On May 12, China and the United States issued a joint statement, affirming that bilateral economic and trade relations are not only of great significance to both countries, but also have a profound impact on global economic stability and development. Behind the phased progress achieved, the complex considerations of the U.S. side merit careful examination. What are the key concerns of Trump’s core tariff team?
I. Key Members of Trump’s Tariff Team
Scott Bessent (Secretary of the Treasury)
Label 1: Market-based, market-savvy, and adept at communicating with the market. Bessent is the founder of global macro investment firm Key Square Group and former CIO of Soros Fund Management. He participated in events like the “attack on the pound” and “shorting of the yen,” and has been praised by Trump as “one of the smartest people on Wall Street.” After the imposition of reciprocal tariffs, Bessent maintained close communication with hedge fund managers and held private dinners with investors, incorporating market feedback into policy formulation.
Label 2: A key figure in the U.S. side’s participation in the “China-U.S. Joint Statement” and holds significant influence over Trump’s decisions.
Label 3: Pragmatic and flexible trading style, only engages in high-certainty trades. His approach involves adjusting positions based on actual gains or losses and holding highly liquid assets for capital flexibility.
Label 4: Advocates pro-growth economic policies, deregulation, and fiscal discipline. Bessent proposed the “333” plan—achieving 3% GDP growth, cutting the budget deficit to 3% of GDP by 2028, and producing an additional 3 million barrels of oil (or energy equivalent) daily.
Jamieson Greer (U.S. Trade Representative)
Label 1: A protégé of Robert Lighthizer and a staunch protectionist with extensive trade negotiation experience. Greer, a lawyer specializing in international trade law, served as Lighthizer’s chief of staff and participated in U.S.-China trade talks and the USMCA negotiations.
Label 2: Pragmatic, methodical, and highly effective executor. He was a key player in drafting the “China-U.S. Joint Statement” and is known for his detail-oriented and policy tool-savvy approach.
Howard Lutnick (Secretary of Commerce)
Label 1: A financial capitalist with strong business instincts and remarkable resilience. As CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, he led the firm through 9/11 and the 2008 financial crisis.
Label 2: Highly visible in media, but lacks strategic coherence. Known for sensational remarks and contradictory messaging.
Label 3: A vocal proponent of financial innovation and digital currencies, supports Tether, and likens Bitcoin to gold.
Peter Navarro (Senior White House Advisor)
Label 1: Trump loyalist, deeply trusted for refusing to betray Trump even under legal pressure.
Label 2: Controversial “political economist” with ideological biases, criticized for lacking analytical rigor and for using fabricated expert opinions.
Label 3: Architect of “reciprocal tariffs” whose extreme positions triggered sharp market volatility and loss of investor confidence, leading to a pause in aggressive tariff implementation.
Kevin Hassett (Director, National Economic Council)
Label 1: Veteran Republican economist with both academic credentials and policy experience, helped shape the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Label 2: Seen as a rational voice in economic policymaking, offering independent and professional analysis.
Stephen Milan (Chair, Council of Economic Advisers)
Label 1: Architect of the “Mar-a-Lago Accord,” influences tariff policy. His paper “Rebuilding the Global Trade System: A User’s Guide” (Nov. 2024) underpins current reform strategy.
Label 2: Criticized for academic shortcomings and lack of empirical rigor; theories are often internally inconsistent.
II. Key Concerns of the Core Team
Political Dimensions:
Upholding the “America First” Banner to Win Voter Support: Under the “America First” slogan, tariffs are promoted as tools to protect manufacturing and create jobs, while projecting a tough stance internationally to appeal to specific voter groups such as the Rust Belt and “redneck” communities.
Policy Adjustments Driven by Public Opinion: The administration seeks to fine-tune its policies in response to public concerns. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted May 16–18 showed Trump’s overall approval rating at 42%—a record low for his second term—with only 39% approving of his economic performance. Despite recent tariff adjustments and efforts to win back public support through tax cuts and investment plans, the impact remains limited.
Strengthening Governance Ahead of Midterm Elections: Historically, U.S. midterm elections tend to be unfavorable for the sitting president’s party. The next midterms are scheduled for November 3, 2026. On May 4, Trump stated he would not seek a third term, indicating his focus is now on the 2026 midterms rather than the 2028 presidential race.
Economic Dimensions:
Short-Term Goal—Increasing Fiscal Revenue:
According to the U.S. Treasury Department, combined tariff revenue in April and May reached $37.6 billion, with May’s $22 billion accounting for 6% of total federal revenue—a monthly record and a 270% year-over-year increase. However, two constraints exist:
First, the revenue still falls short of Trump’s stated goal of $2 billion per day.
Second, tariffs could disrupt global trade flows, affecting future revenue. The WTO’s April 16 Global Trade Outlook and Statistics projected that due to tariff measures, global goods trade growth could decline from its long-term average of nearly 3% to -0.2% in 2025.
Short-Term Goal—Encouraging Federal Reserve Rate Cuts to Reduce Interest Payments:
The U.S. government is facing massive interest obligations. In FY2024, interest payments totaled approximately $1.13 trillion; by the end of April FY2025, they had already reached $684.1 billion. With about $9.2 trillion in debt maturing in 2025—roughly a quarter of total federal debt—pressure is mounting. However, two major obstacles remain:
First, the inflationary uncertainty caused by tariffs limits the Fed’s willingness to cut rates. According to Yale’s Budget Lab (April 10), new tariffs imposed since the start of 2024 could raise price levels by 2.7%, translating to an average $4,400 loss in household purchasing power.
Second, Fed Chair Powell has reiterated the Fed’s independence. On May 7, he stated that high tariffs could increase both inflation and unemployment and that “it is too early to judge which poses the greater risk,” affirming that “calls for rate cuts will not influence our decision-making.”
Short-Term Goal—Stimulating Growth Through Tax Cuts:
On May 22, the House narrowly passed Trump’s tax reform bill (215–214), proposing over $4 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade alongside at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. Constraints include:
Increasing fiscal pressure: According to Wall Street projections cited by Time Weekly, the tax plan could add at least $3 trillion in debt over the next decade and raise the debt-to-GDP ratio from the current 100% to a record 125%.
Equity concerns and uncertain effectiveness: The tax cuts are viewed as disproportionately benefiting the wealthy while reducing welfare for low-income families. The policy’s actual effect on economic growth remains unclear.
Short-Term Goal—Reducing Non-Essential Spending:
The U.S. faces mounting fiscal pressure. Trump’s FY2026 budget proposal targets $163 billion in spending cuts. However, with rising defense expenditures, non-defense discretionary spending is under severe strain. Progress is slow—of the targeted $1 trillion in cuts, only $175 billion had been achieved as of May 26, casting doubt on the feasibility of meeting the full target.
Mid- to Long-Term Goal—Reviving Domestic Manufacturing:
Manufacturing’s share of U.S. GDP has fallen from 28.3% in 1953 to just 10% in 2024. Progress has been made since the 2022 CHIPS Act, with investment in electronics manufacturing reaching $11 billion per month as of June 2024—an annualized $135 billion. However, constraints remain:
High labor costs and insufficient supply: While 80% of respondents in a Cato Institute poll believe more Americans should work in manufacturing, only about 25% expressed willingness to work in factories themselves.
Long, costly supply chain restructuring and low investment willingness: Restructuring for complex products typically takes 3–5 years. Uncertainty over election outcomes, policy inconsistency, and frequent tariff adjustments have dampened investor confidence.
Additional Economic Concerns:
U.S. Dollar Trends: Trump’s team has not explicitly endorsed a weak-dollar policy, but its behavior leans that way. The Mar-a-Lago Accord supports a weaker dollar to reduce trade deficits and support manufacturing, though a weaker dollar could also undermine U.S. creditworthiness.
U.S. Treasury Yields: On May 16, Moody’s downgraded the U.S. sovereign rating from Aaa to Aa1, shifting the outlook from “negative” to “stable.” Rising yields would exacerbate debt burdens and limit fiscal flexibility.
Stock Market Performance: U.S. equities are central to the country’s financial system. Market performance affects household wealth, consumption, and corporate investment at the micro level, and at the macro level it serves as a confidence barometer linked to political stability and tax revenue.
Geopolitical Dimensions:
Under the banner of “Making America Great Again,” Trump’s team is dismantling the post-WWII global order based on multilateralism and globalization.
Withdrawal from Multilateral Institutions: Trump’s first term saw exits from TPP, the Paris Agreement, UNESCO, the Iran nuclear deal, the INF Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty. On his first day back in office in his second term, Trump withdrew from the WHO, signaling declining U.S. support for global institutions.
Trade Protectionism’s Disruption: Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” undermine the post-war multilateral free trade system. According to the IMF, a global trade war triggered by steep U.S. tariffs could cost the global economy up to 7% of GDP. Additionally, supply chain decoupling under the guise of national security is projected by Bloomberg to raise global costs by 40%.
III. Conclusion
The complexity and multiplicity of considerations behind Trump’s tariff policies highlight that tariffs are not merely tools of trade retaliation, but a strategic component of a broader national agenda encompassing politics, economics, and geopolitics. Internally, they serve as a means to mobilize domestic political resources and fiscal revenues; externally, they exert influence on the global trade structure and monetary system. Tariffs have therefore become the most visible and influential lever in the Trump administration’s overall strategy.
Tariffs are no longer just a simple fiscal instrument or trade measure; under Trump’s guidance, they have evolved into a central pillar of the U.S. national strategy. In the short term, they are used to raise revenue, suppress inflation, and stimulate growth. In the medium term, they aim to restructure supply chains and guide the return of manufacturing. In the long run, they are intended to reinforce the United States’ dominance over the global trade system and international monetary architecture.
From a systemic standpoint, Trump’s tariff strategy is not driven by a single logic or objective. Rather, it is constructed atop a multidimensional framework. The ultimate goal is to reverse the long-term effects of globalization, rebuild U.S. national competitiveness, and consolidate American hegemony. To this end, tariffs are not merely technical means but political symbols and economic weapons—tools that carry strategic depth and ideological connotation.