Former U.S. Trade Rep. Ron Kirk: President Trump's trade policy is more performative than strategic

Trade Deficit and Tariff Impact - The trade deficit has widened, partly due to retaliatory measures from other countries in response to the US's more aggressive trade policies [3][4] - Blanket tariffs are not seen as effective in addressing trade imbalances, with little support outside the administration [18] - There's concern that tariffs are more performative than strategic, causing market downturns without achieving reshoring or manufacturing goals [5][6] US Economic Position and Trade Relations - The US is considered the most desirable economic market, but its reputation is being damaged by perceived bullying tactics and disregard for the rule of law [14][15] - Other trading partners are questioning whether they can rely on the US's word, potentially seeking alternatives [16] - The administration's approach is putting US businesses in a difficult situation [16] Tariff Revenue and Economic Impact - The administration is expected to collect $3.7 trillion in tariffs, potentially to offset tax cuts, but this cost will ultimately be borne by American businesses and consumers [11] - Tariffs are viewed as a tax on American businesses and consumers, despite being presented as a toll on access to the US market [10] - Companies dependent on foreign inputs may face layoffs or business closures due to tariffs [12] Alternative Trade Strategies - Sectoral targets, focusing on specific industries and egregious behavior, are considered a more effective and targeted approach than blanket tariffs [17][18]