Donald Trump's trade policies have shocked the world, polarizing commentators, business leaders business and ordinary citizens, both domestically and abroad. This resulted in a letter being sent to the U.S. Senate, using it to limit the president's ability to use national security as a defense when creating tariffs. This essay will first describe and analyze who was involved in writing this letter and what they are asking. Second, we will examine why these parties are so invested in limiting the president's power. Third, he will discuss the effects of their efforts. Finally, it will explore which model of international relations the current economic situation of the United States most validates. These points will be followed by a short concluding section. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThe scale and scope of the president's tariffs and the potential for retaliation from other countries have created the potential of 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 stakeholders who have much to gain by limiting the president's ability to impose tariffs without government approval. Congress.51 trade groups and 222 state and local chambers of commerce signed a letter to U.S. senators in support of a bill that would require the president to seek congressional approval before imposing new tariffs citing national security issues. Essentially, it's about removing the president's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs, either punitively or emotionally, claiming they will enhance 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 presidents' March 1 announcement of the imposition of 25% and 10% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports that the administration said were harming to local industries essential to national defense. Second, the March 22 imposition of tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, which were then extended by an additional $200 billion on September 18. “While the president should always have this type of authority, current circumstances highlight the need for Congress to ensure that this authority will be used, as Congress intends, in the overall national interest.” The groups supporting this letter pay little attention to the national security concerns cited by the administration to justify 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 is claimed that Section 232 was intended to be used in the “overall national interest,” the only negative implications highlighted in the letter are economic. Nothing says the tariffs are not in the interest of safetynational. However, there is the implicit assertion that any action that fails to maximize economic growth is not in the "national interest", regardless of the (potential) cost to national security. The letter therefore challenges the Senate to rethink how the national interest is taken into account. defined, and encouraging them to place greater importance on the economic success of the private sector and businesses within that definition. On the surface, it may seem that the tariffs will benefit the United States. This will remove the geographic advantages of foreign companies and protect the U.S. steel and aluminum industries from degradation due to Chinese competition. But there are obvious reasons why these tariffs hurt domestic U.S. businesses, thereby incentivizing them to support policy change. The letter states that “it is now increasingly clear that the manner in which the steel and aluminum tariffs have been used will result in retaliatory measures. from our largest trading partners and closest allies, and this retaliation will have serious negative economic consequences for the United States.” A sentiment supported by Moor Insights & Strategy which warned that retaliation from China “could be quite devastating” in the long term for US manufacturing companies in particular. Originally, the EU, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, Brazil and South Korea were exempt. But in May, it was announced that Canada, Mexico and the EU would still be subject to these 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, it also directly contravenes commitments made in 1995 by the United States to eliminate tariffs on steel and reduce tariffs on aluminum. less than 5%, in exchange for reciprocity from other nations. China subsequently imposed tariffs on US exports of nuts, fruit, wine, pork and steel pipes, while the EU imposes tariffs on a variety of US products, including motorcycles, jeans and whiskey, in response, adding enormous chaos to the trading system. Companies engaged in international trade are losing opportunities because of U.S. foreign policy. The return of the U.S. economy to a more closed and insular form is leading to increased costs for businesses as imported components and materials are subject to tariffs. Although the size of the United States and its potential for autonomy may limit price increases, American companies that export face additional obstacles, as individual countries and trade blocs like the EU impose tariffs. customs in retaliation on American exports. Iconic American companies like Harley Davidson and Mid-Continent Nail have either already announced plans to move production overseas to avoid tariffs or are laying off staff, saying they have no choice as their profit margins are decreasing. American businesses have an interest in keeping the American economy open. They want to increase their profit margins and maximize their consumer base through an economy conducive to investment, growth and the free flow of capital. This attempt to reshape policymakers' views on the economic position of the United States is of critical importance to companies engaged ininternational trade. Without support from the U.S. government to guarantee and secure business opportunities, U.S. companies will find themselves at an increasing disadvantage when doing business internationally. Effects of Their Efforts The overall impact that this letter, and the general disapproval of the business community, will have on It is not clear that the administration openly endorses protectionist policies. If Trump's tariffs actually strengthen U.S. national security, then the proposed law change is unlikely to limit his ability to create tariffs, as Congress would simply accept and approve them. It is even more unlikely, given the Republican majority, that Congress would remove the current tariffs through retrospective legislation. Still, it's interesting to note that U.S. auto production has more than doubled since 2009 and Chinese steel imports have fallen nearly 75% since then. their peak in 2014. More importantly, demand for defense steel and aluminum represents only 3% and 10% of domestic production, respectively. This could suggest that Trump's priorities are not strictly related to national security. Especially considering Trump's lack of respect for allegations of intellectual property theft by the Chinese government and his reversal of the Commerce Department's ban on American companies doing business with ZTE, a Chinese tech giant. The Pentagon warned that ZTE posed an "unacceptable risk" to the United States. Last month, the British government warned that the use of ZTE equipment posed a "national security concern." Trump's willingness to strike a deal with ZTE shows his willingness to ignore national security advice in pursuit of bigger trade deals with China. Steel is vital to national defense. Harry Truman's seizure of steel production facilities in 1952, thereby ensuring supplies to a vulnerable wartime economy during the Korean War, demonstrates this. However, Trump's attitude toward national security in different contexts suggests that his tariffs are more about pleasing his voting base than national security. A number of its supporters have a mercantilist temperament, who see foreign imports as an attack on national sovereignty and demand protectionist policies in response. His actions appear to be helping increase approval rates even in states most economically threatened by tariffs. This illustrates an environment in which the administration will likely continue to promote economic protectionism, regardless of Trump's ability to personally impose tariffs. Although the letter could serve as a catalyst for debate over the negative effects of tariffs on the U.S. economy, the chances of influencing a Republican Congress and moderating the policies of a Republican administration are low. Particularly when these policies are so popular among voters. Without increased public support among members of Congress's constituencies, efforts by the business community to push for open markets will likely continue to struggle to gain traction. Title: globalism or realism. The United States' economic belligerence in defending its interests may seem like an endorsement of a "realistic" perspective on international relations. The more one agrees with the administration's assertions that U.S. national security is at risk,.