Donald Trump's trade policies have shocked the world, polarizing commentators, business leaders and regular citizens alike nationally and abroad. This led to the delivery of a letter to the US Senate, calling for limiting the president's ability to use national security as a defense when creating tariffs. This essay will first describe and analyze who participated in writing this letter and what they are asking for. Second, it will explore why these parties are so committed to limiting the president's power. Third, the effects of their efforts will be discussed. Finally, it will explore which model of international relations is most validated by the current economic situation of the United States. These points will be followed by a short concluding section. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The size and scope of the president's tariffs and the potential for retaliation by other countries have created the potential for an international trade war. Although the president has described trade wars as “good and easy to win,” his actions have created a long list of involved parties that have much to gain from limiting the president's ability to impose tariffs without congressional approval.51 trade groups and 222 State and local chambers of commerce signed onto a letter to U.S. senators in support of a bill that would force the president to seek congressional approval before imposing new tariffs when he cites national security concerns. Essentially removing the president's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs punitively or emotionally when he claims they will improve national security. The letter states that “we are deeply concerned that the President's unrestricted use of Section 232 to impose tariffs may not be in the national interest.” Signatories included the National Retail Federation, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Apparel & Footwear Association, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, to name a few. The letter was in direct response to the President's March 1 announcement of the imposition of 25 Tariffs of 10% and 10% on steel and aluminum imports that the administration said were harming local industries critical to national defense . Second, the imposition of tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods on March 22, later extended by an additional $200 billion on September 18. “While the president should still have this type of authority, current circumstances highlight the need for Congress to ensure that the authority will be used, as Congress intended, in the overall national interest.” Upon reflection, it is clear that the list of groups supporting this letter pay little attention to the national security concerns cited by the administration in justifying these tariffs. Regardless of whether the tariffs actually protect U.S. national security, the letter refers only to “national interest,” a term that is broad, subjective, and remains undefined. Although it states that section 232 was intended to be used in the “overall national interest,” the only negative implications outlined in the letter are economic. There is no assertion that tariffs are not in the interest of national security. However, there is the implicit statement that any action that fails tomaximizing economic growth is not in the “national interest,” regardless of the (potential) cost to national security. The letter therefore challenges the Senate to rethink what the national interest looks like. defined, and encouraging them to give more weight to private/business economic success within this definition. On the surface it might appear that tariffs are good for the United States. It will eliminate the location advantages of foreign firms and protect the US steel and aluminum industries from degradation due to Chinese competition. But there are clear reasons why these tariffs hurt domestic U.S. businesses by providing them with incentives to support policy change. The letter states that “it is now increasingly clear that the way tariffs on steel and aluminum have been used will result in retaliatory tariffs.” from our largest trading partners and closest allies, and such retaliation will have serious adverse economic impacts on the United States.” A sentiment supported by Moor Insights & Strategy, which warned that retaliation from China “could be quite devastating” in the long term, particularly for US manufacturing companies. The EU, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, Brazil and South Korea were originally exempt. But in May it was announced that Canada, Mexico and the EU would still be subject to the tariffs. Not only does the imposition of tariffs on some, but not all trading partners violate the United States' commitment not to discriminate among WTO members, but it is also in direct violation of the United States' 1995 commitments to eliminate steel tariffs and lower aluminum tariffs. below 5%, in exchange for reciprocity from other nations. China subsequently imposed tariffs on American exports of nuts, fruit, wine, pork and steel pipes, while in response the EU is imposing tariffs on a variety of US products including motorcycles, jeans and whisky, adding a tremendous chaos to the trading system. engaged in international affairs are missing out on opportunities because of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. economy's return to a more closed, insular form is increasing costs for businesses as imported components and materials become subject to tariffs. While the size of the United States and its potential for self-sufficiency may limit price increases, U.S. companies that export face additional barriers as individual nations and trading blocs such as the EU impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports . Iconic US companies such as Harley Davidson and Mid-Continent Nail have already announced plans to move production overseas to avoid tariffs, or are laying off staff, claiming they have no choice as their profit margins shrink. American businesses have an interest in the American economy remaining open. They want to increase profit margins and maximize their consumer base through an economy conducive to investment, growth and the free flow of capital. This attempt to reshape politicians' views of the United States' economic standing is of critical importance to companies engaged in international business. Without U.S. government support in securing and protecting business opportunities, U.S. companies will increasingly find themselves at a disadvantage when operating internationally. Effects of their efforts The overall impact this letter, and the general disapproval of the business community, will have on It is not clear whether administrations openly support protectionist policies. IfTrump's tariffs are actually strengthening US national security, then the proposed law change is unlikely to limit his ability to create tariffs, as Congress would simply pass and pass them. It is even more unlikely, given the Republican majority, that Congress could eliminate current tariffs through retroactive legislation. However, it is interesting to note that US auto production has more than doubled since 2009, and Chinese steel imports have declined by nearly 75% since then. their peak in 2014. More importantly, demand for defense steel and aluminum represents only 3% and 10% of national production, respectively. This may suggest that Trump's priorities are not strictly tied to national security. Especially when considered in conjunction with Trump's disrespect of the Chinese government's alleged intellectual property theft and his lifting of the Commerce Department's ban on American companies doing business with ZTE, a Chinese tech giant. The Pentagon warned that ZTE also poses an "unacceptable risk" to the United States. The British government warned that the use of ZTE equipment was a "national security concern". Trump's willingness to strike a deal with ZTE demonstrates his willingness to ignore national security advice in pursuit of broader trade deals with China. Steel is vital to national defense. This is demonstrated by Harry Truman's seizure of steel production facilities in 1952, which ensured supplies for a vulnerable wartime economy during the Korean War. However, Trump's attitude toward national security in several contexts suggests that his tariffs are focused more on pleasing his voter base than on national security. Mercantilist temperaments reside among many of its supporters, who see foreign imports as an invasion of national sovereignty and call for a protectionist policy in response. His actions appear to help boost approval ratings, even in states most at economic risk due to tariffs. This illustrates a context in which the administration will likely continue to push for economic protectionism, regardless of Trump's ability to impose tariffs personally. While the letter may serve as a catalyst for discussion about the negative effects of tariffs on the U.S. economy, the chances of influencing a Republican Congress, of moderating the policy of a Republican administration, are low. Especially when these policies are so popular with voters. Without further strengthening public support among members of Congress' constituencies, business communities' efforts to push for open markets will likely continue to struggle to gain traction. Title: globalism or realism. The economic belligerence of the United States in defense of its interests may appear to be an endorsement of the "realist" perspective on international relations. The more you agree with the administration's claims that U.S. national security is threatened, the more you may appreciate the competition between the United States and China and how it threatens the United States. China controls 50% of the world's steel production through its multinationals. China is using its companies, many of them state-owned, to purchase strategic resources essential for military expansion. China is using its companies as a means to improve its strategic position vis-à-vis.