He Planned Trump’s Tariffs the First Time. Here’s What He Thinks of the New Ones.

Wilbur Ross in New York City on Sept. 23. John Lamparski/Getty Images for Concordia Summit

Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

As you know, the American economic order has been somewhat unsteady these days, thanks to the chaos engendered by Trump’s on-and-off tariffs. Things were already rickety enough before they were further upturned Friday, when Customs and Border Protection declared that several key electronic goods—including semiconductors, smartphones, solar cells, flat-screen TVs, and laptops—would be exempt from his 10 percent universal tariffs on all major trading partners. That initially helped to calm some jitters among Big Tech firms.

But then, over the weekend, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick informed media outlets that those exemptions would be temporary and that specialized new tariffs on these gadgets would still be coming in “a month or two.” After that, Trump adviser Stephen Miller claimed that all those products would still be subject to a baseline 20 percent tax that was imposed on Chinese imports in retaliation for the country’s role in the global fentanyl trade. And then, earlier this week, the Commerce Department publicized its ongoing national-security probes into semiconductor and pharmaceuticals imports. (Other such probes have been launched into imports of steel, aluminum, and critical minerals.) The policy jumble led to a tech-stock selloff that brought down the broader markets on Wednesday, as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned that the current tariffs situation could fuel unprecedented economic turmoil.

In moments of crisis, your oldest pals tend to be your most dependable ones. And throughout this term, the Trump team has had no more reliable public ally than Wilbur Ross, the corporate raider who served a controversial stint as commerce secretary during Trump’s first term. During that administration, Ross spearheaded the beginning of Trump’s long-term trade war, providing the groundwork for new tariffs on certain sectors (steel and aluminum) and against certain nations (China, naturally). Though he’s retired from public service—and officially sanctioned by the Chinese government—Ross has been happy to defend Trump’s current trade policy to the media, dismissing fears of recession or foreign aggravation while insisting that the U.S. can win any trade war. (One notable exception: his doubts about the tariff formula that led to a near–50 percent levy on imports from Cambodia, among other things.)

Slate has not been so bullish on these tariffs, so we figured it made sense to take the opportunity to chat with the 87-year-old Ross, who called from London on Wednesday to express persistent optimism on his former boss’s trade stances. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Nitish Pahwa: What’s your understanding of what Trump’s current tariff regime looks like right now, in practice?

Wilbur Ross: I think what’s happening is he’s fine-tuning the broad brush that he had used in the beginning and is starting to deal with the logical exceptions that should be made. Because remember, this time, unlike in the first administration, these are being done without public hearings and without industry consultation. So I think it’s inevitable that there will be fine-tuning and therefore I think it’s a natural process.

What I’m confused about is that they’ve called these exemptions for semiconductors and other tech, but at the same time, they’re saying those products will be subject to what they call 20 percent “fentanyl” tariffs from China, and that there may be more tariffs placed on semiconductors down the line. How do you make sense of that?

Let’s say he’s concluded—which I think he has—to take a very, very firm stand on China, and probably end up with them having much more punitive tariffs than other countries. Once you decide to do that, you have to deal with other countries and figure out some way to prevent them from being used as trans-shipment points for China, from otherwise perverting the barrier. So it’s a complicated need, and it’s very hard to figure out what exactly you will do until you know where you’re coming out with the other individual countries. I know everybody would like to make it very simple, but trade is horribly complex, and there are so many variables to it.

You were involved in negotiating and implementing tariffs, on China and elsewhere, during Trump’s first administration. Back then, were there also ideas there for pushing China tariffs this high, or even for slapping these universal 10 percent tariffs on our trading partners?

The first administration was devoting a lot of time to figuring out what were the actual powers the president can use without going back to Congress. The steel and aluminum tariffs that I had provided the material for were litigated up to the Supreme Court. So we have much greater clarity now as to what the president actually can do. And he’s concluded that he has much broader power than had been obvious to us in the first term. That, in turn, has enabled him to take a much more expansive view of what he’s going to do.

Now, it carries with it the risk of being overturned in litigation. The state of California already has said it will bring litigation on some of the tariffs. So it’s a different environment in that, this time, he’s taking somewhat more litigation risk and using his powers much more broadly. If you’ve noticed, he has started to revert to Section 232 [of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962], which is what I was using.

There are also special export controls on Nvidia with regard to certain chips, many of which have already made their way to China. Nvidia had objected to these, and the wider industry is warning of major hits to revenues, and of increased manufacturing expenses, as a result. I’m curious what you make of that.

As you know, the CHIPS Act provides all sorts of incentives to some of these same companies. And my guess is that [Trump] views, longer term, the tariffs as another mechanism also for helping them, so I think he is doing other things. There has been a big market for them. Clearly there will be some initial dislocation of revenues.

The CHIPS Act was from the Biden administration, which also defended some of Trump’s first tariffs on China and even expanded them, along with export controls. Do you believe that the Biden administration had a sensible trade policy with China?

I think directionally they were right because it needs to be cracked down on. Some of the actual things they did—quite notably with their most recent edicts on semiconductors—basically prevented companies like Applied Materials and Lam Research from selling chips to China, but they didn’t do anything about the subcomponents of those advanced chips, for example, ceramics from Japan. So they left a loophole—my guess is unintentionally—for China to have a relatively easy path to replace them, and that’s the problem with doing things by fiat rather than going through a process of industry consultation. I think what you’re seeing with these adjustments under Trump’s second term is simply reflecting the filling in of the blanks that were left by those involved in broad approach in the first instance.

So do you think that this president should have consulted with agency representatives and lawmakers first—

Well, he’s doing that now. He’s announced that he’s directed Secretary Howard Lutnick to do a 232 investigation.

Right, but do you think that he should have done that earlier on?

I don’t think it matters when he does it. The important thing is to do it and to end up in the best possible place. That’s all that really matters.

But do you think that there’s the potential for many companies, both domestic and international, to view all this back-and-forth and end up more reluctant to build factories or invest here in the long term?

I don’t think so. I think you’re already seeing, in other industries, big announcements about factories—most recently, Abbott Labs—so I don’t see that there is that effect. I think everybody knows the world is heading towards high tariffs near term. And by near term, I mean, probably for the next few years. That’s a trend of protectionism that started on its own, and it simply has been accelerated by what President Trump is doing.

Are you personally in touch with any industry leaders when it comes to electronics and semiconductors?

Yes, yes. In fact, I was a keynote speaker at an annual semiconductor industry meeting.

What are you hearing from these executives?

They’re all concerned, but they all understand why the endgame is what it really has to be. They would like to be patriotic, and their only concern is to make sure that the loopholes get closed. And whether they get closed on Day 1 or Day 10 or Day 50, it doesn’t make that much difference. They want them closed. I was frankly surprised at how public-spirited they were, even privately with me.

Is it your view that the way Trump is imposing tariffs now will be conducive to bringing back manufacturing to the States, for gadgets, electronics, artificial intelligence?

I absolutely do. I don’t think there’s any question. But it’s going to take more than just tariffs, that’s pretty clear to me, because it’s more complicated. Even with the CHIPS Act, we’re still going to be largely dependent upon foreign sources for our semiconductors. So there’s clearly more work that needs to be done. I think we’ll be much better off. Why would there be any doubt about that?

There are a lot of people who are concerned that refiguring the trade balance will affect the value of the U.S. dollar, despite its key position in the international ecosystem. We saw plenty of shake-ups in both the stock market and the bond markets over the past couple of weeks as the newer tariffs were announced. Obviously, there was a bit of relief when exemptions were announced, but Treasury yields are still high, and stocks are still zigzagging. What do you make of those reactions?

That is solely due to the uncertainty. But once Trump makes a deal with the first couple of big players, whether that’s Japan or Vietnam or whomever, I think then people will see there’s a path forward and I think markets will settle down.

But at this point, markets are led by high-performing tech stocks, such as Apple and Nvidia. On the one hand, Apple sees a little bit of tariff relief and its stock goes up, but Nvidia, with the sales and export controls, is seeing its stock go down. How do we get to a place of certainty?

You get there when you have deals finalized with a whole variety of countries.

But there’s still confusion over whether the exemptions will even last.

I think it’s very hard to say exactly what will be the direction at a point in time, but I do think if they make it clear that you need to do this in order to get relief, then you could actually end up, longer term, with lower tariffs and lower nontariff trade values, not higher.

Were there any times during your own service that you were inclined to vocally disagree with the president’s policies, or to suggest a strategy from one that had been enacted?

Oh, sure, there were plenty of nuances that all of us had. But as I say, there’s only one person who’s elected president—that’s Trump. So at the end of the day, it’s my view that it’s his call. And, from a public point of view, if somebody really disagrees with his policy, they ought to resign.