原文标题：Trump says tariffs will make America rich again, but will Americans wait?
作者：Bhagyashree Garekar（新加坡海峡时报美国分社主编）
President Donald Trump made a full-throated（声音洪亮的）case for reviving America’s economy in a joint session of Congress on March 4. But how long does he have before his voters sour on him?
In a 100-minute address roundly applauded by Republicans, Mr Trump promised to usher in a “golden age of America” through a combination of tariffs, tax cuts, and trimming of government regulations and spending.
“America’s momentum is back. Our spirit is back. Our pride is back. Our confidence is back,” he said, six weeks into the second term of his presidency. This was his first speech to Congress since taking office on Jan 20.
New tariffs on goods from America’s largest trading partners Mexico, Canada and China – countries that account for about 40 per cent of US exports and 42 per cent of imports – took effect on the same day as the speech.
“Tariffs are about making America rich again, and making America great again,” said Mr Trump, who has argued that the measures were necessary to restore fairness in trade, restart industrialisation, create jobs and help achieve geopolitical goals.
“There will be a little disturbance, but we’re okay with that,” he added.
He touted big gains from tariffs, saying a US$1.7 trillion (S$2.3 trillion) manufacturing revival was under way, paved by large foreign investments that would otherwise not have landed in the US.
“If you don’t make your product in America… you will pay a tariff, and in some cases, a rather large one,” he noted.
In contrast to his upbeat tone, most economists warn that his tariffs, on friend and foe（敌人，仇敌） alike, are likely to drive the prices of goods higher. One estimate says they could cost the typical US household US$1,200 yearly.
In response to Mr Trump’s tariffs, Canada has retaliated with plans to impose 25 per cent tariffs on about US$155 billion of US imports. Mexico said its moves would be announced on March 9.
China, in response to the 20 per cent additional tariffs imposed in two instalments, imposed levies of up to 15 per cent on a range of US farm products and blacklisted many US companies.
Recent economic data showed deteriorating consumer confidence and rising inflation fears.
Across the nation, Americans are worried about how much their grocery, petrol and electricity bills will jump. At least two major retailers, Target and Best Buy, have announced that they saw no option but to raise prices.
Some others said they had already stocked up inventories in anticipation of the tariffs, and could, for instance, turn to Norway to buy salmon and lobster instead of Canada.
According to a Pew Research survey conducted between Jan 27 and Feb 2 – when the tariffs had been threatened but not imposed – more Americans said they expected the affordability of food and consumer goods to get worse (43 per cent) rather than better (37 per cent) over the course of 2025. Another 19 per cent said it would stay about the same.
Analysts said Mr Trump was still in a honeymoon period, but would eventually get the blame or credit for the economy.
“He’s on a clock, he may get a little bit more latitude,” said Professor Aaron Kall, an expert in politics at the University of Michigan. “But before too long, the public is really going to sour on that approach, and will want to see some kind of tangible action.”
Mr Trump’s tendency to use tariffs as a negotiating tool could backfire, said Dr Joseph Ledford, an expert in America’s political history. “I suspect the longer the negotiation, the more that he may have to soothe anxieties about any economic consequences for the American economy,” said Dr Ledford, a fellow at Hoover Institution.
Prof Kall said the public’s patience would run thin. “His blind spot is his economic approval rating, which is below overall job rating, which should be a red flag for him,” he said.
A Harvard/Harris survey on Feb 19 and 20 found Mr Trump had an approval rating above 52 per cent, the best among a spate of polls that evaluated his performance at the one-month mark. But only 38 per cent of respondents said the economy was on the right track.
“The timing of the tariffs is just awful,” Prof Kall said, adding: “I don’t know why you would pick the day of this major speech. That doesn’t make any sense when you control both the date of the speech and that action, which has a negative impact on the economy and the stock market.”
The focus of the speech was largely domestic, despite expectations that it might contain a road map to ending Russia’s three-year-old war with Ukraine.
But Mr Trump made only a brief mention of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s willingness to return to negotiations and sign an agreement giving the US access to Ukraine’s rare minerals, in return for implied security. It followed the suspension of US military aid to Ukraine, after their Feb 28 Oval Office meeting degenerated into a shouting match.
The speech received standing ovations from his party members, but Democrats sat stonily through it when they were not booing. Some congressmen boycotted the speech, while others walked out as it was being delivered.
Mr Trump spent a fair amount of time leaning into divisive issues in his speech, which beat former president Bill Clinton’s 88-minute record to become the longest presidential address to Congress in modern history.
Mr Trump took credit for the end of diversity, equity and inclusion programmes. With the families of victims of violent immigrants invited to attend the speech, he touted the success of his drive to end the flow of illegal immigrants into America.
Billionaire technopreneur Elon Musk, who spearheads the Department of Government Efficiency and its controversial and legally disputed efforts to cut federal workers and spending, also received repeated applause.
“Trump celebrated the record of his breakneck early days and promised more results ahead, from a balanced budget, deportations, robust tariffs, tax cuts and reviving the shipbuilding industry to an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine,” said Dr Ledford.
“The lengthy address likely did not persuade sceptics, but it did resonate well with his supporters.”
The speech served the purpose of rallying the Republicans in Congress, whom Mr Trump relies upon to pass his agenda, said Prof Kall. “All this requires a party-line vote,” he said, noting Mr Trump’s lack of attempts to sound a bipartisan note.
“He was very clear about that from the beginning, saying that ‘no matter what I do, Democrats aren’t going to support it’,” he said.
“As long as party unity remains and he can get things on a very narrow margin, he doesn’t need people to cross the aisle.”