Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world

Well, at least we now know what Donald Trump will do with tariffs, until he is seized by another whim. Perhaps it was better when we didn’t. The “reciprocal” tariffs announced on so-called liberation day were farcical, set by an arithmetic formula based on trade deficits in the apparent belief that current account imbalances can be fixed by trade policy. 

The US will apparently charge tariffs on exports from Heard Island and the McDonald Islands, a volcanic archipelago near the Antarctic inhabited only by penguins, and from Diego Garcia, a US military base. In theory tariffs trigger a currency appreciation to offset their effects but the dollar has weakened in response to this shambolic policymaking.

But this isn’t some general crisis of credibility in trade and globalisation. It’s largely a localised pathology, and particularly one of the Republican Party. The Democrats under Joe Biden accepted far too much of Trump’s first term tariff legacy, but at least with a vaguely coherent industrial policy rationale. The Republicans haven’t necessarily turned into a seething nest of protectionists, but their increasingly extreme bent ever since Richard Nixon took the party to the right in the 1960s has allowed a mindlessly destructive trade warrior to take over and they are too terrified to stop him.

Accident, prejudice and unintended consequence play a bigger role in dysfunctional US tariff policy than the grand sweep of economic history might suggest. The “Tariff of Abominations” in 1828, which massively raised taxes on industrial imports, almost causing South Carolina to secede from the union because of the effect on agricultural trade, became law by accident. Lawmakers from southern farming states inserted destructive spoilers to prevent it being agreed and watched with horror as it passed nonetheless.

The notorious Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 similarly reflected politicking gone wrong. This time, Republicans proposed big industrial tariffs, which US manufacturers didn’t need, as a quid pro quo for introducing protection for farmers. They did not imagine that other countries would retaliate and set off a global spiral of protection that worsened the Great Depression.

This current case is not just a tactical mistake: it’s what happens when an ideological extremist becomes president. If there are any grown-ups among Trump’s economic team, they are locked in a cupboard when decisions are taken. Among them is Kevin Hassett, an orthodox free-trade economist who advised George W Bush and Mitt Romney but who is unable or unwilling to stop the chaos. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent was supposed to be the voice of the financial markets: he’s evidently silent or ignored. The animating drive is from Trump himself, who since the 1980s has had a wrong-headed view of tariffs based on an analogy with a corporate profit-and-loss account, and the trade warrior Peter Navarro, who appears closest to the president’s ear.

Under a president of the Bush mould, many of today’s congressional Republicans might well be willing to preserve a relatively open trading system. John Thune of South Dakota, elected as majority leader of the Senate in November, holds orthodox views on the need for more trade deals to open up markets abroad. But along with almost all his caucus, he has utterly failed to reassert Congress’s constitutional role in trade policy.

The consolation is that the rest of the world is much less likely to follow the US than it did in the 1930s, during which time the international gold standard was also inflicting profound damage and inducing extreme reactions from policymakers. Only the EU is likely to retaliate with tariffs and other import restrictions anywhere near dollar for dollar, and Brussels emphatically does not want to raise high and permanent trade barriers with the rest of the world.

The US is a smaller share of the global economy than during the 1930s, and the risks of protectionism are far better understood. In the same way that Trump has kindled Canadian public patriotism and a geopolitical awakening among European leaders, his tariffs are more likely to act as a cautionary tale for other governments than an incentive to join the US in some fantastical “Mar-a-Lago Accord” to realign currencies.

There can be no logic-washing of Donald Trump’s tariffs. This isn’t part of a carefully-designed industrial policy or a cunning strategy to induce compliance among trading partners or a choreographed appearance of chaos to scare other governments into obedience. It’s wildly destructive stupidity, and the generations of American, and particularly Republican politicians, who allowed things to slide to this point are collectively to blame.

alan.beattie@ft.com

New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced on Thursday that he will not seek reelection through the Democratic primary, instead launching a longshot bid as an independent candidate in the November general election. The decision, unveiled in a six-minute campaign video, comes just one day after a federal judge dismissed the corruption charges against him with prejudice, effectively ending his legal troubles.
“More than 25,000 New Yorkers signed my Democratic primary petition, but the dismissal of the bogus case against me dragged on too long, making it impossible to mount a primary campaign while these false accusations were held over me,” Adams said in his announcement. While maintaining his status as a Democrat, Adams emphasized his intention to appeal directly to all voters as an independent. “I firmly believe that this city is better served by truly independent leadership,” he declared.

A Steep Road Ahead

Adams’s decision to bypass the Democratic primary marks a risky gamble in a city where Democrats dominate the electorate by a six-to-one margin over Republicans. The move also reflects his growing estrangement from the Democratic Party, fueled by policy disagreements and his controversial handling of issues like immigration and public safety. His approval ratings have plummeted to 20%, and his campaign faces significant financial hurdles, with only $3 million on hand after raising just $36,000 in the last filing period.

The mayor’s announcement underscores the challenges he faces in redefining his political identity. “I’m in this race to the end,” Adams stated. “I’m not running on the Democratic line. It’s just not realistic to turn around my numbers and run a good campaign [from] where we are right now.”
Adams plans to submit 3,750 signatures by May 27 to secure his place on the general election ballot. His campaign will focus on appealing to working-class voters and ethnic minorities who propelled him to victory four years ago.

Fallout with Democrats Over Immigration

Adams’s relationship with the Democratic Party has been fraught with tension, particularly over immigration policy. As New York City grappled with an influx of over 210,000 migrants between 2022 and 2024, Adams repeatedly criticized the Biden administration for failing to provide adequate federal support. He declared a state of emergency in 2022 and warned that the crisis could cost the city $12 billion over three years.
In public statements, Adams accused federal officials of abandoning New York City. “Despite our pleas, the federal government did nothing as its broken immigration policies overloaded our shelter system,” he said last year. His rhetoric often aligned more closely with conservative views, including calls for stricter measures against migrants accused of crimes.
This stance alienated many Democrats, who accused Adams of undermining progressive values and providing ammunition for Republican attacks. A December poll found that 85% of New York City voters were concerned about the migrant crisis—a sentiment Republicans have leveraged in competitive congressional races.
Adams’s willingness to work with Trump administration officials on immigration further strained his ties with Democrats. In December 2024, he met with Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, to discuss deporting criminal migrants—a move that drew sharp criticism from progressive leaders.

Legal Troubles and Their Aftermath

Adams’s decision to run as an independent also follows months of legal battles stemming from a federal corruption indictment. The charges alleged that he accepted bribes and illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources. Although Adams maintained his innocence, the case cast a long shadow over his administration and campaign.
On Wednesday, Manhattan federal Judge Dale Ho dismissed the charges with prejudice, citing concerns about prosecutorial motives under former President Donald Trump’s Justice Department. Ho criticized what he described as an implicit bargain between federal prosecutors and Adams involving immigration policy concessions.
While the dismissal spares Adams from further legal jeopardy, it has not erased doubts about his leadership. In his campaign video, Adams acknowledged that the allegations may have shaken public confidence in him but insisted they were politically motivated. “Although the charges against me were false,” he said, “I trusted people I should not have and I regret that.”

A Shift Toward Independence

Adams framed his independent bid as an opportunity to rise above partisan divisions and focus on issues affecting everyday New Yorkers. “This city needs leadership rooted in the common middle,” he said. By running outside traditional party lines, Adams hopes to attract unaffiliated voters and those disillusioned with both major parties.
However, political analysts are skeptical about his chances. Former Governor Andrew Cuomo leads a crowded Democratic field vying for Adams’s seat, while Republicans are expected to field their own candidate. With limited funds and diminished support from party allies, Adams faces an uphill battle to rebuild his reputation before November.
Critics argue that Adams’s decision reflects desperation rather than strategy. His first term has been marred by scandals, budget shortfalls, and contentious policy decisions that alienated key constituencies. Even some former supporters question whether he can regain voters’ trust.