Not Just Tariffs: Economist Says There’s Merit to Trump’s War on ‘Invisible’ Trade Barriers

Economists are also calling for calm regarding the fallout of the tariffs.

Beef is displayed for sale at a butcher shop in Melbourne, Australia on April 4, 2025. Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images

News Analysis

A sharp focus of the Trump administration’s recent trade salvo has been tackling what it calls “non-tariff barriers”—bureaucratic hurdles that obstruct U.S. exports without the use of direct duties.

In an assertive move to push back against what the White House sees as unfair trading practices, President Donald Trump singled out Australia, criticising restrictions on American beef imports, despite the United States importing $3 billion worth of Australian beef in the previous year.

“Australians ... they’re wonderful people, wonderful everything, but they ban American beef,” Trump told reporters.

The underlying message was clear: trade reciprocity is no longer just about tariffs, but also about removing hidden regulatory roadblocks.

In 2003, Australia shut the door on U.S. beef imports amid fears of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—better known as mad cow disease. In 2019, the ban was lifted but U.S. producers must still navigate the country’s biosecurity rules.

The White House has called such restrictions “unsubstantiated” in reference to similar biosecurity rules rolled out by Argentina against U.S. beef.

President Donald Trump holds a chart as he delivers remarks on reciprocal tariffs during an event in the Rose Garden entitled "Make America Wealthy Again" at the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 2, 2025. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

Are Biosecurity Rules Masking Protectionism?

Australian National University lecturer Jill Sheppard called these regulations covert trade tools.

“Rather than imposing financial tariffs, we use the biosecurity regime as a form of trade policy,” she told AAP.

This view resonates with John Humphreys, chief economist at the free market Australian Taxpayers Alliance, who stated, “The Americans are right to note that many countries use non-tariff barriers to restrict trade, often hidden behind nice sounding rhetoric about labour standards or environmental protection,” he told The Epoch Times.

He argues Australia should lift its beef restrictions and let market forces decide what products they prefer.

“I suspect most people will prefer Australian beef,” he said. “But that should be up to each person to decide, rather than a central planner to impose.”

There are existing debates comparing the quality of U.S. and Australian beef.

This picture taken on Oct. 29, 2024 shows cattle in a paddock on a property located near the north-central New South Wales town of Gunnedah. David Gray/AFP via Getty Images

Meanwhile, regarding non-tariffs, others see it differently.

Independent economist Saul Eslake argues, “In most cases there are sound scientific reasons for the restrictions we have on imports of agricultural products, to keep out pests and diseases which exist in other countries including in some instances the U.S.”

He also accused U.S. lobby groups of exerting pressure beyond agriculture.

“The U.S. would like to break the ‘buying power’ of our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme so American companies can charge the same much higher prices that they charge Americans for drugs, to Australians.”

Can Australia Challenge the Tariffs?

Following the Trump administration’s imposition of the baseline 10 percent tariff on Australian exports, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese threatened to invoke dispute resolution mechanisms embedded in Australia’s free trade agreement with the United States.

“The Australian people have every right to view this action by the Trump administration as undermining our free and fair trading relationship,” Albanese said. “We want to resolve this issue without resorting to using these.”

But is the World Trade Organisation (WTO) still a viable arena to challenge this dispute?

Humphreys is sceptical.

“The WTO was nice in theory, but it has now evolved into yet another international bureaucracy ... At this stage, it makes more sense for countries to coordinate trade deals with partners.”

Eslake counters with a broader concern.

“In an ideal world, yes, the WTO would be the right way to challenge U.S. trade policies ... But the United States has nobbled the WTO’s dispute resolution procedures for many years by blocking the appointment of judges.”

In 2019, the Trump administration decided against appointing new members to the Appellate Body over a host of issues with the WTO, including judicial overreach by its members, consistent rulings against U.S. tariffs designed to protect American businesses, and slow decision making.

Measuring the Economic Fallout

Despite the global reaction, Australia will feel a moderate impact.

Treasury modelling predicts a modest 0.2 percent dip in GDP by the end of next year, and just 0.1 percent by 2030. Inflation, however, is expected to rise by 0.2 percentage points this year due to import taxes imposed by the U.S.

“Trump’s tariffs are a bad idea, both for America and Australia, but the situation doesn’t call for panic,” said Humphreys. “There’s still a lot we don’t know about how courts and Congress will react, or whether deals will be struck.”

Eslake agreed, noting that while U.S. exports make up only 5 percent of Australia’s total exports, the bigger concern lies elsewhere.

“The indirect effects—on China, Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asia—could be significant, as these are key markets for Australia. If their exports to the U.S. fall, their imports from us could too.”

The Chinese Communist Party has decided to knuckle down with its own retaliatory tariffs.

The Bigger Game: Negotiation or Permanence?

President Trump has left the door open to both negotiation and permanence. Asked whether tariffs were a bargaining chip or a fixed policy, he replied: “Well, it can both be true.”

He claimed the U.S. was “taking in almost $2 billion a day” from tariffs and vowed to impose major new duties on pharmaceutical imports to drive drug manufacturing back to American soil.

Meanwhile, Trump’s Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told a Senate Committee that several nations, including Argentina, Vietnam, and Israel, had already offered to lower their tariffs in response.

In Trump’s playbook, the final page is always a draft—just as UNSW Professor Gigi Foster, a U.S. citizen herself, noted when tariffs first hit Australian steel and aluminium.

“Dealmaking never fully ends,” she told The Epoch Times, suggesting Australia may still claw back concessions.