Talk:Tariffs in the second Trump administration/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tone

WP:TONE says:

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner (e.g. use "feel" or "atmosphere" instead of "vibe(s)").

All well and good. But I'm not seeing any argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon in the article. "Ripping off" could qualify as a colloquialism, but the requisite quotation marks are in place. What are the specific objections? Moscow Mule (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

“A lot of people are tired of watching other countries ripping off the United States,” he said in 1987

"The world is ripping off this country,” he said on Larry King’s CNN show in 1999.

as sourced in History section: [1] soibangla (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Something like "Trump has promoted tariffs on imports to retaliate against countries that he believes are "ripping off" the United States" comes across as overly critical of Trump instead of simply, formally, explaining that he did something, for example, "in response to" the actions of another country. I understand that the "ripping off" part is something Trump himself has said and I think it's fair game for the article body, but in the lead it feels like it's setting the tone of "check out this ridiculous thing Trump said".

That one is immediately followed by "Trump has incorrectly insisted that foreign countries pay the tariffs" - are we okay with saying this so matter-of-factly in Wikivoice? Do we know with certainty that the foreign countries won't "pay" in other ways because of the tariffs, and that that wasn't the intended meaning of Trump's insistence?

I'm just guessing that it's things like this that have earned the tone template. Big Thumpus (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

to say Trump is merely incorrect here is very generous. it is among his most-repeated falsehoods that has been fact-checked ad nauseam. it's a real whopper, but he won't stop repeating it. countrys' labor markets might weaken due to lower demand for their exports, but they absolutely and positively do not pay tariffs we impose. we do. soibangla (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Are there already 15,000 Mexican troops at the U.S. border?

And if so, is Mexico sending another 10,000 troops there? Or is that nation reducing the 15,000 troops by 5,000 troops to reach the agreed-upon 10,000 troops? Or will they be keeping the 15,000 troops there with the understanding that it includes the 10,000?

Catherine Rampell, a Washington Post columnist:

https://bsky.app/profile/crampell.bsky.social/post/3lhcalxfhi22k

citing this April 2024 report from Mexico City’s Universidad Ibero:

https://prami.ibero.mx/informes-y-investigaciones/la-militarizacion-del-inm/

says that there already were 15,000 Mexican troops at the U.S. border as of that time.

This June 2019 story from a CBS affiliate is titled "Mexico says it has sent nearly 15,000 troops to US border":

https://www.cbs8.com/video/news/politics/mexico-says-it-has-sent-nearly-15000-troops-to-us-border/509-84828c0a-a5ff-4f49-bdf3-956dd404c825

And this June 2019 from a Fox affiliate is titled "Mexico deploys nearly 15,000 troops to the US border":

https://fox59.com/news/national-world/mexico-deploys-nearly-15000-troops-to-the-us-border/

Have there been 15,000 Mexican troops there for more than five years? Will that number soon be 25,000, 15,000, or 10,000? NME Frigate (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Trump's purpose

Trump said that

tariffs were necessary tools to get other nations to stop illegal immigration, prevent fentanyl smuggling and treat the United States, in his mind, with respect. AP News

So can we restore the deleted "purpose of tariffs" sentence? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

This same issue is being discussed at Talk:2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico#Is the "Goals" section of the infobox accurate?. Trump and his administration have stated other goals/purposes for the tariffs including increasing Canadian military spending, reducing trade imbalance, making Canada a 51st state. Unfortunately, with Trump it is impossible to know what he is thinking, because it seems to change frequently. He often uses bravado, exaggerates, makes misleading or false statements, and/or lies. We can include claims by Trump, but we cannot say what the purposes of the tariffs were in Wikipedia's voice because Trump has made contradictory claims about what all of this was about.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, as multiple people have pointed out, anyone who knew in advance that the United States was going to announce tariffs on Canada and Mexico on Friday and then halt those tariffs on Monday would have been able to make a killing in the stock market. NME Frigate (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Include Colombia?

Should the tariff threat against Colombia over accepting deportees be added here? I feel like it's within the scope because it's a part of Trump's tariff policy in his second term but just wanted a second opinion before adding it. DecafPotato (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Support I think that it should be included. Opm581 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be included, but as it was only a threat it doesn't need a lot of detail on the whole process here. Maybe just a sentence leading people to Colombia–United States relations#21st_century JeffUK 11:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, just a sentence or two would probably be an adequate amount of detail. Opm581 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Attempted rewrite

Hello! I started working on a rewrite of this article at User:Satkara/Second Trump tariffs to improve cohesion, alleviate the tone and update templates currently on the page, and enable easier updating as the 2nd Trump presidency goes on.

I'm not done but figured I'd throw it up for commentary to incorporate; I'll post again when I finish a rough draft.

In my opinion, most of the information currently under responses should be moved to China–United States trade war and 2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico respectively while this article should be a broader overview. In light of the pause, most of it will probably end up not meeting WP:10YT. Thoughts? kara❈talk 04:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

updating - I'm done with a draft at User:Satkara/Second Trump tariffs. The impact assessments could use more work contains all of the existing info.

Note that a lot of the info under "responses" is not included. I believe the info under "Canada" should be moved to 2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico. Most of the rest has been consolidated under "2025". I'll wait another day to see if anyone objects and then go for it WP:BOLD kara❈talk 01:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I honestly think we should wait and see what happens after the one month 'delay', if no tariffs are ever actually imposed on Mexico and Canada, I don't think the other article needs to remain, nor do we need so much detail on 'what might happen' here ("Trump proposed some tariffs, they never went into effect" is a footnote at best!). I do think adding much more to the China–United States trade war article will be problematic without a lot of rework there, it's very very long as it is. JeffUK 11:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I really like @Satkara's draft. And I think it's probably helpful to have the second Mexico/Canada article regardless, because this page should in my opinion be broadened into something more like Tariff policy of the second Donald Trump administration that will cover all tariffs/tariff threats against Canada and Mexico but also China and Colombia and the EU and Britain and the BRICS and whatever else. So this page, for instance, can include background information on tariffs in US history and Trump's own personal affinity for tariffs, while 2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico can keep the background information on NAFTA, the USMCA, etc.

Trying to combine them both into the same article would in my opinion be cumbersome, primarily because stuff like the Canada/Mexico reactions are important to the presidencies/premierships of Justin Trudeau and Claudia Sheinbaum, as well as just to Canada as a whole, that is better suited for an "international" article than one focused on just Trump and the US. DecafPotato (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response - busier than I expected the past weekend!

I agree with @DecafPotato that we probably need two pages to achieve a reasonable length, although 2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico could be renamed "trade conflict" or expanded to cover all North American trade conflicts in the future if it doesn't progress.

I changed the formatting of my draft to sections for Global and Country Specific Tariffs in order to accommodate the steel and aluminum tariffs. I also added the info from Colombia as discussed below.

Thanks for the input and let me know of anymore, @DecafPotato and @JeffUK, and anyone else reading! satkara❈talk 22:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)