WSJ lashes out: Trump’s trade war called 'stupidest in history'

The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal manages the editorial team of one of the world's largest business media outlets and upholds journalistic standards. The board rarely officially expresses opinions on current topics, but this time, it decided to speak up.

Their article, "The Stupidest Trade War in History," criticized Trump's imposition of tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. They argued that Mexico and Canada, the USA's neighbours, face 25% tariffs, while China, "the real adversary," only faces 10%.

"Trump's justification for this economic attack on neighbours makes no sense." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claims these countries "allowed drugs to flow into America." However, "drugs have flowed into the US for decades and will continue to do so as long as Americans keep using them. Neither country can stop it," writes the WSJ.

The paper suggests that the drug issue may merely serve as a pretext, noting that Trump has openly expressed his preference for tariffs as an end in themselves. The Wall Street Journal highlights that President Donald Trump is on the verge of imposing tariffs on the United States' three largest economic partners, marking a significantly more aggressive use of this strategy than anything seen during his first term.

The editorial board also states that Donald Trump sometimes sounds like he believes the U.S. doesn't need to import anything and that America can be a "perfectly closed economy, producing everything at home." "This is called autarky, and it is not the world we live in nor one we want to live in, as Trump may soon find out," write the editors of "The Wall Street Journal".

They point out that the American automotive industry relies on imports: 13% of parts were imported in 2024 from Canada, and 42% from Mexico. One vehicle during production effectively crosses borders several times. "And everyone benefits from this," adds the editorial.

The article also stresses that such actions should not occur while the trade agreement between the three countries, negotiated by Trump during his first term, remains in effect. The Wall Street Journal points out that the U.S.'s willingness to disregard its treaty commitments, even with allies, is unlikely to encourage other nations to engage in future cooperation.

The newspaper's editorial board suggests that Trump may claim victory and step back if he secures favourable negotiations. However, if the North American trade war persists, it will be remembered as one of the most misguided in history.

CNN cites experts who consider Trump's move at least risky. Mary Lovely, a Peterson Institute for International Economics researcher, assesses that it could be the most significant economic gamble so far. She believes tariffs are "a big gamble" and a recipe for economic slowdown and increased inflation.

CNN notes that the current tariffs will affect goods worth 1.4 trillion dollars, three times the amount covered by tariffs in Trump's first term (about 380 billion dollars).

Lovely is convinced that tariffs will increase prices for consumers, particularly for food and building materials. However, this will not happen suddenly, but gradually.

Meanwhile, Christine McDaniel, a former trade officer in the George W. Bush administration and now a researcher at the George Mason University Mercatus Center, notes that Trump's decision will weaken the North American economy. "Why would you want to burn your own house down?" she asks rhetorically, as quoted by CNN. RSM's Chief Economist Joe Brusuelas sums up the situation succinctly: "The administration is playing with fire."

On Saturday, Donald Trump stated in a post on X that he has officially imposed 25% tariffs on products from Mexico and Canada. Canada will also face 10% tariffs on energy resources. Simultaneously, the U.S. is imposing 10% tariffs on products from China. Trump argued that he did this due to the threat of illegal immigration and the influx of drugs, including fentanyl, to the U.S., stating that these countries are not making enough efforts to curb this issue.

It is worth noting that, according to economists' estimates, actions against China may have significant consequences for the USA. "If the US imposed an additional 10 percent tariff on China and China responded in kind, US GDP would be $55 billion less over the four years of the second Trump administration, and $128 billion less in China," the U.S. Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated in a report cited by CNBC.