Trump trade strategy backfires

From the political notebook:

❚ President Donald Trump is turning out to be a powerful force for free trade ... among other countries.

When Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it was generally assumed that the trade agreement would fall apart. After all, it was the United States that had been pressuring other countries to reduce trade barriers.

Instead, the other 11 countries opted to stick with the deal. Japan, previously pretty clever in protecting its domestic markets, was a leader in keeping the deal together.

This week, Japan and the European Union finalized a far-reaching trade agreement that eliminated more than $3 billion in tariffs between them. Trade in goods between the two, representing 30 percent of the world’s output, is now pretty much tariff-free.

The EU has been a whirlwind of activity in reaching trade agreements. One with Canada is now in effect; one with Mexico is nearing completion. The EU is in the early stages of trade negotiations with other Latin American countries, as well Australia and New Zealand.

Meanwhile, it’s not at all clear what Trump wants on trade.

Trump is fixated on trade deficits, and reducing them is plainly his ulti- mate objective. But how?

I had assumed that Trump wanted managed trade, where the leaders of two countries agree on how much of each other’s goods will be bought. But China offered such a deal and the Trump administration gave it the cold shoulder.

Trump doesn’t really want free trade. German automakers floated the idea of eliminating all tariffs between the EU and the United States on cars and trucks. The Trump administration has shown no interest.

The United States remains the world’s most attractive consumer and capital market. But 75 percent of the world’s goods and services are now produced elsewhere, a share that will inevitably increase with time.

Trump just doesn’t have the leverage he thinks he has.

I think Trump’s fixation on trade deficits is economic nonsense and his protectionist instincts antiquated.

But if Trump wants trade deals, playing a waiting game while ratcheting up pressure isn’t going to get it done. Other countries are looking to increase trade with each other the old-fashioned way: by reducing barriers to it.

❚ Trump has clearly unhinged Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake. Trump does a lot that is offensive and degrading. But he hasn’t proved to be the threat to our system of government or conservatism that Flake has routinely depicted him as being.

On trade, however, Flake has retained his form and stands on solid ground. The Constitution clearly gives authority over commercial relations with other countries to Congress. Yet, over the years, Congress has abdicated that responsibility and granted the executive branch broad discretion to impose tariffs.

This is particularly true on tariffs supposedly levied for national-security purposes. The law gives the president breathtaking discretion both in determining what constitutes a national-security threat and in crafting a tariff remedy. The law specifically cites the general health of the economy as a nationalsecurity concern.

Trump used this national-security authority to impose his tariffs on aluminum and steel. And he is in the process of using it to impose a 25 percent tariff on imported automobiles.

This is obviously a ruse. Canadian steel is not a national-security threat to the United States. German Mercedes automobiles are not a national-security threat to the United States.

Yet the law that Congress passed enables Trump to define them as such.

Flake and Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, another Trump Republican refugee, are trying to get a vote on a proposal requiring congressional approval of tariffs imposed on national-security grounds. A non-binding vote indicated support for the idea in the Senate. The House will be tougher ground.

Historically, it’s an exceedingly modest proposal. The United States was protectionist for far longer than it has been free-trade. Our free-trade period only dates from the end of World War II.

During our protectionist period, specific tariffs on specific imports were all established by laws passed by Congress. Presidents could recommend tariffs but had no authority to impose them.

It would be amusing to watch the current Congress debate such a comprehensive tariff law. The Flake-Corker proposal is the least Congress can do to regain some of its constitutional authority in this area.

The United States remains the world’s most attractive consumer and capital market. But 75 percent of the world’s goods and services are now produced elsewhere, a share that will inevitably increase with time. Trump just doesn’t have the leverage he thinks he has.