University of Kansas professor says Trump’s tariffs are xenophobic, unlawful and harmful to U.S.

Raj Bhala, a university distinguished professor of law at the University of Kansas, says President Donald Trump's use of tariffs is destroying international trade law and will result in harm to the U.S. economy and global standing. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)

LAWRENCE — A University of Kansas law professor says President Donald Trump’s tariffs against more than 100 countries violate international trade law and harm the United States by undercutting its economy, military alliances and global political influence.

Raj Bhala, the KU law school’s first distinguished professor, said Trump’s second term was highlighted by an attempt to draw overseas industries and jobs to the United States under a strategy built on populist distrust of foreign sources of trade. He said the administration’s approach equated to “xenophobic autarky,” which referred to moving a country toward economic self-sufficiency and limited trade because of hostility against foreign people or goods.

“Trade law is being destroyed through a series of ‘America First’ unilateral trade measures, which violate international and, in some cases, U.S. law,” he said. “Preserving trade law is important because destroying legal rules and diplomatic norms hurts the U.S. by eroding its economy and political soft power and its hard power military alliances.”

Bhala, who has been on the KU law faculty since 2003, made a case for the xenophobic autarky designation Monday during a campus lecture and in a pair of 100-page articles published by University of Texas International Law Journal.

“So, 200 pages to chronicle and critique 200 days of the greatest upheaval in international trade law in nearly 80 years since the end of the second world war,” he said.

Diplomatically, he said, the way in which the Trump administration levied tariffs during the period “shattered all norms of decorum and dignity … of how we’ve traditionally behaved towards foreign countries.”

He said the administration’s handling of trade was “maximalist — leave nothing on the table.”

“Empathy, even with least-developed countries like Laos, let alone advanced ones like Canada, is weakness. That’s the thesis,” Bhala said.

‘Devilish’ trade war

In the 100 days from January to April, the U.S. adopted tariffs against Canadian, Mexican and Chinese merchandise under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under the explanation they were tied to fentanyl and immigration trafficking. The U.S. issued reciprocity tariffs of at least 10% under IEEPA. In addition, industry-specific tariffs of more than 25% were implemented under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

From April to August, Trump shot through trade rules and norms to raise the U.S.’s Most Favored Nation tariff rate to its highest level since the Great Depression. It surged from 2.3% to 15.2%, which Bhala said broke the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT.

Bhala said even if the U.S. Supreme Court found against Trump in a pending challenge to his tariff agenda, the president could sustain extraordinary tariffs by executive order or by convincing Congress to change federal law.

“These tariff regimes have turned an arguably just trade war against China into a devilish global trade war,” Bhala said. “We do not live in an era of change, but rather in a changed era. The change in eras is from free trade or at least managed trade to protectionism. That change of eras is from leadership to bullying.”

Bhala said to look no further than De Soto for evidence of how the trade war could impact Kansas.

In July, Panasonic began producing electric vehicle batteries at a plant built after the state of Kansas dangled hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives to attract 4,000 jobs. About that same time, the U.S. Department of Commerce hit China with a special import tax on goods.

The sanction was in response to China selling graphite, a component in batteries, at prices below home market prices. The duty could add $1,000 to the price of an EV battery made in De Soto, he said, and the consumer cost of those batteries would rise.

“What about those De Soto factory workers who might suffer a job loss or diminution of income because electric vehicles are less competitive in the market?” he said.

Futile or fabulous?

Bhala said the United States was fracturing its credibility as a reliable global trading partner. Steady trading partners such as Canada responded by leaning into new business alliances with other countries, he said. The process provided an incentive for India to focus more on trade with China and Russia, he said.

He said the Trump administration’s reasoning for setting fire to international trade law ranged from the need to enhance national security, shrink the federal budget deficit, reduce trade deficits, fight trade agreement cheaters and protest foreign court decisions. There are reasonable arguments against each of those explanations, he said.

“Because xenophobic autarky is futile,” Bhala said, “it is a goal that cannot and should not be achieved.”

Members of the Kansas congressional delegation have debated Trump’s manipulation of markets with tariff barriers.

The result of trade negotiations gives U.S. businesses, including farmers, better access to overseas markets and would help onshore manufacturing within the domestic economy, said U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas.

“The success of President Trump’s strategic application of tariffs cannot be overstated,” Marshall said last month. “By securing these trade deals, we’re reestablishing American national security, economic prosperity and our standing internationally.”

U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran, also a Kansas Republican, raised objections in April by sponsoring legislation that would create a sunset provision in federal law that would expire a president’s tariff orders after 60 days unless Congress passed a joint resolution to approve them. Moran, who has advocated for free and open trade, also said unilateral tariffs were harmful to the state’s farmers and aerospace manufacturers.

In the presentation at KU, Bhala described his analysis as nonpartisan and contended that he didn’t assess trade policy based on the platform of political parties or disposition of political leaders.