Tim Rosenberger, a Legal Policy Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, brings a distinctive blend of experience in constitutional law, judicial clerkships, entrepreneurship, and public policy. A Stanford graduate, he focuses on the legal and economic frameworks that shape urban development and business policy. His research spans trade dynamics, economic revitalization, and litigation reform—with a particular emphasis on how reciprocal tariffs could bolster American industry.

Rosenberger argues that tariffs, particularly those imposed by the Trump administration on steel and aluminum, stimulated domestic production and job growth. While critics warn of higher consumer prices and inflation, he counters that strategic tariffs enhance national security and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign markets—especially China. Inflation, he argues, stems more from excessive government spending than from tariffs. Even in the face of potential retaliation—whether through tariffs, currency manipulation, or exclusionary trade agreements—Rosenberger believes the U.S. retains the upper hand. For him, tariffs aren’t a blunt instrument but a calculated tool to secure long-term economic resilience.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In the short term, how do reciprocal tariffs influence U.S. economic growth and industrial performance?

Tim Rosenberger: Reciprocal tariffs, when implemented strategically, can provide immediate benefits to U.S. economic growth by leveling the playing field for American industries that have been taken advantage of for decades. Under President Trump’s leadership, reciprocal tariffs have been used as a tool to counter unfair trade practices, particularly from China, which has long engaged in currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and state-backed industrial espionage.

In the short term, these tariffs serve as a catalyst for domestic production by making foreign goods more expensive and encouraging investment in American manufacturing. We saw this during the Trump administration when tariffs on steel and aluminum led to a resurgence in domestic steel production, reopening plants and creating jobs for blue-collar workers who had been abandoned by the bipartisan globalist consensus.

Critics argue that tariffs raise consumer prices, but this is a myopic view that ignores the long-term gains of restoring economic sovereignty. The reality is that tariffs incentivize companies to relocate their supply chains back to the United States, thereby reducing their dependence on hostile foreign powers like China. This shift strengthens national security, protects critical industries, and ensures that American workers — not foreign laborers in state-subsidized factories — reap the benefits of economic growth.

Moreover, reciprocal tariffs give the U.S. leverage in trade negotiations. President Trump demonstrated this with his “America First” trade policy, using tariffs to force better trade deals such as the USMCA, which replaced the disastrous NAFTA. The immediate economic impact of reciprocal tariffs is a necessary step in correcting decades of bad trade policy, and history shows that strong, decisive leadership on trade produces real economic gains for American workers.

Jacobsen: How do existing inflationary pressures factor into the broader economic impact of these policies?

Rosenberger: Inflationary pressures are an important consideration when discussing reciprocal tariffs, but they must be understood in the broader context of economic policy. The establishment narrative suggests that tariffs fuel inflation by increasing the cost of imported goods. However, this argument ignores the fact that inflation under Biden has been driven far more by reckless government spending, green energy subsidies, and anti-growth regulations than by any trade policies. Under Trump, inflation remained low even as tariffs were strategically applied to correct imbalances in global trade.

Reciprocal tariffs, if implemented correctly, actually serve as a counter to inflationary pressures in several ways. First, by incentivizing domestic production, tariffs reduce dependency on fragile international supply chains that are vulnerable to geopolitical shocks, as we saw during COVID-19. Strengthening domestic manufacturing stabilizes prices in the long run, as it decreases America’s reliance on foreign producers who can manipulate supply and cost.

Second, tariffs generate revenue that offsets government spending needs, reducing the pressure to print money — something Biden’s economic policies have failed to do. Under Trump, tariff revenues were reinvested into the economy, particularly to support American farmers who had been harmed by unfair foreign competition. This revenue stream acts as a hedge against inflationary pressures created by excessive deficit spending.

Third, reciprocal tariffs enhance economic resilience by preventing foreign nations — particularly China — from using artificially cheap exports to undercut American producers. When foreign goods are dumped into the U.S. market at below-market prices, domestic industries collapse, leading to job losses, lower wages, and decreased production capacity. This, in turn, weakens supply-side economic stability and creates long-term inflationary risks. By ensuring fair competition through tariffs, we mitigate this cycle and create a more stable pricing environment.

The idea that tariffs alone would drive inflation ignores the larger economic mismanagement under Biden. Trump’s “America First” policies kept inflation low by promoting domestic energy independence, reducing corporate tax burdens to encourage production, and keeping government spending under control. The inflation crisis we see today isn’t the result of trade policy but of a bloated regulatory state, out-of-control government spending, and a Federal Reserve that has been forced to play catch-up due to reckless economic policies. Strategic tariffs, as Trump has advocated, would help correct these problems by strengthening domestic industries, securing supply chains, and protecting the purchasing power of American workers.

Jacobsen: How might U.S. trading partners respond with countermeasures?

Rosenberger: U.S. trading partners have several potential countermeasures they can use in response to reciprocal tariffs, but the effectiveness and impact of these measures vary depending on the country and the broader geopolitical context.

Under President Trump, we saw a range of retaliatory actions, but the reality is that America’s economic leverage — especially over countries dependent on the U.S. market — limits the effectiveness of most countermeasures. Below are some of the key ways U.S. trading partners might respond.

The most direct response to U.S. tariffs is for trading partners to impose their tariffs on American goods. This was evident during Trump’s trade war with China, where Beijing retaliated by targeting U.S. agricultural exports, particularly soybeans, pork, and other key products. The European Union also imposed tariffs on American-made goods, including motorcycles and whiskey, in response to U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum.

This can hurt specific U.S. industries that rely on exports, such as agriculture, automobiles, and industrial machinery.

However, it can also backfire on the retaliating countries, as consumers in those countries face higher prices and may turn to alternative sources — including domestic producers or other international suppliers.

Trump’s approach was to respond to retaliation with further pressure, often using tariffs as leverage to negotiate better trade deals, such as the USMCA, which replaced NAFTA.

Another possible response is for countries to reduce their dependence on U.S. goods and seek alternative suppliers. For instance, China has sought to diversify its agricultural imports by increasing purchases from Brazil and Argentina, rather than the United States.

This can be a short-term issue for U.S. exporters, but global supply chains don’t shift overnight. Many American products — such as high-tech goods, aerospace components, and certain agricultural products — are difficult to replace with alternative suppliers.

Moreover, this response often carries costs for the retaliating country, as switching suppliers can reduce efficiency and increase costs.

China, in particular, has a history of devaluing its currency to offset the effects of U.S. tariffs. By making the yuan weaker against the dollar, Chinese exporters can partially absorb the costs of tariffs, keeping their goods competitive in the U.S. market.

Currency manipulation can temporarily lessen the impact of tariffs, but it comes with risks for the manipulating country. A weaker currency makes imports more expensive, hurting domestic consumers and businesses that rely on foreign goods. It can also lead to capital flight, as investors lose confidence in the stability of the currency.

Trump recognized this tactic and labeled China a “currency manipulator,” signaling a willingness to take further action against such practices.

Some U.S. trading partners might respond by forming or strengthening trade agreements that do not include the U.S., attempting to bypass American influence. For example, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) emerged after the U.S. withdrew from the original TPP.

While this could create alternative trade networks, the U.S. economy is still the largest in the world, and most countries cannot afford to cut ties with the American market entirely.

Even when countries sign trade deals that exclude the U.S., they still need access to American consumers, making full economic decoupling unrealistic.

Another potential response is for trading partners to challenge U.S. tariffs at the WTO, arguing that they violate international trade rules.

While the WTO may rule against the U.S. in some cases, Trump’s administration largely dismissed WTO rulings when they conflicted with national interests.

The WTO itself has been losing influence, especially as the U.S. and other major powers question its effectiveness in dealing with China’s trade abuses.

Foreign governments may impose additional regulatory burdens, such as licensing restrictions, heightened safety standards, or bureaucratic delays, to make it harder for American companies to operate in their markets.

This can be a problem for U.S. multinational corporations that do business abroad, such as tech companies and automakers.

However, countries that take this approach risk scaring away foreign investment and damaging their own economies in the process.

Jacobsen: How will Trump likely respond?

Rosenberger: Trump’s approach to trade retaliation has always been aggressive and pragmatic. He has made it clear that America holds the leverage in most of these disputes, given that foreign economies are more reliant on the U.S. market than the U.S. economy is on them. Likely responses would include:

Doubling down on tariffs: If countries impose retaliatory tariffs, Trump will likely increase tariffs further, forcing them to reconsider their approach.

Bilateral deals over multilateral compromises: Instead of relying on institutions like the WTO, Trump prefers direct negotiations that give the U.S. the upper hand.

Domestic Support for Affected Industries: As seen in the China trade war, Trump used tariff revenues to support U.S. farmers affected by retaliatory measures.

Jacobsen: Do reciprocal tariffs effectively promote reshoring and domestic job creation, or do they risk introducing inefficiencies and raising costs within the U.S. economy?

Rosenberger: Reciprocal tariffs, when applied strategically, can drive reshoring and domestic job creation by making it more cost-effective for companies to manufacture goods in the U.S. rather than rely on imports from countries with unfair trade advantages. Under Trump, tariffs on steel and aluminum led to a resurgence in domestic production, reopening shuttered factories and creating jobs in key industries. By discouraging dependency on adversarial nations like China, tariffs strengthen supply chain resilience and national security, ensuring that American workers, not foreign laborers, benefit from economic growth.

Critics argue that tariffs create inefficiencies and raise costs for consumers; however, this perspective overlooks the long-term economic benefits of restoring domestic production capacity. While certain imported goods may become more expensive in the short term, tariffs incentivize businesses to invest in local manufacturing, thereby reducing their reliance on fragile global supply chains that are prone to disruption. The fundamental inefficiency lies in outsourcing critical industries to foreign governments that manipulate markets and undercut U.S. workers. A well-executed reciprocal tariff policy prioritizes fair competition, economic independence, and sustained job growth over the failed globalist policies of the past.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Tim.