Fareed’s take: Trump’s tariffs are a doomed effort to restore past manufacturing glory

CNN - Apr 20th, 2025

President Trump has significantly altered the trajectory of a previously thriving U.S. economy by imposing steep tariff hikes aimed at shielding the domestic manufacturing sector. This controversial move has sparked debate, with Fareed comparing the approach to the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930, which sought to protect the agricultural industry but ultimately backfired. The immediate impact has been a disruption in international trade relations and potential economic instability, raising concerns among economists and business leaders about the long-term effects on American consumers and industries.

Fareed argues that Trump's tariffs represent a nostalgic political strategy reminiscent of past protectionist policies that have historically led to negative outcomes for the economy. By drawing parallels to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which are widely blamed for exacerbating the Great Depression, the analysis highlights the risks of repeating history. The move underscores a broader trend of economic nationalism and raises questions about the future of global trade, the resilience of American industries, and the potential for retaliatory measures from international partners.

Trump Economy Tariffs Protectionism Manufacturing Fareed Smoot Hawley

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The story provides a critical analysis of Trump's tariffs, drawing parallels to historical protectionist policies. It effectively highlights the potential negative impacts on the economy and American workers, making it relevant to public discussions. However, the lack of balance and transparency in sourcing weakens its credibility. Including more diverse perspectives and detailed data would enhance the story's reliability and impact. Despite these shortcomings, the story remains timely and engaging, with the potential to influence public opinion and spark meaningful debate.

Accuracy

The story claims that President Trump has disrupted a booming economy with tariff hikes aimed at protecting manufacturing. This is supported by evidence that the Trump administration significantly increased tariffs in 2025, raising the average US tariff rate to historic levels. The comparison to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930 is also factually grounded, as both sets of tariffs were intended to protect domestic industries. However, the claim that these tariffs hurt Americans is more interpretative but is backed by data showing job losses in some sectors. The story accurately reflects these points, though it could benefit from more detailed economic data to support its claims.

Balance

The story primarily presents Fareed's perspective, which is critical of Trump's tariffs. It compares these tariffs to historical ones, suggesting they are harmful. While this viewpoint is valid, the story lacks counterarguments or perspectives from those who support the tariffs. Including voices from the Trump administration or economists who see potential benefits could provide a more balanced view. The story could improve by acknowledging the complexity of the economic impacts of tariffs.

Clarity

The story is relatively clear in its presentation of the main argument: that Trump's tariffs are harmful and reminiscent of past protectionist policies. The comparison to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs is straightforward and helps illustrate the point. However, the story could be clearer in explaining the specific economic impacts of the tariffs, such as job losses or sector-specific effects. More detailed explanations would enhance reader understanding.

Source quality

The story cites Fareed's analysis but does not provide specific sources or data to substantiate the claims. It would benefit from references to economic reports, statements from the Trump administration, or expert analyses. The lack of direct citations or evidence weakens the credibility of the story. Including a range of authoritative sources would enhance the reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The story lacks transparency in terms of sourcing and methodology. It does not disclose the basis for Fareed's claims or the specific data used to support them. The absence of detailed explanations about the economic conditions before and after the tariffs makes it difficult for readers to assess the validity of the claims. Greater transparency about the sources and methods used to reach these conclusions would improve the story's credibility.