Everyday Americans Support President Trump’s Trade Action

April 7, 2025

Articles

View Original

Action Summary

Purpose: Reverse decades of globalization that have undermined the American industrial base and harmed American workers.
Policy Focus: Emphasize a trade agenda that protects domestic manufacturing, supports the return of industrial production, and prioritizes American economic interests.
Industry Support: Endorsements from major groups including the United Auto Workers, Steel Manufacturers Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Southern Shrimp Alliance, and National Council of Textile Organizations.
Economic Impact: Aim to rejuvenate middle-class opportunities by boosting domestic production and reducing reliance on foreign imports, particularly in key sectors like beef, shrimp, and automotive manufacturing.
Stakeholder Voices:
- Illinois cattle farmer: Supports reduced beef tariffs to create balanced competition in international markets.
- Louisiana shrimp producer: Highlights long-term struggles due to import dependencies and stresses the importance of building a self-sustaining domestic market.
- Retired auto worker: Applauds efforts to combat deindustrialization and the abandonment of U.S. manufacturing plants.
- Business CEOs: Leaders from Guardian Bikes and Paddock Chevrolet emphasize the potential for revitalized manufacturing and enhanced middle-class economic prospects.

Risks & Considerations

The Executive Order on trade actions aims to reverse globalization trends, which could lead to increased tariffs and trade barriers. This may impact Vanderbilt University by affecting the cost and availability of imported goods and services, potentially increasing operational costs.
There is a risk that the focus on domestic production could lead to retaliatory trade measures from other countries, affecting international collaborations and partnerships that Vanderbilt may have with foreign institutions.
The emphasis on supporting American industries could shift federal funding priorities, potentially impacting research grants and funding opportunities for projects that involve international components or rely on global supply chains.
Vanderbilt University may need to consider how changes in trade policies could affect its international student body, particularly those from countries that may be impacted by new trade barriers.

Impacted Programs

Vanderbilt’s International Programs may face challenges in maintaining partnerships and collaborations with institutions in countries affected by new trade policies.
The Owen Graduate School of Management could see increased demand for expertise in trade policy and economic strategy, presenting opportunities for research and curriculum development.
Vanderbilt’s Supply Chain Management programs may need to adapt to changes in global trade dynamics, providing students with skills to navigate a more protectionist economic environment.
The Office of International Student and Scholar Services might need to address concerns and provide support for international students affected by changes in trade and immigration policies.

Financial Impact

The reallocation of federal funds towards domestic industries could impact the funding landscape for research and development, potentially leading to reduced financial support for projects with international components.
Vanderbilt University might experience changes in its funding opportunities, particularly if federal discretionary grants prioritize domestic production and industry support. This could necessitate adjustments in grant application strategies and partnerships.
There may be increased opportunities for Vanderbilt to secure funding for research and development in trade policy and economic strategy, particularly through collaborations with the Department of Commerce and other federal agencies.
As trade policies shift, there could be a change in the demographics of students applying to Vanderbilt, potentially affecting tuition revenue and financial aid distribution.

Relevance Score: 3 (The order presents moderate risks involving compliance or ethics, particularly in terms of international collaborations and funding opportunities.)

Key Actions

Vanderbilt’s Economic Research Department should analyze the potential impacts of President Trump’s trade policies on local and national economies. By understanding these effects, the university can provide valuable insights to policymakers and industry leaders, enhancing its role as a thought leader in economic policy.
The Vanderbilt Business School could explore partnerships with industries affected by trade policies, such as manufacturing and agriculture, to develop programs that support workforce development and innovation. This could include executive education, research collaborations, and student internships.
Vanderbilt’s Center for Global Studies should assess the implications of reduced globalization on international relations and trade. By conducting research and hosting forums on these topics, the center can contribute to the national conversation on trade and globalization.
The Office of Federal Relations should engage with federal and state policymakers to advocate for policies that support the university’s interests in trade and economic development. This could involve providing research-based recommendations and participating in policy discussions.

Opportunities

The emphasis on revitalizing American manufacturing presents an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Engineering School to collaborate with industry partners on research and development projects. By focusing on innovation and technology transfer, the school can help drive advancements in manufacturing processes and products.
Vanderbilt can capitalize on the increased focus on domestic production by developing programs that support entrepreneurship and small business development. This could include incubators, accelerators, and mentorship programs that help students and alumni launch and grow businesses in affected industries.
The university can enhance its reputation as a leader in economic policy by hosting conferences and workshops on the impacts of trade policies. By bringing together experts, policymakers, and industry leaders, Vanderbilt can facilitate discussions and generate solutions to the challenges posed by these policies.

Relevance Score: 4 (The trade policies present potential for major process changes required for Vanderbilt’s programs due to economic impacts.)

Average Relevance Score: 2.2

Timeline for Implementation

N/A — The article does not specify any deadlines or implementation timelines for the trade action directives.

Relevance Score: 1

Impacted Government Organizations

Office of the President: As the source of the trade action, this office directs the national policy agenda and is central to implementing the strategy to reverse decades of globalization.
United States Trade Representative (USTR): Responsible for negotiating trade agreements and managing tariff policies abroad, the USTR will be directly involved in recalibrating trade relationships in light of the new directives.
Department of Commerce: Charged with promoting American business and overseeing economic policies, this department will be impacted by efforts to bolster domestic industry and counteract global production trends.
Department of Agriculture: Given the specific mention of beef tariffs and agriculture-related concerns, this department is key to addressing the challenges and opportunities presented in domestic food and livestock markets.
Department of Labor: With a focus on American workers and efforts to revitalize the industrial base, this agency is indirectly impacted as policies aiming to protect job opportunities and worker welfare are implemented.

Relevance Score: 2 (A moderate number of Federal Agencies—between 3 and 5—are implicated by the trade action policy.)

Responsible Officials

N/A – The text is a news article highlighting public and industry support for the trade policy, and does not specify any directives or instructions for particular officials.

Relevance Score: 1 (The summary does not include directives affecting any officials, hence minimal strategic impact on leadership.)