Citing his office’s heavy obligation to keep the homeland secure, members of President Trump’s administration now propose to reduce the flow of foreign-produced automobiles that quietly cross our borders by imposing a 25 percent tariff on each one of them. This presents an interesting question: Where exactly is the line between economic and national security policy?
Even though we produce more than 11 million wheeled vehicles in the United States each year, and even though practically every major foreign auto producer has production taking place on U.S. soil, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross seems to believe they present a national security problem that demands an answer.
According to Ross, national security means far more than protecting ourselves from cyberinvasions, terrorism, or conventional military attacks. “National security,” he said recently on CNBC, “is broadly defined to include the economy, to include the impact on employment, to include a very big variety of things that one would not normally associate directly with military security.”
It’s certainly true that a blow to our economic well-being would be one of the most effective ways for America’s enemies to harm us. In some circumstances, a trade partner may even be able to inflict some harm without intending to — especially if we’re not playing by the same set of rules.
But even with Americans buying foreign cars in droves, our economy is running with 3.9 percent unemployment, enough job openings to employ everyone now counted as unemployed, rising real GDP growth, and even higher leading indicators for future growth. So how exactly are auto imports fueling a threat to our economic national security?
Well, maybe the devil is in the details. As it turns out, while U.S. auto production is high overall, our domestic capacity for producing SUVs and pick-up trucks (which happen to be America’s fruit du jour) is hard pressed to keep up with demand. But even here, domestic production is being augmented with Canadian and Mexican assistance, and, wouldn’t you know, with shipments from Japan and Korea.
Taking Trump and Ross at their word, perhaps we should recognize that modern warfare often requires the rapid movement of personnel in light trucks and SUVs. After all, we’ve seen it many times in Syria on the evening news. So, yes, national security may indeed be relevant here, even if it’s not in the exact terms that Ross put forth.
Let’s consider another interpretation that may be even more compelling. Congressional primaries are in the works and some politicians hoping to keep their seats will appreciate any lift that comes their way. For some members, one such lift might be supporting their commander-in-chief when he offers protection to employees of the auto industry based on national security concerns.
First it was aluminum and steel. Now, it’s automobiles and light trucks. Who knows what the next national security-based tariff proposal will be. After all, as they say in Washington, it’s crazy season.
Bruce Yandle is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and dean emeritus of the Clemson University College of Business & Behavioral Science. He developed the “Bootleggers and Baptists” political model.
