Editor's note: U.S. President Donald Trump set a 10 percent baseline tariff across the board on Wednesday. Will tariffs make America great again as Trump promised? CGTN has introduced a five-part series – U.S., Biggest Loser from Tariffs – to analyze the impacts of the escalating trade war.

Calling the word tariff "the most beautiful word in the dictionary," U.S. President Donald Trump announced tariffs of 10 percent on a universal baseline for all imports and two to three times as much for some specific trading partners on Wednesday.

Among some, the newly declared "reciprocal tariff" rates are 20 percent for the European Union, 26 percent for India, 34 percent for China, and 46 percent for Vietnam. China's 34 percent tariff will be levied on top of the pre-existing rate of 20 percent, bringing its total levies to a massive 54 percent.

In its fact sheet released on Wednesday, the White House justified Trump's move – his most expansive tariffs yet while in office – as an attempt to increase the country's competitive edge, protect sovereignty, and strengthen its national and economic security. Insisting America's persistent annual trade deficits were the root cause of the outsourcing of its manufacturing base, the White House naively regards tariffs as a Trump card to boost domestic manufacturing capacity and reduce the country' dependency on foreign adversaries.

Perhaps, American politicians should learn some basic economics before massively escalating the trade war.

True, trade deficits have been a persistent feature of the U.S. economy, averaging approximately 3.1 percent of the country's GDP annually since 2008. But this trade imbalance is a result of the country's structural economic factors, not foreign trade practices.

Consumer spending has been the primary driver of the U.S. economy, with personal consumption accounting for nearly 68 percent of the country's GDP in 2024's fourth quarter, according to the U.S. Bank. When domestic production cannot keep up, the U.S. consumption-based economy has contributed to its high demand for imported goods.

"Rising consumption and investment fueled import growth, despite rising import prices; exports rose but could not keep up," Maurice Obstfeld, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), said in his paper "The U.S. Trade Deficit: Myths and Realities" published on the Brookings Institute website.

And the U.S. tends to import products in labor-intensive, low-wage industries, such as apparel, footwear, leather, and goods assembled from components. These imports have, to a large extent, helped the U.S. consumers maintain their consuming vitality, meanwhile keeping the inflation comparatively low, which in turn, helps boost the U.S. economy. The U.S. basically benefits more from these imports, instead of "being taken advantaged" by "many countries."

Apart from its consumption-driven economic structure, a shortage of skilled workers, high costs for infrastructure, and technological barriers means the White House, instead of blaming trading partners, will have to address the country's structural economic woes first if it is sincere in fixing its trade imbalance, bringing manufacturing back, and strengthening economic security.

Tariffs will only make the situation even worse for the United States.

Against Trump's allegation of "unfair" trade practices, foreign tariffs are not arbitrarily imposed by other countries, but are the result of the Uruguay Round negotiations from 1986 to 1995. As the largest trade negotiation ever in history, the Uruguay Round brought about the most profound reform of the global trading system that was designed to accommodate development gaps.

Lower trade barriers can stimulate competition in advanced economies and in the meantime nurture local industries in emerging countries. The Trump administration's attempt to rewrite this framework will only disrupt global trade, on which the U.S. has been relying for its economic wellbeing.

In response to Trump's tariff threats, major trading partners have vowed to retaliate. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pledged on Tuesday that "all instruments" would be on the table to hit back if necessary. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned that Beijing would "counterattack" against Washington's "blackmail." Canadian Finance Minister Fran?ois-Philippe Champagne promised a "strong response." Norwegian Minister of Trade and Industry Cecilie Myrseth said her country is "doing the calculations and looking through what has come."

Not surprisingly, these countermeasures will strike a heavy blow to American companies relying on overseas markets for survival, crippling their production capacity and thus putting American jobs at risk. In addition, rising costs along the supply chains mean American manufacturers will have to scale back production, and this would inevitably result in layoffs.

The jobs created as a result of Trump's protectionist policies could be offset by jobs lost in other fields facing higher costs of tariffs, according to a Federal Reserve study.

Unveiling his most expansive tariffs ever, Trump declared April 2 as "Liberation Day" for the "rebirth" of American industry, the "reclamation" of America's destiny, the "return" of American wealth, and an "American economic independence."

The U.S. has actually won at least once from the imports from other countries. Now, it is trying to win "twice," or "three times," or even more by tariffs, fees, sanctions, bans, and etc. This might be the U.S. style of "win-win" situation – All wins are mine!

But the rule in economics determines that tariffs will not make America great again, but only drag the world's largest economy into recession. And a true reciprocal deal is one where all participating sides should have their part of "win" in it.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)