Chapter 26 · pp. 765–824 ·
Peter Navarro, Kent Lassman
What this chapter is about
This chapter does not agree with itself. Two people wrote it and they want opposite things. One wants tariffs used to force other countries to lower theirs. The other says tariffs backfire and should be cut. The book prints both.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, PresidentHow: legislationIn: The Case for Fair Trade · Peter Navarrop. 770 in the PDF
What the document says
“President Trump urged Congress in his 2019 State of the Union address to pass the United States Reciprocal Trade Act (USRTA).”
Under the proposed act the President could bring any trading partner applying higher non-reciprocal tariffs to the negotiating table and, if it refused to lower them to American levels, raise American tariffs to match. The essay records that its sponsor said the purpose was not to raise tariffs but to give the President a targeted tool to force other countries to lower theirs, and cites a poll finding 80 percent support.
What the document actually says
“President Trump urged Congress in his 2019 State of the Union address to pass the United States Reciprocal Trade Act (USRTA).”
That sentence, in plain words
One bill would let the president match another country's tariffs. This essay wants it passed.
What this is about
Some countries charge more on American goods than America charges on theirs. This bill would let the president match their rate. The idea is to make them lower theirs.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
This chapter contains the opposing case. 'The Case for Free Trade', by Kent Lassman, argues the reverse: that tariffs have backfired, that trade policy is the wrong tool for industrial goals, and that the next Administration should ignore what it calls populist ideologues seeking protection. Neither essay is presented as the chapter's conclusion.
Same subject, different instrument. The first essay asked Congress to pass the United States Reciprocal Trade Act, giving the President authority to mirror a partner's tariffs after negotiation. This order proceeds instead by declaring a national emergency under existing authority, without the statute the essay asked Congress to enact.
In plain English
The chapter asked Congress to pass a trade law. That law would let the President match another country's tariffs after talks. No such law was passed. The order acts under an emergency power that already existed.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should consider”Who acts: President, CongressHow: legislationIn: The Case for Fair Trade · Peter Navarrop. 789 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next American President should strongly consider adopting all of them as a package”
The essay lists the measures: financial and tax incentives for companies onshoring production from China, ending the de minimis exemption for parcels under $800, barring Chinese state-owned enterprises from federal procurement, prohibiting Chinese-made drones in American airspace, banning Chinese social media applications including TikTok and WeChat, prohibiting Chinese investment in high-technology industries, and barring US pension funds from investing in Chinese companies.
What the document actually says
“The next American President should strongly consider adopting all of them as a package”
That sentence, in plain words
The next president should think hard about doing all of these at once.
What this is about
This essay lists many steps to cut ties with China. They cover trade, money and apps. It says the next president should do them all together.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
This chapter contains the opposing case. 'The Case for Free Trade', by Kent Lassman, argues the reverse: that tariffs have backfired, that trade policy is the wrong tool for industrial goals, and that the next Administration should ignore what it calls populist ideologues seeking protection. Neither essay is presented as the chapter's conclusion.
One item on the first essay's list was ending what it called China's abuse of the de minimis exemption for parcels under $800. This order suspends that treatment for all countries rather than for China specifically, and the essay's other listed measures are separate.
In plain English
One item on the essay's list was ending China's use of the duty free rule. It covers parcels worth less than $800. This order ends that break for all countries, not just China. The essay's other steps stand apart.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, CongressHow: legislationIn: The Case for Fair Trade · Peter Navarrop. 789 in the PDF
What the document says
“Ban all Chinese social media apps such as TikTok and WeChat, which pose significant national security risks”
The essay says these applications expose American consumers to data and identity theft. It appears in the list of measures the essay asks the next President to adopt as a package.
What the document actually says
“Ban all Chinese social media apps such as TikTok and WeChat, which pose significant national security risks”
That sentence, in plain words
Ban Chinese social apps like TikTok and WeChat. They are a security risk.
What this is about
Some popular apps are owned by Chinese firms. This essay says they put data at risk. It says they should be banned.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
This chapter contains the opposing case. 'The Case for Free Trade', by Kent Lassman, argues the reverse: that tariffs have backfired, that trade policy is the wrong tool for industrial goals, and that the next Administration should ignore what it calls populist ideologues seeking protection. Neither essay is presented as the chapter's conclusion.
The proposal asks for a ban on Chinese social media applications including TikTok. Executive Order 14166 of January 20, 2025 goes the other way on the same application: it orders the Attorney General not to enforce the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act for 75 days, to impose no penalty for conduct during that period or before it, to write each provider a letter stating there was no violation, and to resist enforcement by states or private parties. What it does not do is repeal the statute: the ban remains law, the order is framed as time limited while the administration reviews intelligence and seeks a divestiture, and three later orders extended the delay. It also reaches only TikTok and other ByteDance applications, not WeChat or Chinese applications generally.
In plain English
The book asked for a ban on Chinese social apps. This order goes the other way on one of them. It tells the Attorney General not to enforce the ban law for 75 days. He must also write the owner that no law was broken. The ban itself is still law, and later orders stretched the delay. The order reaches only that app and its owner, not other Chinese apps.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: internal managementIn: The Case for Fair Trade · Peter Navarrop. 791 in the PDF
What the document says
“whoever is the next President in 2025 should heed this critical principle whenever the flag of free trade is waved to prevent the adoption of needed reforms.”
The principle in question is that there can be no free trade without fair, reciprocal and balanced trade. The essay presents it as a guard against free trade arguments being used to block reform, and argues elsewhere that trade deficits matter to national security because a current account deficit must be offset by foreign investment in the United States.
What the document actually says
“whoever is the next President in 2025 should heed this critical principle whenever the flag of free trade is waved to prevent the adoption of needed reforms.”
That sentence, in plain words
Some wave the free trade flag to block change. The next president should not fall for it.
What this is about
This essay says trade must be fair before it is free. It says people use the words free trade to stop changes. It warns the next president about that.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
This chapter contains the opposing case. 'The Case for Free Trade', by Kent Lassman, argues the reverse: that tariffs have backfired, that trade policy is the wrong tool for industrial goals, and that the next Administration should ignore what it calls populist ideologues seeking protection. Neither essay is presented as the chapter's conclusion.
Executive Order 14346 of September 5, 2025 puts the reciprocity principle into operation: it treats large and persistent goods trade deficits as the emergency being addressed, makes tariff relief conditional on what a trading partner commits to in a trade and security agreement, states that the President will generally refrain from narrowing a tariff before a final agreement is concluded, and directs Commerce and the Trade Representative to keep monitoring the trade deficit, the lack of reciprocity in bilateral relationships and disparate tariff rates. The fit breaks down in what the proposal actually asks for. The chapter states a principle for the President to hold when free trade arguments are used against reform; it does not ask for an emergency declaration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and this order neither announces the principle nor rests on the chapter, so the connection is one of direction rather than instrument.
In plain English
An order of September 5, 2025 ties tariff relief to what a trade partner agrees to. It treats big, lasting trade gaps as the problem. That runs the same way as the chapter's principle. But the chapter asked only that a President hold that view, not for the emergency power this order uses.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “needs to”Who acts: President, USTRHow: internal managementIn: The Case for Free Trade · Kent Lassmanp. 797 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next Administration needs to end the mission creep that has all but taken over trade policy in recent years.”
The essay argues that trade policy has limited capabilities and is vulnerable to mission creep and regulatory capture, that progressive attempts to use it for climate and equity goals will fail because it is the wrong tool, and that conservatives should be equally skeptical of attempts on the right to use it to punish opponents or remake manufacturing. It adds that a cardinal rule is not to give yourself powers you would not want your opponents to have.
What the document actually says
“The next Administration needs to end the mission creep that has all but taken over trade policy in recent years.”
That sentence, in plain words
Trade policy has been asked to do too much. The next team should stop that.
What this is about
Trade rules are being used for other goals. Some want them used for the climate. Others want them used to punish rivals. This essay says that does not work.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
This chapter contains the opposing case. 'The Case for Fair Trade', by Peter Navarro, argues the reverse: that trade deficits are a national security problem, that reciprocal tariffs should be used as leverage, and that economic security is national security. Neither essay is presented as the chapter's conclusion.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No candidate concerns the scope of trade policy. The nearest instrument, Executive Order 14148 of January 20, 2025, revokes a long list of prior executive orders, but a search of its text finds no mention of trade, tariffs, imports or exports, so it does not narrow trade policy to trade. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: USTRHow: internal managementIn: The Case for Free Trade · Kent Lassmanp. 797 in the PDF
What the document says
“A conservative trade policy should limit trade-unrelated provisions in trade agreements.”
The essay says such provisions are routinely hijacked by progressives and rent-seekers, dilute otherwise worthwhile agreements and create extra points of contention. It adds that this does not mean ignoring international negotiations on labor, environment or intellectual property, but that those are more likely to succeed treated separately.
What the document actually says
“A conservative trade policy should limit trade-unrelated provisions in trade agreements.”
That sentence, in plain words
Keep things that are not about trade out of trade deals.
What this is about
Trade deals often carry rules on other subjects. This essay says that makes them harder to pass. It wants deals kept to trade.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
This chapter contains the opposing case. 'The Case for Fair Trade', by Peter Navarro, argues the reverse: that trade deficits are a national security problem, that reciprocal tariffs should be used as leverage, and that economic security is national security. Neither essay is presented as the chapter's conclusion.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. No candidate addresses what goes into a trade agreement. The nearest, Proclamation 10908 of March 26, 2025, adjusts imports of automobiles and automobile parts under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 on national security grounds. It sets tariffs by proclamation rather than negotiating an agreement, so it says nothing about labor, environment or intellectual property provisions in agreements. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, PresidentHow: legislationp. 808 in the PDF
What the document says
“The U.S. should enact mutual recognition agreements for a wide variety goods with the United Kingdom, European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia”
Mutual recognition means accepting another country's approvals and standards as equivalent. The essay says the benefits would be especially large for pharmaceuticals because the drug approval process is slower and more expensive than in other countries without being any safer, and that conservatives should embrace policies that increase competition while reducing the regulatory footprint.
What the document actually says
“The U.S. should enact mutual recognition agreements for a wide variety goods with the United Kingdom, European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia”
That sentence, in plain words
Accept the safety checks of countries with standards like ours.
What this is about
A product approved in Japan must be checked again here. This essay says that is a waste. It says we should accept their checks.
Executive Order 14345 of September 4, 2025 implements a framework agreement with Japan, one of the five countries the essay names, and records that Japan is working to accept for sale United States manufactured and United States safety certified passenger vehicles without additional testing. That is recognition of another country's approvals, which is the mechanism the proposal describes. The fit is narrow in three ways: the recognition runs one direction, with Japan accepting United States certification rather than the United States accepting Japanese approvals; it covers passenger vehicles rather than a wide variety of goods; and the order's treatment of pharmaceuticals, the essay's main example, is a tariff rate of zero percent on generic drugs and their ingredients, not any acceptance of a foreign drug approval. The order's substance is a 15 percent tariff framework, which the proposal does not ask for.
In plain English
An order of September 4, 2025 puts a trade deal with Japan into effect. Japan is to accept cars built and cleared here with no new tests. That is the kind of deal the chapter wants. But it runs one way, covers cars alone, and the order is mostly a tariff plan.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, PresidentHow: legislationIn: The Case for Free Trade · Kent Lassmanp. 809 in the PDF
What the document says
“working with Congress to repeal the Jones Act.”
The Jones Act requires ships traveling between American ports to be American-built, owned and crewed. The essay says shipbuilding could be the envy of the world in a free market but that the maritime lobby prefers what it calls a quiet, cozy existence on the dole while harming consumers and national security, and asks the Administration to grant exemptions unilaterally wherever allowed in the meantime.
What the document actually says
“working with Congress to repeal the Jones Act.”
That sentence, in plain words
Work with Congress to repeal the Jones Act.
What this is about
A 1920 law says ships between American ports must be American built and crewed. That makes shipping cost more. This essay wants the law repealed.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing among the candidates touches the Jones Act, its coastwise trade requirements or waivers from them. The nearest maritime document is the notice of April 15, 2026 continuing the national emergency that lets the Secretary of Homeland Security regulate the anchorage and movement of Russian affiliated vessels to United States ports, which concerns foreign vessels in a sanctions context, not domestic shipping between American ports. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, CongressHow: legislationIn: The Case for Free Trade · Kent Lassmanp. 803 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next President should ignore special interests and populist ideologues who want government to do the opposite through industrial policy, trade protectionism”
The essay argues that where something has been tried repeatedly and has not worked it should be stopped, and that the proper reform is not only to remove the individual tariffs that backfired but to build institutional safeguards against future abuse. It says rolling back tariffs enacted since 2017 would have a positive effect, while cautioning against overselling trade liberalization as a cure for inflation, which it calls predominantly a monetary phenomenon.
What the document actually says
“The next President should ignore special interests and populist ideologues who want government to do the opposite through industrial policy, trade protectionism”
That sentence, in plain words
The next president should not listen to those pushing tariffs.
What this is about
This essay says tariffs have not worked. It says they raise prices at home. It wants them removed and kept off.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
This chapter contains the opposing case. 'The Case for Fair Trade', by Peter Navarro, argues the reverse: that trade deficits are a national security problem, that reciprocal tariffs should be used as leverage, and that economic security is national security. Neither essay is presented as the chapter's conclusion.
The chapter's second essay argues the opposite of this action: that tariffs have backfired, that the reform is to remove those enacted since 2017 and build safeguards against future use, and that the next President should ignore those seeking protection. The chapter contains both positions and resolves neither.
In plain English
One essay in the chapter argues the other way. It says tariffs have backfired and should be pulled back. This order raises them instead. The chapter holds both views and settles neither.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationIn: The Case for Free Trade · Kent Lassmanp. 806 in the PDF
What the document says
“Trade-displaced workers should be eligible for the same benefits for which anyone else is eligible, no more and no less.”
The essay says technological change displaces six times as many workers as trade does yet those workers get no special treatment, that funding for job training tends to find its way to union funds and left-leaning nonprofits, and that if such assistance must be expanded direct cash transfers are better because cash is the most flexible aid and treats people as adults.
What the document actually says
“Trade-displaced workers should be eligible for the same benefits for which anyone else is eligible, no more and no less.”
That sentence, in plain words
A worker who loses a job to trade should get the same help as anyone else.
What this is about
Some workers get extra help if trade cost them their job. Others get nothing. This essay says everyone should be treated the same.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No candidate concerns trade adjustment assistance, worker retraining eligibility or how displaced workers are treated. The candidates returned here cover opioid program reauthorization, California water, a mental health awareness proclamation, Social Security benefits for aliens, and retirement savings accounts. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
Peter Navarro and Kent Lassman, “Trade,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 765-824. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Trade,” Project 2025, chapter 26. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-26/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
Proposals from both essays. Each records which essay it comes from and who wrote it, and each carries a note pointing at the opposing case.
The extensive economic argument and data each author marshals, and the detailed country-by-country tariff analysis in the first essay.
This is the longest chapter in the book and it contains two directly opposed positions on the same question. There is no single answer to what this chapter says about trade. Both sides are indexed, and neither is the chapter's conclusion.
