Balanced Trade with China, the Only way the USA can win – An Ideal Bill to Pass into Law

Global South Rebalancing Trade, Increasing US Exports for Job Creation at Home, and Dollar Preservation as the International Reserve Currency Act

With explanations in Italic/ blue

This bill is designed to counter China’s in all ways, but primarily in its use of trade as a strategic tool to undermine the United States, gain leverage against the United States, and build allies and indispensable economic partnerships. Let’s face the facts: since the USA does not want to decouple and does not want China to gain at the expense of the United States, the best route is to ensure balanced trade between the USA and China. This means that whatever China imports from the United States, the United States imports the same value from China.

China employs two primary trade strategies to advance its geopolitical agenda:

1. Exploiting Dollar Scarcity: China limits trade with countries facing dollar scarcity (e.g., Pakistan, Argentina, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia and many more), then offers Yuan-denominated loans and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects as a solution, increasing their dependence on China. While China could import more to alleviate these shortages, it reserves imports for indispensable partnerships.
2. Becoming Indispensable: China cultivates strong, balanced trade relationships with major economies (e.g., Brazil, Germany, South Korea, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Peru, Chile, Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Germany, France) to surpass US trade volume and become their essential partner.  Indispensable meaning if there is a conflict, these countries, some major economies, can not stop trading with China or they would economically collapse.
3. Undermining U.S. Alliances: China has specifically targeted Major non-NATO Ally countries, many of which are now allies in name only. China’s extensive trade with these countries is a clear strategy to contain the United States.

While the US has been focusing its trade primarily on China for the last 25 years, China has been ardently grooming nations to be partners or exploiting the USA lack of imports (thus dollar scarcity in nations) to push the Yuan, such as Argentina. This bill is designed as a plan to create a new playing field and set the plan for the USA in the 21^st century.

When China acts, there are no announcements, there are no public decrees, it is simply non-publicized orders which use trade to win.  This plan sets the rules for the United States as it comes to trade in this new world.

Section 1: Tariffs on Imports from China

(a) Phased Tariffs on Non-Alternative Goods: All products imported into the United States originating in China, for which there are no readily available alternative sources or that cannot be easily manufactured in other countries, shall be subject to a tariff of 22% – 45 days after signing this bill into law. Some exclusions may exist.  This tariff shall rise 0.5% per month and will continue increasing until the trade ratio is 1 : 1 (import/export ratio). The increases  in the tariffs will be suspended upon meeting the 1 to 1 ratio.  If there is a trade surplus with China then the tariff rate drops at 0.5% per month until the surplus is reduced to a 1 to 1 ratio balanced trade, and tariffs rises 0.5% a month if there is a deficit.  The 22% tariff and subsequent tariffs are placed on top of and in addition to all tariffs already on product imports from China.

Breakdown: The tariffs can be 2% a month or an initial 10% and increase at 1% a month, 30% and increase at 0.5% per month, or even 5% increasing at 1.5% per month. Any combination works to signal: We will have balanced trade with China.

Let’s face it, China is looking to stall the United States until they become dominant. Any political negotiation will be broken by them. Negotiating with China only works if there is an immediate consequence when they break the deal.

This gradual tariff increase is designed to minimize economic disruption, allowing both Chinese and US companies to adjust. The logical 22% because importers, and Chinese manufacturers will be able to absorb most of the pain and the final value will not reach consumers causing inflation.   There was no inflation with the first intial tariffs because China devalued currency (-19%) over ten years, provide a 3% subsidy, manufacturers cut margins, importers cut margins, and more recently goods deflation was -8.4% over the last six quarts, meaning China is 30% cheaper today than 10 years ago.

I never believed tariffs were an effective tool for job creation or tax revenue generation. The potential for negative retaliation tariffs and unpredictable economic consequences such as reduced overall international trade which really is reduced exports from US companies, often outweighs the benefits. However, strategically applied tariffs can be powerful instruments for geopolitical gain and can help  job creation in an inverse way by increasing exports to certain countries not tariffed at all as seen below.

(b) Alternative Goods and Future Technology: All products imported into the United States from China for which immediate alternative supply sources exist, mostly related to most commodities, most chemicals, food, shoes, apparel, domestic appliances, most textiles and other readily substitutable goods, as well as future technologies, shall be subject to a 100% tariff going into effect 45 days after signing this into law on top of any current tariffs on Chinese goods.

Breakdown: The objective is to shift imports away from China, prioritizing sourcing from other countries or the US. Rapidly achieving balanced trade is crucial. By banning the importation of goods with alternative sources we can quickly reduce our reliance on Chinese goods by 30%. The faster we achieve balanced trade, the sooner the 1% monthly tariff increase can be halted.

Section 2: Tariffs on other Countries with Chinese Content

I call this: A tariff on everyone, but only China

All products imported into the United States from any country containing Chinese content, including sub-assemblies, components, supply chain elements, and software, shall be subject to a 4% tariff. This tariff shall increase quarterly by 1 %, until all Chinese content is removed from products entering the United States.  The tariff will rise in perpetuity.

Breakdown: The ideal appraoch would be a 10% tariff and then one year later a growth rate of 2% per quater. This approach applies a tariff broadly, but specifically targets goods from any country with Chinese components. While the US cannot compel allies like Germany, South Korea, or Japan to directly raise tariffs on Chinese goods, it can require their companies to reduce their reliance on Chinese components in their exports to the US.  E.g.  Every vehicle entering the USA has Chinese conponents.

If President Trump wants to tariff everyone, this is the best way to do it to raise money.  Every vehicle entering the United States has Chinese parts in it, every computer, every cell phone, nearly every legacy chip.  It singles out none of our allies and friends.

Section 2 of this bill will significantly reduce trade imbalances between the United States and countries of Mexico, Vietnam, Germany, South Korea, and Japan, as these countries use many Chinese components in the products they export to the US. Upon implementation, a 4% tariff will be added to all imported vehicles.

Section 3: Safeguards Against Trade Imbalances

The United States consistently finds itself in a pickle with trading partners—this clauses prevents that from happening:

a) Countries with a population under 1,000,000 inhabitants will be excluded from the safeguards listed in items Section 3 (e).

b) Countries with a population between 1,000,000 and 6,000,000 inhabitants will have safeguard tariffs capped at 10% based on section 3 (e).

c) Vehicles from all countries that have not exported less than 5,000 vehicles to the United States in the last five years will have a 100% tariff. 

d) None of these tariffs will go into effect until January 1, 2030.

(e)  A 5% tariff will be automatically imposed on all imports from countries with a GDP per capita above $20,000 if their trade ratio with the United States exceeds 1.5:1 (imports to exports). If the trade ratio is below 1.5:1, no tariff applies. If the trade ratio remains above 1.5:1, the tariff increases by 1% per quarter. Conversely, if the trade ratio falls below 1.5:1, all tariffs imposed under this section are removed. For countries with a GDP per capita below $20,000, a 5% tariff will be imposed if their trade ratio with the United States exceeds 2:1. If the trade ratio is below 2:1, no tariff applies. If the trade ratio remains above 2:1, the tariff increases by 1% per quarter. If the trade ratio falls below 2:1, all tariffs imposed under this section are removed.g) The ratio is based on nearly all exports and all imports.

h) The exceptions for these tariffs are:

1. Vehicle tariffs are capped at 10% total.

2. Commodities, oil, LNG, minerals, and refined minerals are exempt from these tariffs.

3. Precious metals such as gold, palladium, and platinum and refined or unrefined rare earth mineral are excluded from the ratios, as well as the tariffs.       

Sections 1, and 2 will result in a remarkable realignment. This will significantly alter trade between countries, so today’s massive deficit may not be a deficit at all on January 1, 2030. The dust needs to settle before section 3 can be implemented.

Naysayers will state that giving developed countries leeway on a 1.5:1 (import to export) ratio and developing countries a 2:1 (import to export) ratio is too generous; however, these values are framed as maximum limits, not targets. The target is a ratio below 1.2:1 (import to export).

The countries that will be most affected also have the greatest ability to buy more and need more from the USA.  The trade ratios between the USA for these countries are as follows: Japan (1.98:1); Germany (2.13:1); South Korea (1.84:1); Switzerland (1.89:1); Italy (2.59:1); Sweden (2.18:1); Hungary (3.54:1); Czech Republic (1.7:1); Portugal (2.96:1); and Austria (3.53:1). The European area has an already existing 1.5:1 ratio, meaning that the only countries greatly affected are Japan and South Korea, which have a massive energy need from the United States.

The following countries have populations below 6 million, meaning the tariff is capped at 10%: Denmark (2.24:1); Slovenia (3.27:1); Ireland (4.89:1); Slovakia (10:1); Finland (2.6:1).

The five-year wait until January 1, 2030, for this tariff is mostly so that Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Italy can set up the facilities to import United States liquefied natural gas. This also allows these countries, whose companies have massive automobile manufacturing capacity in Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and Mississippi, to start new model years for currently imported vehicles in their factories in the United States. Shifting production from their countries to the United States. These two changes narrow the trade ratio to below 1.5:1 (imports to exports).

The reason for the 100% tariff on vehicles from countries that don’t currently export to the United States is to encourage future vehicle factories to be built in North America. This is because when companies make business decisions about where to build a new car factory, they will choose North America to ensure access to the US market.

Section 4: Countering Currency Manipulation, Deflation and Subsidies due to this Law

The bill is to encourage China to devalue its currency, and every few months United States raises tariffs to counter that devaluation.

I went back and forth, on this, and it is actually better for China to absolutely let its currency devalue as much as possible that to spend their dollar reserves to prop it up. As the currency devalues the USA raise tariffs every quater to counter the devaluation. The reasons are clear:

Countering Currency Manipulation: This approach directly addresses concerns about China artificially manipulating its currency to gain a trade advantage. By allowing the yuan to devalue and then imposing countervailing tariffs, the US negates the price advantage of Chinese exports.

Revenue Generation: The tariffs would generate significant revenue for the US government, potentially hundreds of billions of dollars annually if China devalued its currency 50%. This could be used to fund infrastructure, reduce the deficit, or support other policy initiatives.

Encouraging Balanced Trade: By suggesting that other countries adopt similar tariff structures aimed at balanced trade, the US could promote a fairer global trading system. This could reduce trade deficits and potentially boost domestic manufacturing in the US and other countries.

Weakening the Yuan’s Global Role: A consistently devalued yuan would diminish its attractiveness as a global reserve currency, hindering China’s ambitions in this area.

Expensive Imports: A consistently devalued yuan actually hurt China’s imports, meaning they would buy less from the world and this would reduce China’s influence.

Section 5: Prevention of Full Decoupling and Retaliation

Breakdown:  While this law may appear to advocate for complete decoupling from China, the US should not intend to sever ties. Is a balanced relationship too much to ask? A balanced 1:1 trade relationship keeps China engaged but prevents exploitative practices. 

(a) Prevention of Decoupling/Counter-Tariffs: If China drops imports 5% below the $147.5 billion 2023 level, the United States will impose technology restrictions on more benign technology, such as the COMAC C919 single-aisle aircraft, and other technologies, including international bans.

(b) Prevention of Full Decoupling: If China significantly reduces purchases by 20% or 30%, or attempts a full decoupling, more technology restrictions will be implemented. A full decoupling by China would result in the imposition of the most stringent technology restrictions

(c) Singling Out Farmers by China: If China specifically reduces agricultural purchases to punish United States farmers, the United States will restrict technology.

(d) Prevention of Technology Theft: If China copies or reverse engineers stolen technology to counter technology bans, the United States will place sanctions on any company that uses that technology. If China copies the technology for the COMAC C919 single-aisle plane and sells that plane to any country, the plane company will be sanctioned and confiscated for using unlicensed technology.  All cases of stolen technology sold into foreign countries will result in individuals who buy that technology from being sanctioned.

(e) Hacking: If China is identified hacking, each instance will result into further technology restrictions.

(f) Nationalization of US Companies’ Assets in China as a Form of Retaliation: If China confiscates US companies’ assets in China, then Chinese assets in the USA or held by third-party companies can be confiscated by the United States government, via all legal means necessary, to provide restitution to the victimized individuals and companies.

China relies heavily on US technology for nearly everything, from legacy microchips and aircraft manufacturing to the operations of European companies with production in China. These companies also depend on US technology.

To counter Chinese retaliation of all forms, the US will strategically leverage technology restrictions. This will force non-US companies that rely on US technology for their manufacturing in China to cease using that technology within China. This action aims to achieve two primary goals:

Section 6: Tariffs on products Imported to the United States by US owned factories in foreign countries Excluding China

• Any US owned factory, operated by, managed by, with employees working for the US entity, which has at least 70% of the ownership of the entity as US citizens are exempt from all tariffs for all products entering the  United States from all countries except for China.
• Vehicles, trucks and transportation vehicles are subject to normal tariffs.

My late father, a former US Attorney in West Michigan, once argued in the 1990s that importing goods from foreign countries didn’t matter because US companies owned the factories producing them, ensuring profits returned to the USA and to US investors. However, this is no longer the case. This brings things back to how they were in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  Clearly some safeguards will have to be present, as certainly some US investors will build a factory, and a 3^rd party subcontractor will operate the factory and make the profits.

Section 7: Bilateral Trade Agreements and Priority Countries

The US government out-trade China with the following 20 countries (2 billion people) and  pursue bilateral trade agreements where they do not currently exist with the focus on convincing these countries to drop tariffs on the United States so that the USA can export far more products.  As well as working with various government agencies such as Export Import Bank, and Commerce Department to expand economic relationships.

The international economic system, established after World War II, relies on the US running a trade deficit. This system provides other countries with the capital to manufacture products, grow their economies, and increase their purchasing power, ultimately benefiting US exports. If the US balances trade with China, it will have $300 billion to use for imports from other countries. This would give the United States the leverage needed to surpass China’s import volume in those 20 countries.

Maintaining alliances and winning trade battle with China in these countries maintains US dominance for the 21st century.

 Country, Population, GDP Per Capita

More Tradre between USA and these countries to counter China’s influence in the countries:

1. Indonesia 277 million $4,790 (World Bank, 2022)**
2. Peru 34 million $7,070 (World Bank, 2022)**
3. Chile 19 million $16,370 (IMF, 2024 est.)**
4. Brazil 216 million $10,300 (IMF, 2024 est.)**
5. Malaysia 33 million $11,700 (World Bank, 2022)**
6. Argentina 46 million $12,810 (IMF, 2024 est.)**, *
7. Pakistan 235 million $1,660 (World Bank, 2022)*
8. Egypt 112 million $4,830 (World Bank, 2022)*
9. Ethiopia 126 million $1,060 (2022)*
10. Sri Lanka 22 million $3,810 (World Bank, 2022)*
11. Kenya 55 million $2,080 (World Bank, 2022)*
12. Bangladesh 170 million $2,790 (World Bank, 2022)*
13. South Africa: 60 million ($6,111 Focus Economics)*
14. Nigeria 218 million $2,080 (World Bank, 2022)*
15. Turkey 85 million $9,660 (World Bank, 2022)*
16. Cambodia 17 million $1,800 (World Bank, 2022)
17. Colombia 52 million $7,920 (IMF, 2024 est.)
18. Ecuador 18 million $6,850 (World Bank, 2022)
19. Philippines 115 million $3,910 (World Bank, 2022)
20. Thailand 71 million $7,240 (World Bank, 2022)

Other Countries to be further engaged are Honduras, Dominican Republic, Guatamala, Urguay, Paraguay, Panama, Tunisia, Ghana, Zambia, El Salvador.

Importers shall be encouraged to relocate their operations first to the USA and if not the USA to these countries. In all cases these bilateral trade agreements require the countries to remove Chinese components from products that will be sent to the United States.

** Countries where China’s imports exceed those of the United States

*These countries have faced dollar scarcity being exploited by China to push the Yuan with Currency Swap Agreements in Yuan.

Breakdown:  If we import much more from these 20 countries, two billion people will have a chance to rise out of poverty. As they urbanize, they will have a significant demand for US goods and food. In memory of President Jimmy Carter, one of the reasons he normalized relations with China in 1979 is he saw that 88% of their population lived in poverty. These 20 countries have significant poverty rates but none of them will ever be strong enough to challenge the United States in 40 years.

The world is reciprocal with Trade and China is not.

• Current US imports: $3.8 trillion, exports: $3 trillion (approximate figures). This represents a 1.17 : 1 trade ratio when excluding China. (with China it is 1.26 : 1 trade ratio).
• US imports from China in 2023 was $427 billion, exports to China: $147 billion. This is an unbalanced 2.9:1 trade ratio.  The United States must prefer the trade relationship with the world, versus China, it is not incredibly bad and helps create jobs at home.
• If China uses this law to  force a full decoupling, and the US redirected all $427 billion of imports away from China and towards other countries, The USA will export $364 billion.  With China the USA only exported in 2023 about $147.5 billion.  US exports will increase to an estimated $217 billion if they trade more with countries that are not out to usurp the US in the world.  This is why tariffs on everyone is a bad idea as most countries love the United States when it has a vision.
• How many jobs would be created in the USA to export another $217 billion in goods and services in each of your districts?  About 800,000 to 1 million based on my calculations. Currently 10.2 million are linked to exports

Case Study on Argentina and Dollar Scarcity & China’s Modus Operandi:

China employs two primary trade strategies to advance its geopolitical agenda:

• Exploiting Dollar Scarcity: China limits trade with countries facing dollar shortages (e.g., Pakistan, Argentina), then offers Yuan-denominated loans and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects as solutions, increasing their dependence on China.
• Becoming Indispensable: China cultivates strong, balanced trade relationships with major economies (e.g., Brazil, Germany) to surpass US trade volume and become their essential partner.

China’s manipulative tactics are evident in its relationship with Argentina. While China typically adheres to one strategy or the other, it switched tactics in Argentina. Initially, China restricted trade, exacerbating Argentina’s economic problems for the past 11 years, while offering loans and partnerships to its pro-China previous administrations.

Through this relationship, China purchased a bank in Argentina, rebranded it as ICBC Bank, and even provided some loans in Yuan. ¹ In contrast, in countries like Egypt, China has established bilateral currency swap agreements, allowing access to Yuan liquidity directly from the People’s Bank of China. ² This liquidity is necessary because China has chosen to import very little from dollar-scarce countries, aiming to introduce the Yuan as an alternative to the dollar.  

However, when President Javier Milei took office and implemented economic reforms in Argentina, China abruptly shifted strategies. It dramatically increased what were stagnant imports for years from Argentina, just high enough to show relevance, but not too high to help Argentina escape economic crisis, dollar scarcity, and hyperinflation. They needed dollar scarcity to convince Argentina to accept Yuan loans.

When President Milei took office, China increased purchases by 65% year-over-year, as if flipping a switch. The Chinese government removed red-tape restrictions on imports from Argentina to allow the money to flow. China’s increase in imports from $7.9 billion (2023) to $13 billion (2024) will continue to grow over the next three years. This growth is part of China’s effort to demonstrate its commitment as an indispensable partner to Argentina. With US imports from Argentina at only $9.6 billion, China will likely seek to reach approximately $20 billion in imports from Argentina before imposing any new red tape on its importing businesses. In the last year of Javier Milei’s second term, China will certainly state: “China is a better partner for Argentina than the United States. If you want us to continue buying from you, you have to use our payment system.”

This demonstrates China’s calculated and devious approach to trade, using it as a tool for geopolitical dominance. It is alarming that many policymakers fail to recognize these obvious tactics. The Argentinian case, where China switched tactics, highlights the urgent need for legislation to counter China’s strategic trade maneuvers with the United States’ own strategic trade maneuvers as outlined in this bill.  USA must know the Chinese surplus is not some play-out of free trade, it is calculated by the CCP to suppress the United States, the only way to counter China is by having a 1 to 1 balanced trade.

Why not others?

India and Vietnam already have significant trade surplus and uneven ratio.  USA needs to focus on key major countries to have an impact to not spread itself too thin.

Section X (Policy Agenda): Counteracting China’s Trade Dominance

Even with this bill, if the US imposes tariffs on all things China to achieve balanced trade, China’s trade surplus would still be substantial over $500 billion. This is because other countries have a large combined trade deficit with China (over $800 billion), allowing for continued economic growth even without US imports. To effectively curb China’s economic growth, the US must convince key trading partners listed below, all suffereing from a massive trade deficit with China to raise tariffs on Chinese goods, thereby forcing China to balance its trade relationship.

• Europe: $297- strategic US ally.
• India: $98.5 – manufacturing competitor
• Mexico: $62.3 (projected to reach $100 billion in 2024) – manufacturing competitor
• United Kingdom: $57.9- strategic US ally.
• Singapore: $46
• Vietnam: $44.86– manufacturing competitor
• Turkey: $34.3 manufacturing competitor
• Philippines: $33 – strategic US ally.
• Thailand: $25 – strategic US ally.
• Bangladesh: $22 – manufacturing competitor
• Kyrgyzstan: $18.87
• Nigeria: $17.63
• Egypt: $14.12 – strategic US ally.
• Pakistan: $13.6
• Panama: $9.68
• Kenya: $7.58 – strategic US ally.
• Israel: $6.61- strategic US ally.
• Colombia: $5.9 – strategic US ally.
• Dominican Republic: $3.67 – massive exports to USA.

Trade imbalances between Mexico, Vietnam, Germany, South Korea, and Japan will greatly be reduced with the United States with section 2 of this bill, as these two countries have significant Chinese components in the products they import to the United States.

If the United States was to convince allies that balanced trade with China is better for the world, then China will stop growing both its technology sector and its manufaucturing sector.

CONCLUSION

China’s Potential Responses:

China will be aware of the U.S. strategy and immediately realize that it will not become a superpower that replaces the U.S.  To counter this, China will complain, try to force a Master Political Agreement to continue business as usual.  China has three primary options:

1. Maintain current purchasing levels: China could maintain its current import levels at 2023 levels they were $147.5 billion (10% less in 2024).  This would be done to avoid triggering further tariffs or technology restrictions. This would allow the US to shift manufacturing to the 20 countries and increase imports from those countries by nearly $300 billion, gaining influence and forming strong economic partnerships. China would continue its path to try to convince countries to come on board of BRICs to set up more bilateral Yuan Currency Swap agreements, however it will be harder if the US is re-established as the dominate trading partner in those 20 countries: USA wins.
2. To achieve balanced trade, China could increase imports from the US to $350 billion annually while the US reduces imports from China by approximately $100 billion. This would benefit the US but limit its ability to strengthen ties with 20 developing nations. To reach this target, China would need to shift agricultural purchases from Brazil to the US and aircraft purchases from Airbus to Boeing, amounting to an additional $200 billion. This would significantly impact China’s trade with other partners, potentially reducing its influence. However, the US would still have over $100 billion to invest in those 20 countries, mitigating the impact of China’s reduced trade. While this scenario benefits the US, it is highly unlikely that China will significantly increase its purchases from the US while Xi Jinping is in charge.
3. Continue China’s path to buy nothing and focus Imports on Indispensable Partners and Allys: China could resort to importing the bare minimum from the US. The US would reciprocate, cutting off technology exports and further diversifying its imports. This scenario would severely impact China’s trade surplus and global influence.  This is a no win for China, as they would be seeking a full decoupling and their economy would tank, and the USA would win as well and the 20 countries would gain 4.5 trillion over 10 years in new sales, better than what China could over of $2 trillion over 10 years.  If China reduces purchase by 50% then China would be raising an iron curtain on itself, as it would be cut off from all things United States:  USA wins.

However, there is a chance for the USA to lose:

1. Inaction: Doing nothing and accepting that China will eventually undercut most of the US semiconductor industry by 2035. By creating their own chips with their own equipment, China could destroy the market capitalization of companies like Applied Materials, Lam Research, KLA-Tencor, Intel, Texas Instruments, Nvidia, AMD and many more. These companies will be crushed if the US Congress fails to recognize this obvious threat. In this scenario, China wins and executes its plan to gain global influence.
2. Blanket Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs: Imposing blanket tariffs on all countries, including China, under the assumption of widespread strategic tax revenues and job creation is wrong. This strategy, whether intended to raise revenue or bring jobs back to the US, will likely backfire. Blanket tariffs will hinder US exports globally while failing to significantly impact Chinese imports, ultimately benefiting China. Instead of broad tariffs, the US should prioritize negotiating bilateral trade agreements with safeguards to prevent the use of Chinese components. These agreements must be swiftly finalized to avoid pushing other countries closer to China. The superpower of the next century will be determined by who imports more globally, and US tariffs on all countries would inadvertently strengthen China’s position and not reduce trade with China, as companies will stay in China as the alternative countries also have tariffs.  USA loses.

FINAL THOUGHTS

As the dollar flows into more countries, poverty reduction occurs. This leads to greater trade volume in dollars, with these countries importing more from the United States than China ever could. The US establishes bilateral trade agreements with a larger number of countries solidifying the dollar as the reserve currency. US companies are protected from tariffs in nearly all countries, ensuring that US investors can generate profits by manufacturing not only in the United States but also globally. The 20 countries currently gravitating towards China recognize the renewed engagement and support of the United States. These outcomes offer significant benefits.  I expect the dollar used as a reserve currency will increase if this is law significantly.