks’ annual default losses were due to credit card lending, according to the NY Fed research.

“When you offer a product to everyone you are assuming an awful lot of risk,” Schulz said.

Further, “when times get tough they get tough for most everybody,” he added. “That makes it much more challenging for card issuers.”

The best way to pay off debt

The best move for those struggling to pay down revolving credit card debt is to consolidate with a 0% balance transfer card, experts suggest.

“There is enormous competition in the credit card market,” Sandberg said. Because lenders are constantly trying to capture new cardholders, those 0% balance transfer credit card offers are still widely available.

Cards offering 12, 15 or even 24 months with no interest on transferred balances “are basically the best tool in your toolbelt when it comes to knocking down credit card debt,” Schulz said. “Not accruing interest for two years on a balance is pretty hard to argue with.”

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Personal Finance

The 60/40 portfolio may no longer represent ‘true diversification’: Fink

Published

18 hours ago

April 2, 2025

Business Finance News

Andrew Ross Sorkin speaks with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink during the New York Times DealBook Summit in the Appel Room at the Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York City on Nov. 30, 2022.

Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images

It may be time to rethink the traditional 60/40 investment portfolio, according to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

In a new letter to investors, Fink writes the traditional allocation comprised of 60% stocks and 40% bonds that dates back to the 1950s “may no longer fully represent true diversification.”

“The future standard portfolio may look more like 50/30/20 — stocks, bonds and private assets like real estate, infrastructure and private credit.” Fink writes.

Most professional investors love to talk their book, and Fink is no exception. BlackRock has pursued several recent acquisitions — Global Infrastructure Partners, Preqin and HPS Investment Partners — with the goal of helping to increase investors’ access to private markets.

The effort to make it easier to incorporate both public and private investments in a portfolio is analogous to index versus active investments in 2009, Fink said.

Those investment strategies that were then considered separately can now be blended easily at a low cost.

Fink hopes the same will eventually be said for public and private markets.

Yet shopping for private investments now can feel “a bit like buying a house in an unfamiliar neighborhood before Zillow existed, where finding accurate prices was difficult or impossible,” Fink writes.

60/40 portfolio still a ‘great starting point’

After both stocks and bonds saw declines in 2022, some analysts declared the 60/40 portfolio strategy dead. In 2024, however, such a balanced portfolio would have provided a return of about 14%.

“If you want to keep things very simple, the 60/40 portfolio or a target date fund is a great starting point,” said Amy Arnott, portfolio strategist at Morningstar.

If you’re willing to add more complexity, you could consider smaller positions in other asset classes like commodities, private equity or private debt, she said.

However, a 20% allocation in private assets is on the aggressive side, Arnott said.

The total value of private assets globally is about $14.3 trillion, while the public markets are worth about $247 trillion, she said.

For investors who want to keep their asset allocations in line with the market value of various asset classes, that would imply a weighting of about 6% instead of 20%, Arnott said.

Yet a 50/30/20 portfolio is a lot closer to how institutional investors have been allocating their portfolios for years, said Michael Rosen, chief investment officer at Angeles Investments.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink: Infrastructure will be the largest growing sector in private capital

The 60/40 portfolio, which Rosen previously said reached its “expiration date,” hasn’t been used by his firm’s endowment and foundation clients for decades.

There’s a key reason why. Institutional investors need to guarantee a specific return, also while paying for expenses and beating inflation, Rosen said.

While a 50/30/20 allocation may help deliver “truly outsized returns” to the mass retail market, there’s also a “lot of baggage” that comes with that strategy, Rosen said.

There’s a lack of liquidity, which means those holdings aren’t as easily converted to cash, Rosen said.

What’s more, there’s generally a lack of transparency and significantly higher fees, he said.

Prospective investors should be prepared to commit for 10 years to private investments, Arnott said.

And they also need to be aware that measurement issues with asset classes like private equity means past performance data may not be as reliable, she said.

For the average person, the most likely path toward tapping into private equity will be part of a 401(k) plan, Arnott said. So far, not a lot of companies have added private equity to their 401(k) offerings, but that could change, she said.

“We will probably see more plan sponsors adding private equity options to their lineups going forward,” Arnott said.