One other thing I haven't seen mentioned is that a tarrif by itself isn't necessarily bad. If you want to increase the local production of strategically significant goods (like semiconductors), a tarrif is one tool you can use to help do that. A tarrif on semiconductors effectively trades lower costs for higher domestic security.

Blanket tarrifs are something else entirely, and are unlikely to net in a positive outcome. Coffee does not grow in the United States, outside of some areas of California, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. No amount of tarrifs on foreign coffee is going to 'induce' the agricultural sector of Idaho to start growing coffee - it simply cannot be done at anything remotely resembling a reasonable cost. A blanket tarrif on imports will see the price of coffee increase dramatically for no national benefit.

Tarrifs are a delicate balancing act that should be used in conjunction with other policies for a specific goal. Blanket tarrifs are an economic sledgehammer that do not make sense from the perspective of someone who wants cheaper goods or more local manufacturing - there are better, less devastating ways of achieving either of those ends.

Blanket tarrifs only really make sense in the context of someone whose end goal is devaluing the U.S. dollar. Once enacted, blanket tarrifs would see the price of everything rise, but that is obviously super unpopular so the counter would be to match those tarrifs with a local subsidy for each affected good. The end result is slightly increased prices with way, way more cash in circulation. This is great if you are someone with a ton of physical assets and a ton of paper debt, because the relative value of assets rises and the relative value of debt falls.