How economists would enact Trump’s trade goals. Hint: not like this.

Subscribe to enjoy similar stories. With tariffs poised to take effect on Tuesday on products from Canada and Mexico, plus threats of levies on imports from the European Union, one thing is clear: President Donald Trump likes the number 25. All of those tariffs are set at 25%, assuming no last-minute deal to lower them.

Trump said on Monday that there’s “no room left for Mexico or for Canada" to make a deal before midnight. Don’t read too much into that number, however. “There’s nothing magical, useful, or relevant about the number 25%," University of Michigan professor of public policy and economics Justin Wolfers tells Barron’s.

“It doesn’t come from a model, from careful evaluation of the consequences of a tariff, or from history. It doesn’t solve a specific problem." Michael Klein, a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School and former Treasury Department official, agreed and said the administration’s arguments defending the proposed tariffs are “nonsensical." The selection of 25%, otherwise known as one-quarter of 100, seems to be simply because it’s a “big beautiful" number, to borrow the phrase Trump used to describe the House’s budget bill. Something that is easy to understand, even for the math-challenged.

Barron’s asked the White House to comment on the tariff levels. Thierry Wizman, a global strategist at Macquarie, also sees a bit of game theory at play. If the bar is set too low, there’s no imperative to negotiate, but it can’t be so high as to be infeasible.

And if Trump only achieves some of his goals, he at least creates some flexibility. “Ambiguity is a feature, not a bug," Wizman said. “It’s intended to be an advantage." Trump has already raised tariffs on imports from China by another 10% on top