@ISIDEWITHQuestionsCurrent EventsStarted 3mos agoActive 51mins ago

Should the government impose a baseline tariff of 10% on all imports from every country?

In 2025, President Trump introduced a 10% baseline tariff on all imports from every country, effective April 5, as part of his "reciprocal trade" agenda. The policy aims to reduce trade deficits and boost U.S. manufacturing, but critics warn it could increase household costs and trigger retaliatory trade wars worldwide.

Answer Overview

Response rates from 55.3k America voters.

33%
Yes
67%
No
27%
Yes
51%
No
5%
Yes, and use it to negotiate better trade deals globally
9%
No, this will raise consumer prices and harm global trade
1%
Yes, and increase it annually to protect domestic industries
7%
No, tariffs should only target specific countries with unfair practices

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 55.3k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 55.3k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @B4VC5Q6 from Illinois  answered…2mos2MO

The government should impose a tariff match. If a country is imposing a 20% on the U.S., the U.S. tariff to that country should be 20%.

 @B4VC3JN from California  answered…2mos2MO

No, tariffs should only be used to target unethical/unfair practices and protect domestic industries.

 @B5YDBFP  from Georgia  answered…4 days4D

Yes, and use it to negotiate better trade deals globally. But, if consumer prices are raised, let people in very low income brackets be exempt from paying the higher consumer prices.

 @B5Y9X29 from Arkansas  answered…5 days5D

Yes, but only as a source of revenue, while still negotiating better trade deals and worker protections abroad.

 @ProudJew  from Tennessee  answered…7 days7D

"Security Bridge Fair Trade Framework"
"Yes, but as part of a comprehensive trade strategy focused on reciprocity and fairness, not just blanket protection. Implement a baseline 10% tariff that gets reduced or eliminated for countries that provide truly reciprocal trade terms - same tariffs they charge us, same market access, same labor/environmental standards. Use tariff revenue to fund domestic infrastructure, innovation, and worker retraining programs. Countries that engage in currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, or unfair labor practices face higher tariffs. Those that trade fairly get preferential access. The goal isn't protectionism - it's ensuring American workers and businesses compete on a level playing field, not against subsidized foreign competitors or slave labor."

 @B5XVFLKfrom Guam  answered…1wk1W

No. Comparative advantage is fine as long as it is not abused. If the USA wants to regulate trade with other nations, let it be based on the labour practices extant within its reading partners' borders. High wages/low exploitation/high worker safety? Allow trade. Low wages/unsafe working conditions/heavy worker exploitation? Forbid trade.

 @B5XC28Z from Delaware  answered…1wk1W

If it was my decision, I would make it clear. Whatever you charge us we charge you. If you give us 0% we give you 0% same with 100%

 @B5WYV75 from Oklahoma  answered…2wks2W

Yes, this will eliminate the necessity of other taxes such as the sales and income tax and vice versa.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…8mos8MO

Death, Denial, and Silence: Inside China’s Push to Bury Zhuhai’s Devastating SUV Attack

Outside the sports center in the southern city of Zhuhai where a 62-year-old man had plowed an S.U.V. into a crowd, killing at least 35 people, workers on Wednesday quickly removed bouquets of flowers left by grieving residents. Uniformed police officers and officials in plainclothes shooed away bystanders and warned them not to take photos. At hospitals where patients were taken after the attack — at least 43 more people were injured — local officials sat outside the intensive care units, blocking journalists from speaking with family members.On the Chinese internet, censors were mobilized to delete videos, news articles and commentaries about the attack. Almost 24 hours had passed before officials divulged details about the assault, which happened on Monday, including the death toll. Their statement offered limited details, and they have held no news conferences.The response was a precise enactment of the Chinese government’s usual playbook after mass tragedies: Prevent any nonofficial voices, including eyewitnesses and survivors, from speaking about the event. Spread assurances of stability. Minimize public displays of grief.The goal is to stifle potential questions and criticism of the authorities, and force the public to move on as quickly as possible. And to a large degree, it appeared to be working.Though many residents of Zhuhai, the city of 2.4 million where the attack happened, were clearly shaken, they said on Wednesday they had not questioned the delay in information, attributing it to the government’s need to first sort out what had happened. A steady stream of people arrived by foot or taxi to lay flowers at the sports center’s entrance, but when officials took away the flowers and told the people not to linger, they quickly complied.Local governments have also vowed in recent months to spend more time screening for people who have experienced “failures,” after a spate of violent attacks, including several cases in which schoolchildren were stabbed.But officials were also clearly on the lookout for any deeper scrutiny of the Zhuhai killings. Videos and photos of the scene of the attack showed only as grayed-out squares on Weibo, a social media platform. Blog posts urging people not to treat violent attacks as isolated incidents, but rather to look deeper for potential social causes, disappeared.

▲  177 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…10mos10MO

Israel Missile Strike Kills 5 U.S. Aid Workers

The Israeli military fired a missile, killing five people in the lead vehicle of an aid convoy in Gaza that it claimed had been hijacked by militants.The military also said it killed a top Hamas commander and two other fighters Friday as its large-scale operations in the West Bank continued into a third day.The D.C.-based nonprofit that organized the convoy, American Near East Refugee Aid, known as Anera, described it as a “shocking incident” in a statement Friday and said that those killed were from a local transportation company. It was urgently seeking more details about the incident.The convoy had been delivering medical supplies and fuel to an Emirati-run hospital in Rafah, Palestine Country Director Sandra Rasheed said in the statement to The Washington Post, and its route was coordinated with the Israel Defense Forces.Thursday’s incident is one of several such attacks this week. In remarks to the United Nations Security Council on Thursday, the U.S. representative, Robert Wood, referred to an incident that occurred Sunday, according to U.N. officials, in which he said the IDF fired toward a UNICEF vehicle.On Tuesday, at least 10 rounds were fired into a World Food Program vehicle, which the United Nations blamed on Israel and prompted WFP to temporarily suspend staff movement across Gaza. Wood said the Biden administration was “deeply alarmed” by Tuesday’s shooting and urged Israel to “immediately rectify the issues within their system that allowed this to happen.”

▲  168 replies