Tariffs: Fraser of Allander explainer

Despite was the US President says, tariff is – at least among economists – far from the most beautiful word in the English language. But it’s certainly the word of the week, and has been resurrected from the doldrums of interest in seemingly no time (writes Fraser of Allander Institute’s JOAO SOUSA).

What even is a tariff?

What we usually call a tariff is a tax on the importation of a good into a jurisdiction. The tax itself is called a customs duty in the National Accounts, and can be levied either as a specific (certain amount per unit) or ad valorem (that is, as a percentage of the price). The duty is payable on clearing customs and therefore payable on entering a territory legally for consumption, final or intermediate, and depends on two things: the good in question and its provenance.

A trade tariff is also the name of the overall regime: for example, see this link for the UK’s set of tariffs for each good from each jurisdiction.

What do economists know about tariffs?

Generally, tariffs are by themselves quite bad for the whole of the economy and for consumers. International trade allows countries to focus on what they have comparative advantage in, which means they can sell those goods (and services) abroad and import other countries’ goods that are produced more efficiently than otherwise would be the case.

Importantly, this is true even if a country is more efficient at producing all goods than others. This was the important contribution of David Ricardo in the 1810s, and focusses on the fact that not focussing on those more productive goods and services has an opportunity cost. So the system as a whole produces more and allows for higher consumption in all countries if they focus on their respective relative strengths.

Of course, the world is a lot more complicated than Ricardo’s original two-factor model. But even now – over two hundred years after On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation – there is broad agreement that countries tend towards specialising in their comparative advantages and that in turns results in higher living standards.

Even some of the more nuanced views of the effects of globalisation and trade which have emerged in the last decade and a half, such as David Autor’s, is unequivocal about both the overall positive effect of trade on global welfare and on the US as a whole. His argument about the ripple effects on the US of China’s rise and entry into the global trade focusses on both the sectoral and geographical concentration of negative effects.

Who wins and who loses?

Imposing tariffs or increasing them has the opposite effect of trade liberalisation. It will increase prices somewhat to consumers: the extent to which it does will depend on how responsive consumers are to price and how much domestic production can satisfy any pent-up demand.

But most consumer goods which are imported are likely to see significant price rises, especially because of how large the increase in tariffs is. So US consumers as a whole will lose out.

Domestic firms producing goods in competition to those normally imported are the main winners in the short-run, at the expense of consumers, as they will pick up some of the lost international activity.

But the extent to which they gain will be tempered by their ability to source factors of productions, particularly intermediate goods, many of which will come from abroad and be therefore subject to tariffs. Their costs might well go up, which could negate many of their potential gains.

The US federal government will also gain some direct revenue, although imports will likely decline significantly, undercutting some of that increased revenue. The increase in prices is likely to slow economic growth in the US, both because of the hit to real household income and because the Federal Reserve will likely act to curb inflation. It’s possible that overall tax revenues will fall, even if tariff revenues increase.

Across the world, trade will slow down, especially with news of retaliatory tariffs. A general slowdown in trade is bad news for economic growth, and that is the overwhelming channel through which the shock will propagate worldwide. In the long run, slower growth far outweighs any other effect, and means that the world is less efficient at producing goods and services, leading to lower living standards across the globe.

Are there any sensible reasons for increasing tariffs?

The US President’s rationale for imposing trade restrictions is based on the fact that the US runs a trade deficit, and therefore is being taken advantage of.

This obviously makes no economic sense. A nation is not a firm, and so any analogy is misguided. Imports allow US consumers to benefit from more and cheaper goods, and enhances their living standards.

There is no macroeconomic reason to aim for a trade balance or surplus. This is a mercantilist idea that became discredited in the 18th century.

That is to say nothing of the complete fallacy of division being implied by the Trump Administration, which appears to believe that the not only should the US run a trade surplus as a whole, but that it should do so with every country.

This is a preposterous idea, based on no coherent economic theory. It wouldn’t make sense even if one thought a trade surplus made sense to aim for. Which, to reiterate, it doesn’t. People derive utility from consuming goods and services, not from selling them.

The current account – which includes the trade deficit, but also other flows of funds such as investment – can and does matter. But it matters especially for smaller countries which cannot borrow in their own currency and may need hard currency. In those cases, tariffs can be an emergency measure to discourage imports.

Of course, this doesn’t apply to the US in any sense. The US dollar is the anchor currency of the world system, and that has allowed it to run large current account deficits for decades.

Tariffs have historically been used to protect nascent domestic industries from foreign competition. The history of their success is patchy, but the rationale is understandable if a sector is building up its capacity and would be initially inefficient, but could serve as a way of increasing innovation and growth in the future if it gets enough scale.

While this is an oft-cited reason, the dynamic problems are easy to see. Protection from foreign competition disincentivises domestic efficiency, and so the policy might fail as a way to drive competitiveness in the long run. There is also a danger of enhancing the power of firms benefitting from it, who will have a strong incentive to lobby for tariffs to be maintained – therefore improving their position at the expense of consumers.

Targeted tariffs can also be used as anti-dumping measures. The idea is that countries might try to subsidise their exporters – either for economic or other reasons, such as geopolitics – to drive out other countries’ manufacturers from the market.

This is essentially an argument against excessive market power, especially when it comes from countries with state-subsidised or controlled monopolies, and interacts with strategically important sectors such as military supplies.

For example, the European Union and the US have often used these against Chinese steel, arguing that there is an interest in maintaining domestic capability for security reasons. In the long run, however, it’s doubtful whether these tariffs are effective at achieving their aims if the difference in production costs is too large.

There’s also an argument that they could have been useful as a temporary tool to ease the transition to a world where China was entering the global trade system. In this view, tariffs could have slowed down exposure to cheaply made goods that almost overnight made whole industries uncompetitive in certain places in the US and across the Western world. But even if we think this might have been a good idea – and as we’ll explore later – it’s hard to see doing it now being enough to reverse what has happened.

How big an increase in tariffs is this, and what precedent is there?

It’s pretty big. The Yale Budget Lab calculates that the effective tariff rate will now be around 22.5%, up from 2.6% in 2023.

That would mean an 857% increase in the level of tariffs. The actual figures might be somewhat different because there might be some substitution towards lower tariff countries, but make no mistake: this is the largest relative increase in tariffs in a single year in the history of the United States, and will likely bring tariffs to levels not seen since Teddy Roosevelt’s presidency – higher, for example, than in the aftermath of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the early 1930s.

Chart: Effective tariff rates for the United States over its history

Source: US Bureau of the Census, US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Yale Budget Lab, FAI analysis

The US might be seen as a bastion of free trade, but that’s only true relatively recently. Tariffs were the main source of government revenue before the federal income tax was introduced in the 1910s, and as such were both a vehicle for trade policy and an important source of funds for military emergencies.

The War of 1812 in particular stands out as a time when it served that dual purpose, raising revenues to fight the UK and acting as a punitive measure for UK-originated goods. With the effective rate reaching over 60% of all imported goods (excluding gold and silver), it is still the high watermark for tariffs in US history.

The following decades saw a see-saw of trade policy. The Northeast of the US was much more protectionist, as it had a larger manufacturing base; Southerners, which sold so much of their cotton (produced using slave labour) to the UK, were much keener on lower tariffs to maintain good relationships with Britain.

After the American Civil War – when tariffs were hiked to provide revenue – the US protected many of its growing industries by maintaining tariffs high. This was followed by a further hike in 1890 by the newly Republican-dominated US Congress, which no longer used the fig-leaf of nascent industry protection – it was straight up shielding of industry from foreign competition.

After a gradual decline in tariffs under Woodrow Wilson, the US reacted back with the unmitigated disaster of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930. It was meant to shield the US from the worst of the Great Depression, but it did nothing of the sort. It increased unemployment, propagated the banking crisis and unleashed protectionism across the world and ensured the crisis was deeper and lasted for longer.

Since the end of the Second World War, the US has been moving – as has most of the world – to lower tariffs as part of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade – until now. There have been sporadic increases on specific goods, but the effective tariff rate for the US has fallen from 10.9% in 1946 to 2.6% in 2023. The US federal government has also diversified its tax base, and customs duties are a minor contributor to its revenues.

Will this lead to reshoring? Structural change is not a two-way street

International trade generates quite diffuse benefits – lower prices and higher diversity of goods available, with each beneficiary getting a small boost which becomes very large when aggregated for a whole country.

But the losses are generally concentrated among those industries which have the most competition from abroad. If those are also heavily concentrated in the same places, and if workers find it hard to move and retrain, the quality of jobs they can find leaves their prospects heavily damaged. All these have been true in the US, with rural Appalachia and being significantly hard hit.

It’s probably true that economists were too sanguine about the effect that trade would have on totemic industries and on particular places. Looking back, a big bang of opening in one go in response to China joining the WTO might well have been the wrong way to manage the transition, and David Autor compellingly argues that it has probably contributed to the political make-up of today’s United States.

But as he says, the transition has happened – it won’t be undone, and it can’t be anyway. As we know full well in the UK as well, structural transformation is not a reversible process – all we can do is look forward to what can be done to manage things given where we are rather than row it back.

Broad-based tariffs are particularly badly suited to respond to sectoral effects. But even so, at the margin, there might be some new jobs in manufacturing in the US if some foreign producers’ goods are made uncompetitive by the new level of tariffs. But these are likely to be small in number, and may well be negative on net once we account for the effect of lower economic growth – particularly if it has an upward effect on the Federal Reserve’s policy interest rate. And it will hurt all American consumers.

The US is now a high-wage, service-based economy. Manufacturing is not what it was in the 1960s, and its competitiveness is on high-value added, high-skilled jobs. This will not bring back high-quality jobs for those without university degrees or return Rust Belt cities to their former glory – that moment has passed, and a new course must be charted. If only solutions were as easy as rolling back time.

To retaliate or not to retaliate – that’s the question

The UK Government appears to have breathed a sigh of relief, with the UK being hit with only the ‘baseline’ 10% tariff. Other countries and trade blocs have had higher tariffs imposed on goods from them, and have immediately retaliated.

Retaliation is not an economic decision; it’s a political one. To impose tariffs is to harm one’s domestic consumers (and voters), and so as an economic strategy by itself it makes little sense. But it can make sense from a political perspective if a country thinks it can force those imposing the initial tariff to think again, especially if producers who sell to those markets can yield significant influence.

One can see the attractiveness of retaliation, but it’s hard to see – at least for the moment – how retaliation might make the prospects of a lower tariff right now any better. But non-retaliation is a stance that politicians can find difficult to maintain, and therefore it wouldn’t be shocking if the UK Government changed tack.

Mostly, though, this is bad news for the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Rachel Reeves eked out as much headroom as she could in last week’s Spring Statement by cutting departmental spending and disability benefit. But her decisions – both last week and in the Autumn Budget – meant that she left herself no room for growth to be downgraded, or else her ‘iron-clad’ fiscal rules would be broken.

The main effect of the Trump tariffs and subsequent retaliations will be – as we discussed earlier – a retrenchment in global trade, which will in turn reduce economic growth globally. Across the world, less trade means less efficient production processes, and therefore lower output and/or higher prices for the same goods.

And that has substantial implications for an open economy like the UK. As the Office for Budget Responsibility highlighted in their scenario analysis, this sort of tariffs on a permanent basis would wipe out her fine-tuned headroom and would force her to tighten fiscal policy again if she wants to comply with her fiscal rules.

The Chancellor’s best hope, then, is that these tariffs turn out to be as short-lived as Trump Steaks.

João is Deputy Director and Senior Knowledge Exchange Fellow at the Fraser of Allander Institute.

Previously, he was a Senior Fiscal Analyst at the Office for Budget Responsibility, where he led on analysis of long-term sustainability of the UK’s public finances and on the effect of economic developments and fiscal policy on the UK’s medium-term outlook.

Special Relationship? UK responds to Trump’s Tariffs

The Business and Trade Secretary’s statement to Parliament on the imposition of US tariffs

With your permission Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the United Kingdom’s economic relationship with the United States.

The UK has a strong and balanced trading relationship with the US worth £315 billion which supports 2.5 million jobs across both countries. This is second only to the EU where our trading relationship is worth £791 billion.

Yesterday evening, the United States announced a 10% reciprocal tariff on UK exports and have today imposed a 25% global tariff on cars. This follows the application of tariffs of 25% on US imports of steel, aluminium and derivative products that was announced on 12 March.

No country was able to secure an exemption from these announcements, but the UK did receive the lowest reciprocal tariff rate globally. And though this vindicates the pragmatic approach this Government has taken, we know that while these tariffs are still being levied, the job is far from done.

We are, of course, disappointed by the increase in tariffs on the UK, and on other countries around the world. The impact will be felt amongst all trading nations. But I would like to update the House on how the UK can navigate these turbulent times, acting in our national interest and for the benefit of all our industries.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my American counterparts, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Special Envoy Mark Burnett for their engagement over the last few months. While any imposition of tariffs is deeply regrettable, from the beginning, they promised to make themselves available and have been true to their word, and I look forward to our continued engagement over the days ahead.

As Members will know, since the new US administration took office, my colleagues and I have been engaged in intensive discussions on an economic deal between the US and the UK. One that would not just avoid the imposition of significant tariffs but that would deepen our economic relationship. On everything from defence, economic security, financial services, machinery, tech and regulation there are clear synergies between the US and UK markets. And this is reflected in the fair and balanced trading relationship that already exists between our two countries.

I can confirm to the House that those talks are ongoing and will remain so. It is this Government’s view that a deal is not just possible, it is favourable to both countries. And that this course of action serves Britain’s interests as an open-facing trading nation. I have been in contact with many businesses, across a broad range of sectors including those most affected, who have very much welcomed this approach. It is clear to me that industry themselves want to grasp the opportunity a deal can offer and they welcome this government’s cool-headed approach.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in increasingly insecure times – I have heard some Members cling to the security of simple answers and loud voices. I understand the compulsion, but I caution members of this House to keep calm and remain clear eyed on what is in our national interest not to simply proclaim that we follow the actions of other countries.

The British people rightly expect this Government to keep our country secure at home and strong abroad. An unnecessary, escalating trade war would serve neither purpose.

True strength comes in making the right choices at the right time. And thanks to the actions of our Prime Minister, who has restored Britain’s place on the world stage, the UK is in a unique position to do a deal where we can – and respond when we must.

It remains our belief that the best route to economic stability for working people is a negotiated deal with the US that builds on our shared strengths. However, we do reserve the right to take any action we deem necessary if a deal is not secured.

To enable the UK to have every option open to us in the future, I am today launching a request for input on the implications for British businesses of possible retaliatory action.

This is a formal step, necessary for us to keep all options on the table. We will seek the views of UK stakeholders over four weeks until 1st May 2025 on products that could potentially be included in any UK tariff response. This exercise will also give businesses the chance to have their say, and influence the design of any possible UK response.

If we are in a position to agree an economic deal with the US that lifts the tariffs that have been placed on our industries, this request for input will be paused, and any measures flowing from that, will be lifted.  

Further information on the request for input will be published on gov.uk later today, alongside an indicative list of potential products that the Government considers most appropriate for inclusion.

I know this will be an anxious time for all businesses, not just those with direct links to America. Let me say very clearly that we stand ready to support businesses through this. That starts by making sure they have reliable information. Any business which is concerned about what these changes mean for them can find clear guidance and support on great.gov.uk where there is now a bespoke webpage.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this Government was elected to bring security back to working people’s lives. At a time of volatility, businesses and workers alike are looking to the Government to keep our heads, to act in the national interest and navigate Britain through this period. And while some urge escalation, I simply will not play politics with people’s jobs.

This Government will strive for a deal that supports our industries and the well-paid jobs that come with them, while preparing our trade defences and keeping all options on the table.

It is the right approach to defend the UK’s domestic industries from the direct and indirect impacts of US tariffs in a way that is both measured and proportionate, while respecting the rules-based international trading system.

As the world continues to change around us, British workers and businesses can be assured of one constant: that this is a Government that will not be set off course in choppy waters. So the final part of our approach will be to turbo boost the work this government is doing to make our economy stronger and more secure including our new industrial strategy. We will strike trade deals with our partners, and work closely with our allies for our shared prosperity.

We have a clear destination to deliver that economic security for working people.

We are progressing a deal that can do that, we are laying the foundations to move quickly should it not, and we are ensuring British businesses have a clear voice in what happens next. And I commend this statement to the House.

Trump on the cusp of historic victory

DONALD Trump is within touching distance of becoming President of the United States for the second time.

At 7.15am BST the controversial figure has amassed 266 electoral college votes, just four votes short of a remarkable victory.

Wee Janey Godley will be birlin’ in her grave …

BIDEN STANDS ASIDE

I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down

US President Joe Biden has announced that he will NOT stand for re-election.

His full statement, which he posted on X, reads:

“My Fellow Americans, over the past three-and-a-half years, we have made great progress as a nation.

“Today, America has the strongest economy in the world. We’ve made historic investments in rebuilding our nation, in lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, and in expanding affordable health care to a record number of Americans.

“We’ve provided critically needed care to a million veterans exposed to toxic substances. Passed the first gun safety law in 30 years. Appointed the first African American woman to the Supreme Court. And passed the most significant climate legislation in the history of the world. America has never been better positioned to lead than we are today.

“I know none of this could have been done without you, the American people. Together, we overcame a once in a century pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We’ve protected and preserved our democracy. And we’ve revitalised and strengthened our alliances around the world.

“It has been the greatest honour of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek re-election, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.

“I will speak to the nation later this week in more detail about my decision.

“For now, let me express my deepest gratitude to all those who have worked so hard to see me re-elected.

“I want to thank Vice President Kamala Harris for being an extraordinary partner in all this work. And let me express my heartfelt appreciation to the American people for the faith and trust you have placed in me.

“I believe today what I always have: that there is nothing America can’t do – when we do it together. We just have to remember we are the United States of America.”

MR BIDEN added on Twitter:

My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term.

My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made.

Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.

Vice-President Karmala Harris responded: “On behalf of the American people, I thank Joe Biden for his extraordinary leadership as President of the United States and for his decades of service to our country.

“I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination.”

In a statement, former US President Barack Obama said: “Joe Biden has been one of America’s most consequential presidents, as well as a dear friend and partner to me. Today, we’ve also been reminded — again — that he’s a patriot of the highest order.

“Sixteen years ago, when I began my search for a vice president, I knew about Joe’s remarkable career in public service. But what I came to admire even more was his character — his deep empathy and hard-earned resilience; his fundamental decency and belief that everyone counts.

“Since taking office, President Biden has displayed that character again and again. He helped end the pandemic, created millions of jobs, lowered the cost of prescription drugs, passed the first major piece of gun safety legislation in 30 years, made the biggest investment to address climate change in history, and fought to ensure the rights of working people to organize for fair wages and benefits. Internationally, he restored America’s standing in the world, revitalized NATO, and mobilized the world to stand up against Russian aggression in Ukraine.

“More than that, President Biden pointed us away from the four years of chaos, falsehood, and division that had characterized Donald Trump’s administration. Through his policies and his example, Joe has reminded us of who we are at our best — a country committed to old-fashioned values like trust and honesty, kindness and hard work; a country that believes in democracy, rule of law, and accountability; a country that insists that everyone, no matter who they are, has a voice and deserves a chance at a better life.

“This outstanding track record gave President Biden every right to run for re-election and finish the job he started. Joe understands better than anyone the stakes in this election — how everything he has fought for throughout his life, and everything that the Democratic Party stands for, will be at risk if we allow Donald Trump back in the White House and give Republicans control of Congress.

“I also know Joe has never backed down from a fight. For him to look at the political landscape and decide that he should pass the torch to a new nominee is surely one of the toughest in his life. But I know he wouldn’t make this decision unless he believed it was right for America.

“It’s a testament to Joe Biden’s love of country — and a historic example of a genuine public servant once again putting the interests of the American people ahead of his own that future generations of leaders will do well to follow.

“We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges.

“I believe that Joe Biden’s vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond.

For now, Michelle and I just want to express our love and gratitude to Joe and Jill for leading us so ably and courageously during these perilous times — and for their commitment to the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was founded on.

REPUBLICAN Presidential candidate DONALD TRUMP reacted in customary style with a tirade on his Truth Social platform: “Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President, and is certainly not fit to serve — and never was!”

“We will suffer greatly because of his presidency, but we will remedy the damage he has done very quickly. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Ever gracious, the former President later told NBC News: ‘Joe Biden is the worst president in the history of the United States by far.

“He should never have been there in the first place – he should have stayed in his basement.’

Prime Minister Keir Starmer commented: “I respect President Biden’s decision and I look forward to us working together during the remainder of his presidency.

“I know that, as he has done throughout his remarkable career, he will have made his decision based on what he believes is best for the American people.”

Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney said: “Joe Biden has served the people of the USA with devotion and total commitment.

“Now, in a typically selfless act, he steps aside to do what he thinks is right for his people. He came to Scotland for COP26 and made a powerful contribution. He has our best wishes for the future.

Assassination attempt on Donald Trump at election rally

Former US President Donald Trump was rushed to hospital after multiple gunshots were fired during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania in an assassination attempt.

Mr Trump suffered a flesh wound to his ear but was not seriously injured. The ex-President but was taken to a medical facility as a precaution but has since been released.

One man in the crowd was killed and two others are in a critical condition following the shooting spree.

The gunman, who was shot dead by security staff, has been named as 20 year old Thomas Matthew Crooks from Bethel Park in Pennsylvania.

President Joe Biden said: “I have been briefed on the shooting at Donald Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania. 

“I’m grateful to hear that he’s safe and doing well. I’m praying for him and his family and for all those who were at the rally, as we await further information.

“Jill and I are grateful to the Secret Service for getting him to safety. There’s no place for this kind of violence in America. We must unite as one nation to condemn it.”

Former President Barack Obama posted: “There is absolutely no place for political violence in our democracy.

“Although we don’t yet know exactly what happened, we should all be relieved that former President Trump wasn’t seriously hurt, and use this moment to recommit ourselves to civility and respect in our politics.

“Michelle and I are wishing him a quick recovery.”

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “I am appalled by the shocking scenes at President Trump’s rally and we send him and his family our best wishes.

“Political violence in any form has no place in our societies and my thoughts are with all the victims of this attack.”

MORE NEWS TO FOLLOW

Donald Trump permanently suspended from Twitter

Following Thursday’s scenes at the Capitol, twitter made the following statement on Friday:

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. 

In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open. 

However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement. 

The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case.

Overview

On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks.

After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.

Assessment

We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

This determination is based on a number of factors, including:

  • President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (12) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.
  • The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending. 
  • The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.
  • The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election. 
  • Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021. 

As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.

Now also facing impeachment, just how the outgoing President will respond remains to be seen – but it certainly won’t be on Twitter!

Letters: Mr President defined?

Dear Editor

Definitions from the Oxford Dictionary:

TRUMP A blast of wind from a trumpet; proclaim loudly

TRUMPERY

  1. Unsound reasoning
  2. Thing of no value
  3. Tawdry and worthless
  4. Showy but worthless
  5. Trashy

Other definitions:

Egoist: the practice of talking about oneself

Self conceit

Dangerous to world peace

Callous bstrd

A.Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens