Tariff legalizations were one of the most important domestic issues dealt with by William McKinley during his presidency. As accounted for by journalist and author Robert W. Merry in President McKinley: Architect of the American Century [1], McKinley started out as a steadfast protectionist who believed that high tariff rates were a precondition for the rapid growth of the U.S. economy in the decades following the Civil War, however, his protectionist interests were ultimately overruled by a desire for reciprocal trade policies [2]. Notably, Trump draws considerable influence from President William McKinley, whom he regards as the ‘tariff king’. Like McKinley, he too desires to impose tariffs with the motive to accomplish the three R’s (revenue, restriction, reciprocity) [2].
Trump’s recent tariff increase has been the largest since World War II and marks a return to the use of tariffs as a policy tool, however, the fact that tariffs are a double edged sword must not be ignored. While they provide a host of advantages as a powerful negotiating tool, providing assistance in pressuring trading partners into entering more favourable deals and providing protection to infant industries, tariffs also raise costs for businesses and consumers. Additionally, the imposition of retaliatory tariffs by other countries has also become a point of concern for the United States. This paper seeks to analyse Trump’s tariffs from a historical perspective, focusing primarily on the aspects of the historical imposition of tariffs in the United States, the ongoing trade war, and the comparison between the two; delving into the question of whether the reinstatement of high tariffs was simply an economic motivation or whether it was driven by an agenda to acquire geopolitical power.
The Historical Purpose of Tariffs
In the early years of the Republic tariffs were an integral part of the U.S fiscal policies. While tariffs were earlier instrumental in raising revenue for the federal government and providing protection to infant industries [3], tariffs in the modern era no longer serve the same interests. In the postbellum period “war tariffs” were imposed, originally intended for the purpose of raising revenue and overcoming the nation’s Civil War debt [4]; these remained in effect throughout the century. The imposition of higher tariffs in U.S history was no doubt the result of the interplay of several geopolitical and economic factors. This claim is evidenced by the numerous tariff acts, systematic increases and occasional cuts in tariffs over the years.
Take the example of William McKinley, who favoured indirect taxation via tariffs, advocating for high protective tariffs to generate revenue without directly taxing citizens. He initially endorsed tariffs in an attempt to reduce internal taxes as well as a means of encouraging the expansion of domestic industry and employment of American workers. Under his presidency, the Dingley Tariff Act (1897) was incorporated [5]. To provide context: at the time, customs duties earned $160 million in revenue for the United States, becoming the largest component of government income. Various internal revenue duties brought in approximately $145 million. Abiding by his campaign promises of increasing tariff income in order to reduce internal taxes and encourage the expansion of domestic industry, McKinley called a special session of Congress to revise and raise tariff rates. The resultant Dingley Tariff Act increased tariff rates to an average rate of 49 percent. However, this was not the only tariff act administered by McKinley.
In 1890, while serving as the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, McKinley also sponsored a tariff bill that raised the duties on many imported goods to nearly fifty per cent on average. This bill eventually came to be known as the McKinley Tariff and dramatically increased the tax rate on foreign products [6]. While several business owners supported this legislation, American consumers generally opposed it, as higher prices rendered them the bearers of the cost. Nonetheless, these tariff legislations were not without political disturbance. The McKinley Tariff sparked political turmoil as during the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party continuously battled over tariffs. With voters punishing the Republican party, the Democrats came to power, partially reducing the McKinley Tariffs [3]. Hence, the situation played out as tariff escalation only to ultimately de-escalate. Therefore it is believed that the McKinley Tariff played a major role in the downfall of the U.S. economy and destabilization of the political landscape of the 1890s.
Historically, tariffs in the U.S were often employed as a means of meeting war expenses. President McKinley presided over the Spanish-American War of 1898, which ended in the U.S. emerging as a world power [7]. The Spanish-American War notably boosted the U.S. economy by opening new markets, thus increasing trade opportunities. However, the aftermath of the war was taxing, quite literally. The war was expensive and significantly increased the nation’s debt, reaching a then all-time-high, and the taxpayers bore the brunt. The Congress hiked taxes on tobacco and alcohol through the War Revenue Act of 1898 signed in by McKinley, and also passed the first inheritance tax in American history. The higher taxes remained in place after the war, barring a brief annulment of the inheritance tax. During the turmoil, the U.S. recorded its largest deficit since the Civil War era [7].
Thus, when analysed from a historical perspective it can be concluded that U.S. tariffs were imposed primarily for the purpose of fulfilling the three R’s: Revenue, as tariff revenue was used to repay the debt incurred during the Civil War; Reciprocity, to help negotiate trade agreements; and Restriction, by restricting imports to protect domestic industries [4], inculcating a policy of protectionism. It is important to note the influential role of President and Economist William McKinley while analysing the historical basis of Trump’s tariffs, as he proves to be the source of inspiration for Trump’s latest tariff policies [2].
The Current Trade War
The U.S.-China trade war initially erupted in 2018 and provides a compelling case study of how tariffs have been transformed into a strategic instrument for economic and political ends [8] and serves as a precursor to the ongoing trade war during Trump’s second term. In President Trump’s first term the Trump Administration imposed tariffs on Chinese goods under the facade of addressing issues such as intellectual property theft and trade imbalances [9]. This not only strained relations between the world’s two largest economies but also affected global supply chains. In the status quo it remains uncertain whether history will repeat itself as the trade relationship between the US, China and the rest of the globe shifts as U.S President Donald Trump imposes tariffs on several nations.
On April 2nd, referred to by President Trump as “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs were imposed on several countries [8]. Trump’s recent tariff increase has been the largest since World War II and marks a return to the use of tariffs as a policy tool. Reasons for America’s reinstatement of tariffs are: to bring back jobs lost to foreign countries by increasing domestic production and thus manufacturing jobs, to impose tariffs on nations that levy tariffs on U.S imports, to restrain intellectual property theft by China, who is observed to have replicated American inventions on several occasions, and to balance the trade deficit [9].
A base 10% tariff was levied on all imports and further country specific tariffs for about 60 nations, where China was targeted with an astonishing tariff of 245%, which was later relaxed. However, China retaliated by imposing its own tariffs on U.S. goods — a 15% tariff on coal and liquefied natural gas (LNG), 10% duty on agricultural machinery, crude oil as well as some vehicles [8]. Additionally, Beijing also launched an antitrust investigation into Google as a means of economic revenge [8].
Simultaneously, it is important to take into account the non-economic motives of Trump’s tariffs. In fact, tariffs against China are not a recent development, but rather a continuing U.S. policy. The fact that geopolitical power has a decisive role in policy formation is universally acknowledged. This fact holds true even in the context of tariffs [11]. Thus, Trump’s tariff should not be viewed merely as economic tools, rather, powerful ones with the objective of reshaping the dynamics of global power politics [10].
Comparative Analysis
While modern tariffs are no longer employed as a means of government revenue as the federal government is no longer dependent on the revenue from tariffs for funding, a pattern can be discerned in the manner tariffs were imposed with a view to achieve the 3 R’s, historically as well as in the modern day. Additionally, prevalence of tit-for-tat retaliations between the U.S. and other countries have been observed in both the historical and present day context. The McKinley Tariff, for instance, also included reciprocity provisions which allowed the government to negotiate trade agreements with other countries and was designed to reduce tariffs on certain goods in exchange for similar reductions by other nations, promoting more balanced trade relations [2]. The same strategy is being implemented to a certain extent today.
Another similarity lies in the political implications of tariff policies. The Tariff Act of 1930: Smoot-Hawley, enacted by President Herbert Hoover, serves as a prime example of how protectionist measures can lead to trade frictions and economic hardship [6]. It aimed to safeguard American agriculture and industry from foreign competition by increasing tariffs on more than 20,000 imported products at a time when the agricultural sector was in crisis in order to shield domestic producers and reduce competition. However, the act’s sweeping nature and the scale of the tariff increases had unintended repercussions, the most immediate impact being the swift and negative response from international trade partners. The political implications of Trump’s tariffs include escalated tensions with China, potential lack of support in the ballot box in 2026 and strained relations with allies [12]. Concurrently, the geopolitical incentives of tariffs must also be recognized. Political analysts also warn that Trump’s reliance on the Mc Kinley model may overlook the global political backlash that the tariffs can provoke.
Geopolitical factors influence economic policies to a considerable extent. The correlation between geopolitical influences and government policies cannot be ignored. This fact is testified by Trump’s use of tariffs as a means of conducting foreign policy, thus the resurgence of tariffs can be viewed as an instrument of American foreign relations. Furthermore, tariffs are being employed by the U.S. in an effort to dominate global power politics. With the motive of eliminating China as a threat, some geopolitical objectives of the U.S Tariffs are- to minimize dependence on China, strengthen its economic and military power through domestic manufacturing, and to weaken China’s economic advancement and its technological aspirations by focusing tariffs on semiconductors and Electronic Vehicles. Most recently, Trump has imposed a 50% tariff on India as a punitive measure to further his geopolitical interests as a retaliation for India sourcing and refining Russian oil for further sale to other nations. Historically, too, the geopolitical motives of tariff imposition, like protecting national security and facilitating successful international political negotiations, were often more influential than economic motives.
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be discerned that the motive of tariffs in current-day and historical contexts are widely overlapping as in both eras they served as a means to fulfill geopolitical and economic ends. However, a key difference lies in the fact that tariffs in McKinley’s era were dominated more by the economic motive while Trump’s administrative tariffs prove to have more of a geopolitical rationale. Hence, it can be concluded that while both geopolitical power and economic elements play a crucial role in the formulation of policies, geopolitical motivations play a more decisive role in policy formation in the current status of affairs.
_____________
References
1. Merry, Robert W. President McKinley: Architect of the American Century. Simon & Schuster, 2017.
2. Gould, Lewis L. “William McKinley: Domestic Affairs.” Miller Center, 4 Oct. 2016, https://millercenter.org/president/mckinley/domestic-affairs.
3. “History of U.S. Tariffs and Why It Matters Today.” Tax & Accounting Blog Posts by Thomson Reuters, 15 May 2025, https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/history-of-u-s-tariffs-and-why-it-matters-today/.
4. Irwin, Douglas A. “Tariffs and Growth in Late Nineteenth Century America.” The World Economy, vol. 24, no. 1, 2000, pp. 15–30. Wiley Online Library, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9701.00341.
5. Hansen, Alicia. “Tax History Lesson: The McKinley Tariff.” Tax Foundation, 21 July 2008, https://taxfoundation.org/blog/tax-history-lesson-mckinley-tariff/.
6. Halloran, Tyler . “A Brief History of Tariffs in the United States and the Dangers of Their Use Today.” Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 17 Mar. 2019, https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2019/03/17/a-brief-history-of-tariffs-in-the-united-states-and-the-dangers-of-their-use-today/.
7. Folsom, Burton W. “Spanish-American War: Death, Taxes, and Incompetence.” Foundation for Economic Education, 1 Dec. 1998, https://fee.org/articles/spanish-american-war-death-taxes-and-incompetence/.
8. Kasana, Manisha. “The Geopolitical Impact of U.S.-China Trade War in South Asia.” Diplomatist, 17 Mar. 2025, https://diplomatist.com/2025/03/17/the-geopolitical-impact-of-u-s-china-trade-war-in-south-asia/.
9. Holmes, Frank. “The Surprising History of Tariffs and Their Role in U.S. Economic Policy.” U.S. Global Investors, 10 Feb. 2025, https://www.usfunds.com/resource/the-surprising-history-of-tariffs-and-their-role-in-u-s-economic-policy/.
10. Cassidy, John. “Even Donald Trump’s Historical Role Model Had Second Thoughts About Tariffs.” The New Yorker, 17 Mar. 2025, https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-financial-page/even-donald-trumps-historical-role-model-had-second-thoughts-about-tariffs.
11. “Tariffs: The Crossroads of Geopolitics and Economics.” The Hartford, 2024, https://www.thehartford.com/insights/economic-trends/tariffs-geopolitical-economic-consequences.
12. Cardon, Nathan. Donald Trump and William McKinley: What Can the Past Tell Us about the Political Risks of Tariffs? University of Birmingham, 4 April 2025 https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2025/donald-trump-and-william-mckinley-what-can-the-past-tell-us-about-the-political-risks-of-tariffs.
Feature Image: President Donald Trump delivers remarks on the reciprocal tariff policy in the Rose Garden on April 2, 2025.
© Delhi Defence Review. Reproducing this content in full without permission is prohibited.
