The U.S. has a long history of using tariffs as a tool for economic and national security, with mixed results. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, one of the most infamous trade policies in American history, was passed during the Great Depression with the aim of shielding domestic industries from foreign competition.

Sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis Hawley, the act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels—some exceeding 60%. Instead of reviving the economy, it provoked widespread retaliation, deepened global trade collapses, and exacerbated the Depression’s devastation. Decades later, President Donald Trump’s 2025 reciprocal tariffs, announced in an April 2 executive order, echo some of Smoot-Hawley’s protectionist goals but with critical differences in strategy and context. While both policies aimed to protect American industries, they emerged in vastly different economic climates and employed distinct approaches. This article compares their objectives, mechanisms, and potential consequences, incorporating newly released details from Trump’s executive order and tariff list.

1. Overview of the Two Policies

A. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930)

• Goal: Protect U.S. farmers and manufacturers during the Great Depression.
• Mechanism: Raised tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, with some duties exceeding 60%.
• Impact:
  • Triggered global retaliation, worsening the Depression.
  • U.S. exports plummeted as trade partners imposed counter-tariffs.
  • Widely regarded as a policy failure, contributing to economic collapse.

B. Trump’s 2025 Reciprocal Tariffs

• Goal: Reduce trade deficits, counter “unfair” foreign practices (e.g., VAT disparities, IP theft), and reshore manufacturing.
• Mechanism:
  • 10% baseline tariff on all imports (effective April 5, 2025).
  • Higher “reciprocal” tariffs on 50+ nations (e.g., China at 34%, EU at 20%, Cambodia at 49%) (effective April 9, 2025).
  • Exemptions: Critical goods (pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, energy) and USMCA-compliant trade with Canada/Mexico.
• Legal Basis: Declared a national emergency under IEEPA, citing trade deficits as a threat to national security.

2. Key Comparisons

3. Potential Outcomes

A. Smoot-Hawley’s Lessons

• Retaliation is inevitable: Global tariffs hurt U.S. exports more than they helped domestic industries.
• Supply chains matter: Even in the 1930s, trade disruptions amplified economic pain.
• Political fallout: The act contributed to Hoover’s defeat in 1932.

B. Trump’s 2025 Tariffs: Risks & Rewards

• Pros:
  • Reshoring incentives for critical sectors (e.g., semiconductors, autos).
  • Pressure on China may yield concessions on IP theft or subsidies.
  • National security focus (e.g., reducing reliance on foreign defense supply chains).
• Cons:
  • Consumer prices may rise (despite exemptions for essentials).
  • Retaliation could target U.S. agriculture/tech exports.
  • Global supply chain disruptions, especially in manufacturing.

4. Historical Parallels & Divergences

• Similarities:
  • Both framed as economic patriotism.
  • Both risk trade wars if mishandled.
• Differences:
  • Smoot-Hawley was blanket protectionism; Trump’s tariffs are strategic and conditional.
  • Modern economies are far more interconnected, making tariffs harder to enforce without collateral damage.
  • Trump’s tariffs are tied to national security (IEEPA), giving them legal resilience.

Sectoral Impact Analysis: How Smoot-Hawley and Trump’s 2025 Tariffs Compare

1. Technology Sector

Smoot-Hawley (1930)

• Context: Early industrial era; tech trade was minimal.
• Impact: Indirect harm as global trade contraction reduced demand for U.S. industrial machinery exports.

Trump’s 2025 Tariffs

• Key Measures:
  • Semiconductors exempted (critical for national security).
  • China faces 34% tariffs on tech imports (e.g., networking gear, AI hardware).
• Pros:
  • Incentivizes domestic chip production (CHIPS Act synergy).
  • Pressures China on IP theft and forced tech transfers.
• Cons:
  • Risk of China restricting rare earth exports (vital for U.S. tech manufacturing).
  • Higher costs for consumer electronics (e.g., smartphones, laptops).

2. Pharmaceuticals

Smoot-Hawley (1930)

• Impact: Limited (pharma globalization was decades away).

Trump’s 2025 Tariffs

• Key Measures:
  • Pharma products fully exempted (to avoid drug shortages).
• Pros:
  • Reduces reliance on foreign drug supplies (post-COVID lesson).
• Cons:
  • While direct tariffs might not be an immediate concern, the overall economic climate in the U.S. could still indirectly affect the pharmaceutical sector. If the tariffs lead to a U.S. economic slowdown, this could affect healthcare spending.

3. Automobiles

Smoot-Hawley (1930)

• Impact: Auto tariffs (up to 60%) crushed U.S. exports as Europe/Britain retaliated.

Trump’s 2025 Tariffs

• Key Measures:
  • 25% tariff on non-USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) auto parts (vs. 2.5% pre-Trump).
  • EU faces 20% duty on passenger vehicles (vs. their 10% tariff on U.S. cars).
• Pros:
  • Boosts U.S. EV/battery manufacturing (linked to IRA subsidies).
• Cons:
  • EU/Japan may target U.S. auto exports, hurting Ford/GM.
  • Higher prices for consumers (average car cost could rise $4,000+).

4. Agriculture

Smoot-Hawley (1930)

• Impact: Farm exports collapsed (e.g., wheat sales to Europe fell 75% by 1932).

Trump’s 2025 Tariffs

• Key Measures:
  • China (34%), India (27%), EU (20%) tariffs target unfair practices (e.g., EU’s non-tariff barriers on U.S. beef).
  • Exemptions: None for agriculture, unlike tech/pharma.
• Pros:
  • Leverage to open markets (e.g., India’s 50% apple tariff).
• Cons:
  • Retaliation risks (e.g., China could halt soybean imports again, as in 2018).
  • Farm income instability if export markets shrink.

5. Critical Takeaways

Final Thought:
While Smoot-Hawley is remembered as a mistake, Trump’s tariffs could either be seen as a necessary correction or a repeat of past errors—depending on their execution and global response.

Bottom Line: Trump’s tariffs are more surgical than Smoot-Hawley’s blunt tool, but sectoral risks—especially in agriculture and autos—could revive old mistakes.