Here's a plausible steelman argument, drawing from insights from CEA Chair Stephen Miran and a paper he authored pre-administration titled "A user's guide to restructuring a global trading system"

https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese...

It is a blueprint for "tariff based upheavel". It proposes using 'unilateral U.S. tariffs as leverage' to force other countries into a new accord, dubbed by some a potential "Mar-a-Lago Accord," analogous to Bretton Woods, that would include 'coordinated currency realignments'.

Miran argued that because the strong dollar has made U.S. exports uncompetitive and fueled chronic deficits, the U.S. might need to pressure other countries to strengthen their currencies (i.e. weaken the dollar) through a trade war if necessary. Alongside this potential grand strategy, it's also argue the tariffs directly address specific issues like unfair trade practices (the 'reciprocity' argument), dumping, reliance on adversarial supply chains (national security), and aim to incentivize domestic manufacturing investment.

Elements of Miran's thinking in the paper are evident in the Administration's approach. For instance, Trump aides publicly claim they are targeting countries with "artificially devalued" currencies for tougher tariffs and the President frames tariffs as "reciprocal", a hint that the endgame is to make others lower their trade barriers or adjust currency values to balance trade.

This strategic thinking appears connected to the 'traffic light' system mentioned by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent..
https://instituteofgeoeconomics.org/en/research/2025040302/

Direct quote:
"Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has mentioned, the US could have a “traffic light” system that divides the world into three tiers: “green” countries with shared values, aligned economic and security goals, and a willingness to cooperate on exchange rates; “yellow” or neutral countries that want to keep high tariffs and remain outside the US defense system; and “red” countries, meaning adversaries or sanctioned nations that refuse to cooperate."

I think that adds potential useful context around where we might expect countries to align and what the intent is. Or perhaps as I've seen it put more inflammatorily, there are "vassals", "neutral" and "adversaries".

One last note would be that comparisons to the 1930s Smoot-Hawley tariffs are often made but the context is fundamentally different. In the 1930s, the US was a major creditor nation with large trade surpluses and dominant manufacturing. Today it's a large debtor nation seeking to revitalize its industrial base and reduce deficits within a far more globalized system. It's not quite fair to call it protectionism (as a sole objective) and the time period doesn't generalize to today's America.

With those datapoints....

The steelman perspective is that this is less short-term theater and more a high-stakes, potentially disruptive strategy aimed at fundamentally restructuring the global trading system. The intended endgame is to reassert U.S. economic advantage, enhance national security through resilient supply chains, and better align global economic rules with U.S. interests in a changed geopolitical landscape, using U.S. market access and currency centrality as key leverage.

To be clear, this doesn't imply that I agree. I’m not convinced it’ll succeed as intended, but that’s the best-case rationale. It might be a "Hail Mary" to prevent ceding global leadership to China.. or a way to "hit reset".