Talk:Trump tariffs

What's wrong with the organization?

@Classicwiki: You added a tag to the article, early in its life, that said the article may need cleanup or better organization or something. You added this to an article you yourself had created, and you didn't come to the talk page to explain what your concerns are. Could you please explain what the tag is about, or if you don't have a specific concern, could you please remove it? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, thanks for reaching out. True, I created the article. I thought this topic was important enough (seeing as it will have long and short term global economic implications) to create a dedicated article. I think the article reads a bit clunky, somethings could be better synthesized, and updated. I was hoping the tag would spur a collaborator to try to make it more cohesive. Hope that makes sense. Happy to address any concerns. Best, Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I've made a few changes I hope are improvements. The structure will continue to be clunky for the remainder of the month, as this is a currently-developing news story. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, power~enwiki. I'm sure we will find the right balance and structure in the coming weeks. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-name to "Trump Administration tariffs" or some such?

The current title is too flippant. "Tariffs implemented by the Trump administration" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I didn't mean it to come off as "flippant." I don't think the long name is necessary. Naming convention is based on the {{US tax acts}} list. You will notice there are titles like McKinley Tariff, Black Tariff, Walker Tariff, etc. I didn't want to say "Tariffs of 2018" because it is still early days and no one calls it that. Tariffs and trade imbalance is one of Trump's most consistent policy positions dating back to the 1980s and is shaping up to be his presidency's key economic signatures. I evaluated news articles to determine a common name, and you can see numerous other reliable source refer to these moves as Trump tariffs, 1,2, 3, and 4. Finally, of course his administration enforces and codifies the tariffs, but there is widespread disagreement within his administration over the tariffs. Gary Cohn is planning his exit; US State, Treasury, and Defense are against the tariffs, while Trade and Commerce are in favor. Hope the naming is justified. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I was skeptical of the name as well, but Classicwiki makes a compelling case to keep this name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It unintentionally comes off as flashy, due to the alliteration. Gravestep (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Move all of Trump's statements as a candidate into one section?

The 15-35% tariffs on Mexico were statements made as a candidate, no? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

They were made as a candidate. But he also floated a non-specified 20% to pay for his wall. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Fold the automobile section into other sections?

I don't think Trump's spitballing deserves a separate heading. Actual tariffs that have been formally announced and implemented, yes. Not vague threats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

See my above response. He also floated a big border tax for Toyota's made in Mexico when he was president-elect. I understand the concern about having an automobile section, but seeing as he has made numerous statements about foreign cars I think the section deserves to be there. Especially, since he threatened Europe for their retaliation to his steel tariffs. Its complicated and inter-connected, and I feel like auto's are a piece of the puzzle. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Canada and Mexico exemptions

Looks like the article is a little out of date in regards to the temperary exemptions issued to Canada and Mexico. Mostly in the Steel and aluminum section and the response section there. How would be best to update those parts? Some sources for the exemptions Reuters, CBS, and NBC. PackMecEng (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I updated it to this:

On March 1, 2018 Trump announced his intention to enforce a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports.[23] On March 8, he signed an order to impose the tariffs effective after 15 days. He said that Canada and Mexico, and possibly Australia and other countries, will be exempt from the levy.[24] An administration official later clarified that the exemptions for Canada and Mexico are not permanent, but depend on their renegotiating NAFTA to Trump's liking.[25][26]

How is that? As is often the case with this administration, it may be hard to get a definitive statement. They are emphasizing how "flexible" they intend to be. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. And do we really need an "outdated" tag on this article? It is being updated on a daily basis. I propose to remove the tag. --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks pretty good thanks! I dunno about the update tag, maybe the current events one might be a better fit since it is more or less breaking and a moving target on what exactly is happening. PackMecEng (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

That could be more appropriate. Or maybe we don't need a tag since many politics-related articles fall in the current-events category. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, seems reasonable that pretty much every Trump related article is changing almost daily. PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed it. Let's just try to stay on top of each day's news stories. (Noting that this is Friday, often a big news-dump day.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Analysis section

Currently we have "A survey of leading economists by the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business showed a consensus that imposing new US tariffs on steel and aluminum will not improve Americans’ welfare." sourced to this. The sentence in general kind of bothers me. First the editorializing part like leading economists and the consensus feels forced. This is a primary source, so it would be us interpreting the leading economists and consensus. Also adding university of chicago and booth school of business seems redundant if we have initiative of global markets linked, since their article explains all of that. PackMecEng (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

New round of tariffs allegedly coming this Friday: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-prepared-to-hit-china-with-60-billion-in-annual-tariffs/2018/03/19/fd5e5874-2bb7-11e8-b0b0-f706877db618_story.html Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Rename article to Trump Trade Wars

Per WP:RSes, this is being called a trade war. We should follow the sources and rename the article to Trump Trade Wars. Casprings (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it. Even tabloid-y sources say Theresa May slams 'UNJUSTIFIED' Trump tariffs as TRADE WAR with EU looms. The Washington Post says it threatened to escalate into a full-blown trade war but discusses tariffs much more, and as an actual thing happening now. What sources support this rename? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think RS are using this term consistently and with precision. Trump tariffs is a more appropriate name for a Wiki article on this subject. 01:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the current title is that it doesn't capture what the event is. Other countries responding to Trump's actions is essential.Casprings (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources:

Trump’s Trade War Sparks Congressional Backlash Inside the chaos of Donald Trump’s trade wars Trump’s Trade War Has a Bright Side for Canada Many, many, more.Casprings (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the article to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. In addition, no consensus to move the page to Trade policy of Donald Trump at this time. Dekimasuよ! 04:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Trump tariffs → Donald Trump's trade war – The rationale for this move is twofold. First, the current title doesn’t capture the totality of the events. It isn’t just Trump’s tariffs or threats of tariffs. What you really have is a series of protective trade tariffs or threats of tariffs by Donald Trump against countries in the European Union, Canada, Mexico and China and the reciprocal responses to those threats and tariffs. That is a trade war. Second, WP:RS support the change. This is what RS, after RS call this event: For examples, see:

• Washington Post: Trump is waging a trade war in the dumbest way possible
• National Review: Trump’s Trade War Sparks Congressional Backlash
• FT Times: Inside the chaos of Donald Trump’s trade wars
• Bloomberg: Trump’s Trade War Has a Bright Side for Canada
• Harvard Business Review: What Trump’s Trade War Could Mean for the WTO and Global Trade Casprings (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: Per below, I withdraw this and suggest a new discussion on moving the page to Trade policy of Donald Trump.Casprings (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - Trade war does not cover the whole event either, since the majority of events have not actually been a trade war yet. Also from what I can find it is not the most common name for the subject yet, it is just tariffs and purposed tariffs for various reasons. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the age or article you are looking at and rather they cover all the actions or not. If the articles are newer and cover multiple actions, they tend to use Trade Wars. Also, the question isn't rather it covers everything. The question is rather it better covers it then the current title.Casprings (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - There's more to the tariff policy of this administration than trade war. This is a good explainer piece in the NYT[1]. It appears that trade experts dispute that this can be categorized as a trade war. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm certain there are many outlets that have called it a "trade war", but we would need a majority of RS's to do so in order to move the article, and that's not happening here. Red Slash 12:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Rename to Trade policy of Donald Trump More encyclopedic title. This article could easily be expanded to include the US withdrawal from Trans-Pacific-Partnership and the possible US withdrawal from NAFTA —SpanishSnake (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I addressed this issue before on this talk page. I think Trump tariffs is an accurate title. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – The article was created to document tariffs imposed by the Donald Trump administration, and Trump's rationale for them. Whether they spark a wider trade war remains to be seen, and if that happens, a separate article should be created, with a neutral title such as "2018 trade war". — JFG ^talk 15:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Rename to Trade policy of Donald Trump per SpanishSnake. Much more encyclopedic, comparable to others such as Economic policy of..., Foreign policy of..., etc. "Trump tariffs" is kind of a bizarre name, and "Donald Trump's trade war" is a nonstarter. Maybe after this RfC is closed we could start a new one for "Trade policy of..." --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. I see that most such articles actually named "Foo of the John Doe administration" so consider my suggestion to be Trade policy of the Donald Trump administration. We can talk about it after this RM closes. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Rename to Trade policy of Donald Trump per SpanishSnake in agreement with MelanieN.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is just as descriptive and more NPOV. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - proposed name violates NPOV. I prefer the name Trade policy(ies) of Donald Trump(the (Donald) Trump administration). Dreigorich (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support the proposer's rationale is solid and this is how most sources refer to it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Rename to Trade policy of Donald Trump as consensus seems to be forming around this very reasonable suggestion. The current name and the proposed name are good redirects, and should be kept. Abductive (reasoning) 05:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• strong oppose to keep WP:NPOV GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Trade policy of Donald Trump per above. The scope has expanded beyond a single tariff, which motivated the original name (as a parallel to McKinley Tariff or Walker tariff). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose:

1. "Trade war" is WP:SENSATIONALism. Yes, we find the term used in some media reports and headlines, but also there are many reports that state this is not (yet) a trade war, although there is concern a trade war could be the outcome.
2. It takes at least two sides to have a war. Trump cannot have a war on his own.
3. We already have an article at 2018 China–United States trade war.

- Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 18 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Trump tariffs → Trade policy of Donald Trump – The current title doesn’t capture the totality of the events. The name suggest does that and is in line with Wikipedia naming conventions. Casprings (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per consensus developed above. Abductive (reasoning) 04:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

comment It says specifically above that "No consensus was reached to move the page to 'Trade Policy of Donald Trump.'"GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I knew that. I feel that a consensus was reached for this particular alternative title. Abductive (reasoning) 18:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, I addressed this on the talk page before. I think Trump tariffs is an accurate name. This page really just focuses on tariffs. Although tariffs have been a key part of Trump's trade policy, it is not synonymous with his (or his administration's) entire trade policy. I think there is a lot more to his trade policy than tariffs. Trade policy of Donald Trump should redirect to Economic_policy_of_Donald_Trump#Trade or should become its own page, where readers can get a slightly wider view. If this page is renamed it would need to be largely rewritten and expanded to fit the new title. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no reason not to have an article specifically about the tariffs. The specific subject of tariffs under the Trump administration is likely to produce a substantial article. It seems to me that this is more about practical application than policy. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Classicwiki GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed title per Classicwiki. I'm not particularly fond of the present title, but I agree that the proposed title would be better off redirecting to the section in the economic policy article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Partial support. After some thought, I think ...of the Trump administration might work better. Dreigorich (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per my arguments above. This is in accord with the way we name similar articles about the policies of various presidents and of Trump himself. I would have preferred "Trade policy of the Donald Trump administration" as even more in line with those precedents, but either would be much better than "Trump tariffs". --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current article title is appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose After reading the discussion I think we're better to create a new article Trade policy of the Trump administration (as a spin-off of Economic policy of Donald Trump) and leave this one where it is and narrowly focused on tariffs. The alternative would be to move this article and probably re-create a sub-page at this title later. I note 2018 China–United States trade war as another article on this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC: Article should be renamed : “Trump’s Trade War” per WP: Common Name

Clear case of WP: Common name. Just a few examples. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/24/trumps-trade-war-is-economic-suicide.amp.html https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-war-tariffs-effect-on-economy-prices-consumer-stocks-2018-7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/yuwahedrickwong/2018/08/05/chinas-japanese-lesson-for-fighting-trumps-trade-war/amp/ https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/929019002 https://www.newsweek.com/lobster-trump-trade-tariff-rock-crab-tariffs-new-england-1068106 https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/07/the-costs-of-trumps-trade-war/565208/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/30/effects-donald-trumps-trade-war/ http://theconversation.com/how-trumps-trade-war-affects-working-class-americans-100702 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/denim-makers-hurt-by-new-eu-tariffs-trade-war/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-03/made-in-usa-jeans-already-a-dying-breed-gutted-by-eu-tariffs

• support per WP: Common name. Clearly prescribed by policy. Besides, “Trump tariffs” is obviously an extraordinarily shitty name for this article. This goes beyond a mere tariff or two, into a full-blown trade war, with the causalties in human lives and jobs likely to number in the millions. “Trump’s trade war” sounds better than “Trump tarrifs” which is corny as fuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:b41e:6228:b0b2:25cf:5703:aaf (talk) 08:55, August 11, 2018‎ (UTC)
• No. See comments above and existing article 2018 China–United States trade war. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP: Common name. --Cornellier (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Include section about the impact of tariffs on the U.S. agricultural sector

The last paragraph of the introduction mentions how the Trump administration used the CCC to generate 12 billion dollars to compensate for the impact the tariffs are having on the U.S. agricultural sector, yet there is no more information on the topic in the article.

I plan to include a short section explaining the impact of the tariffs on the U.S. agricultural sector to explain why the administration is using the CCC to compensate them in the first place. I then plan to include a link to a separate Wikipedia article that will provide more details on the 'Market Facilitation Program' that was created using the CCC money.

Currently, I am thinking of calling the title: Impacts on U.S. Agriculture Sector

Where in the article do you think this section would best fit? Also, do you have any further suggestions on this plan?

Joslun01 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Bown and Irwin

Hi, you may be interested in adding this analysis to the article (or to the eco policy of the Trump administration article): https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/what-might-trump-withdrawal-world-trade-organization-mean-us-tariffs . It's by two of the greatest economists on trade, and they are estimating what the impact of Trump's proposed policies would be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Changes to long-standing version of the lede

The editor FloridaArmy has edit-warred to change the long-standing lede. (1) He has edit-warred to introduce cherry-picked reasons for why Trump implemented tariffs. (2) The lede also now includes the absurd statement that "Trump promised to protect and promote American jobs," as if this is something noteworthy or unique to any policy proposed by an American politician (FloridaArmy also edit-warred to keep this in the lede). (3) The lede also rambles about how the US has a large trade deficit (placed in the second sentence in the lede!), without noting that economists widely reject that trade deficit matter in and of themselves (FloridaArmy edit-warred to keep this in the lede with the stated rationale "trade deficit is not "fringe nonsense"."). Furthermore, the body clearly notes that Trump's trade deficit rhetoric is economic illiteracy, and that the trade deficit has increased during his tenure. The trade deficit statement is intended to mislead readers by (A) suggesting it matters, (B) by failing to identify it doesn't matter, and (C) by failing to note that the Trade deficit has increased under Trump. It fails WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and does not summarize the body per WP:LEDE requirements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

FloridaArmy has now[2] also changed text in the body which clearly noted that economists reject that trade deficits matter in and of themselves. In the edit summary, the editor deceptively quoted one sentence from one of the three sources cited (all three of which 100% supported my version of the text) while leaving out the next sentence which literally rebuts the first one. FloridaArmy quoted the sentence in italics while leaving out the next sentence. The editor should self-revert immediately:

• "The administration is correct that when the trade deficit goes up, GDP will go down, all else equal. But economists are quick to point out that a larger trade deficit doesn’t actually reduce economic activity directly — it’s a product of the way GDP is calculated, not one of cause and effect." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about changes to the lede, particularly any effort to include the Administration's stated or political justifications for the tariffs as though the outcomes they claim for them were self-evidently true. JohnInDC (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the POV leanings of some of the other text that's been recently added - "The notion that bilateral trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is overwhelmingly rejected by trade experts and economists" being one example. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is the POV problem with that text? The text clearly adheres to RS and is clearly consistent with the consensus among economists. WP:FRINGE applies perfectly: "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Because as it is now written it is baldy factual. Trump promised to reduce trade deficits. (He did promise.) He tried, but has so far failed. I agree that there's some POV pushing in this rewritten lead but the solution is to make the lead NPOV, and not to even things up by adding more of it. JohnInDC (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Further, the article (at least so far in as this edit appears) doesn't claim that bilateral deficits are inherently harmful. It just says Trump wants to reduce them. And of course while deficits aren't inherently harmful, they aren't inherently good either. At this place this text refutes an assertion that doesn't appear. JohnInDC (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump has often asserted that trade deficits are harmful (BBC News: "Part of his justification for the move was his belief that US trade deficits have hurt the US economy.") - that's why he wants to reduce them and according to BBC News that's one of the reasons why he's launching trade wars. The body could have specified that, but you're right that it didn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, I agree. His understanding of the issue is primitive and wrongheaded and these tariffs aren't going to accomplish what he wants, and are going to make things worse for most Americans, through at least higher prices - and probably losses in the very jobs he claims to want to protect. But none of that is in the article (again, at least where this edit appears). Is there a better place for it below, where your (correct) point can be / should be laid up against claims that Trump is making for the tariffs? (I would look myself but I'll be away for a bit; happy to do it later.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have pinged Farcaster and Soibangla who wrote large parts of Economic policy of Donald Trump and may be interested in re-organizing this article. The big flaw with the article is that it lacks scholarly assessments of the subject (the motivations behind the administration's actions, what the econ literature says about these actions, and what the outcomes have been). It's a bit too time-consuming for me to work on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You and me both. Thanks for doing that. I agree with you in any case that keeping cheerleading and sloganeering out of the lead is essential. JohnInDC (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't this merged with China–United States trade war?

The content of these two articles cover exactly the same thing. These two articles should be combined 104.219.106.89 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Even if we do keep this article, the title violates NPOV. It's like calling the Afordable Care Act "Obamacare". It's pejorative. 104.219.106.89 (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Good title "United States Tariffs (2018-2019)" or something along those lines. 104.219.106.89 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

ACA was drafted by Congress. Trump has personally ordered the tariffs by decree. soibangla (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Request split proposal

I heard that because there was more information about the trade dispute between the US and European Union for example WTO decision about airbus, it is necessary to split portion of this article and make the new article named "European Union-United States trade dispute" similar to China-US trade war. Yayan550 (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

PIIE analysis (2020)

This should be included: https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/trumps-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs-are-cascading-out-control Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

SARS-2: Some tariff deferrals; add here &/or ... ?

From Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 6 § Some tariff deferrals; add here &/or ... ?:

Trump approved a proposal to delay payment of certain tariffs for 90 days. An executive could was expected as soon as this week and would give the Treasury Department the authority to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to delay collecting “most-favored nation” tariffs on imports.

• Jenny Leonard Trump Set to Announce Deferral for Some Tariff Payments March 31, 2020 Bloomberg.com

X1\ (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HyrumGriff (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by HyrumGriff (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)