This essay is a part of The Right Way Forward, Restoring America’s new think tank debate series in which leading conservative institutions argue the defining questions of the post-Trump era. Read about the series here.
For decades, a bipartisan globalist consensus has treated free trade as an unquestioned good — an article of faith rather than a policy choice. In theory, free trade promises efficiency, lower prices, and shared prosperity. But in practice, the global trading system has never been truly free, and American workers have too often paid the price for pretending otherwise.
Recommended Stories
Tariffs aren’t dead. They remain one of the most effective tools available to policymakers to advance three core national interests: economic security, revenue generation, and negotiating leverage. Used strategically, tariffs are not a rejection of markets — they are a recognition that markets must be structured to serve the national interest.
The standard argument for free trade assumes a level playing field. But that assumption collapses under scrutiny. Many of our trading partners have denied American exporters access to their markets by imposing high tariffs and quotas, mandating health and environmental regulations not based on science, and ignoring intellectual property protections, all the while subsidizing their production to further give their goods an artificial advantage. In exchange, the same countries benefited from relatively open access to U.S. markets.
That’s not free trade.
Agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were sold as wins for the American economy, yet they contributed to the offshoring of key industries and hollowed out manufacturing communities across the country. In the 20 years after NAFTA was ratified, the U.S. lost nearly 700,000 manufacturing jobs to Mexico alone, a number that has likely grown since then. The lesson is not that trade itself is bad, but that poorly negotiated trade deals can do lasting harm.
Reforms like the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) started to change the balance of the trade agreements, notably containing a joint review provision to allow parties to improve the deal, starting this summer. Similarly, the president’s renegotiation of trade deals across the globe has rebalanced trade to better protect American workers and industries. They showed that the United States does not have to accept unfavorable terms in the name of outdated economic dogma.
In today’s geopolitical environment, economic policy is national security policy. The COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and rising global tensions have exposed the risks of overdependence on foreign production.
This is not about isolationism. It is about resilience.
An economy that cannot produce its own goods, including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, or critical infrastructure components, is vulnerable. Tariffs can help incentivize the reshoring of these industries, strengthening domestic capacity and reducing reliance on adversarial nations.
By encouraging domestic production and protecting key sectors from unfair competition, tariffs can help rebuild the industrial base that underpins both economic strength and national defense.
Critics often overlook a simple fact: tariffs generate government revenue. At a time of mounting fiscal pressure, that matters.
Unlike income taxes, which disincentivize work by taking the hard-earned money out of Americans’ paychecks, tariffs incentivize domestic production over foreign imports, which, in the long run, can boost American jobs, productivity, and innovation. While some costs may be passed along to the consumer, tariffs can still serve as a meaningful source of federal revenue. In 2025, the U.S. raised $287 billion in tariff revenue, due to the new trade agenda of the Trump Administration.
That revenue can be used to reduce deficits, fund tax relief, or invest in infrastructure and strategic industries. In that sense, tariffs are not just protective — they are productive.
Perhaps most importantly, tariffs provide leverage. In international negotiations, access to the American market is one of the most valuable assets in the world. It should be treated that way.
When the United States imposes tariffs in response to unfair practices, it signals that reciprocity matters. It forces trading partners to come to the table and engage in serious negotiations.
We’ve already seen how the use — or credible threat of use — of tariffs can bring countries to negotiate on trade barriers, regulatory practices, and even broader issues tied to economic and national security. Tariffs are often a means to achieve better outcomes that advance the national interest.
For too long, trade policy has prioritized abstract economic gains at all costs over the lived reality of American workers. Lower consumer prices mean little to communities that have lost their industries, their jobs, and their sense of economic stability.
A smarter trade policy recognizes that growth must be broadly shared. It acknowledges that the dignity of work, the strength of communities, and the resilience of the middle class are not secondary concerns—they are central to national prosperity.
Tariffs, when used judiciously, help restore that balance. They send a clear message: access to the American market is a privilege, not a right, and it must be earned through fair and reciprocal treatment.
Supporting tariffs does not mean abandoning conservative principles. It means updating them to reflect current realities.
Markets work best when rules are enforced and competition is fair. When those conditions don’t exist, as is often the case in global trade, policy must adapt.
Tariffs are not a relic of the past. They are a practical, strategic tool for advancing American interests in a complex and competitive world. The goal is not protectionism for its own sake, but a stronger, more secure, and more prosperous United States.
It’s time to move beyond outdated assumptions and recognize a simple truth: tariffs aren’t dead—they’re necessary.
Michael Faulkender serves as Co-Chair for American Prosperity at the America First Policy Institute. He previously served as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.