In 1824, Henry Clay gave a speech to the United States House of Representatives on the state of American Industry.[1] Clay focused his speech on whether the United States should leverage more “adequate protection” for the American industry through tariffs.[2] Clay noted that the critics opposing tariffs viewed them as a “monster, huge and deformed, — a wild beast, endowed with tremendous powers of destruction, about to be let loose among our people, if not to devour them, at least to consume their substance.”[3] Many contemporary critics also share this sentiment, with some even viewing tariffs as outright immoral.[4] However, as Clay and other proponents argued in response: “[t]he sole object of the tariff is to tax the produce of foreign industry, with the view of promoting American industry,” and that without any tariffs, America may “condemn its own industry and commerce to pay a ruinous tribute to those of other nations.”[5] Since the founding of the United States of America, the philosophies that underpin tariffs have evolved into differing iterations, and yet the reason for applying tariffs has remained the same. From Alexander Hamilton to the Trump Administration, the evolution of tariffs demonstrates the necessity for tariffs to protect American industry. The tariff is a tool that a nation utilizes to ensure a nation’s continued relevancy and survival on the global stage.

Beginning in 1790, Alexander Hamilton, then the Secretary of Treasury, gave a report to Congress on manufacturing and its importance for a nascent nation.[6] Hamilton spoke of how industry is inseparably connected to a nation’s security.[7] “Not only the wealth; but the independence and security of a Country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply.”[8] Thus, a nation’s industry is not to primarily generate wealth for the nation and its citizens but instead it can lessen a nation’s dependence on other countries when its industry is appropriately reinforced and protected. To strengthen a nation’s industry, “[tariffs must] . . . evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the domestic [goods] since by enhancing the charges on foreign [goods], they enable the National Manufacturers to undersell all their foreign Competitors.”[9] Hamilton perceived tariffs as beneficial because the domestic industry could operate independently from foreign competitors. Hamilton’s perspective thus championed tariffs to facilitate growth of a nation’s industry from its earliest stages.

Tariffs also serve to combat national crises. President Herbert Hoover, in his speech on approving the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, commented on the absolute necessity for the tariff bill.[10] This particular Act responded to previous legislation that Congress enacted in 1922 which empowered the United States President to unilaterally impose tariff rates.[11] President Hoover, however, noted the issues facing the American farmer and other industries when the President arbitrarily imposed the tariff rate within the confines of the 1922 Tariff Act.[12] Amid the Great Depression, President Hoover advocated for a revision to “further [the] protection to agriculture and labor” so that a quick recovery for businesses could occur by “returning [to] normal conditions.”[13] Ultimately, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act implemented a more “scientific and businesslike method” to decisively combat national economic crises by limiting the President to either approve or veto the tariff committee’s recommendation.[14] This use of the tariff differed from Hamilton’s philosophy in that the tariff is no longer used to protect a young and emerging industry from foreign competitors, but rather to respond efficiently and systematically to national economic emergencies.

Another philosophy of tariffs that has been recently adopted is that of protecting the United States commerce from unfair trade practices. Congress enacted the Trade Act of 1974 that included § 2411 which permitted a United States Trade Representative to “impose duties or other import restrictions on the goods of . . . such foreign country for such time as the Trade Representative determines appropriate . . . .”[15] Additionally, Congress enacted § 1862 that granted authority to the United States President to “adjust imports of an article and its derivatives” if such article threatens national security upon an appropriate determination.[16] President Donald Trump imposed a tariff on steel after the Secretary of Commerce reported that “many domestic steel mills had been driven out of business due to declining steel prices, global overcapacity, and unfairly traded steel” while any “remaining steel mills were financially dis-tressed.”[17] This predicament threatened national security because it “jeopardize[ed] domestic steel production” when the national defense relied on steel.[18] Therefore, the contemporary reasoning for imposing tariffs is to combat unfair trading practices because such practices may imperil other aspects of a nation like national security.

Tariffs have evidently been utilized by stimulating young industries, mitigating national crises and counteracting unfair trade practices. Although each philosophy differs for imposing tariffs, the United States of America reaps benefits when tariffs are judiciously applied to reinforce its independence on a global scale. Thus, a country should consider using or continuing to use tariffs to ensure its vitality and development.

[1] Daniel Webster et Al., State Papers And Speeches On The Tariff (Frank William Taussig ed., Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University 1892), https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/taussig-state-papers-and-speeches-on-the-tariff.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] See Jaana Woiceshyn, The Moral Case Against Tariffs – and for Free Trade, CAPITALISM MAGAZINE (Mar. 21, 2025), https://capitalismmagazine.com/2025/03/the-moral-case-against-tariffs-and-for-free-trade.

[5] Webster, supra note 2.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] June 16, 1930: Message regarding the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, Miller Center, https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/june-16-1930-message-regarding-smoot-hawley-tariff-act (last visited Sep. 18, 2025).

[11] Tariff Act of 1922, Pub. L. 318, 42 Stat. 959, 941-942.

[12] Message regarding the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, supra note 10.

[13] June 16, 1930: Message regarding the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, Miller Center, https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/june-16-1930-message-regarding-smoot-hawley-tariff-act (last visited Sep. 18, 2025).

[14] Id.; see also Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. L. 361, 46 Stat. 590, 701-703.

[15] 19 U.S.C. § 2411.

[16] 19 U.S.C. § 1862.

[17] Am. Inst. for Int’l Steel, Inc. v. United States, 806 F. App’x 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

[18] Id.