What domestic behavior specifically?

If they're supposed to encourage industrial development at home, they've failed on that front. Building new factories requires years of commitment and billions of dollars, but the current administration has shown no interest in actually investing in that development. Meanwhile, the raw materials that would be necessary for a factory are more expensive precisely because of the tariffs, making new industry even less likely. Finally, the very dubious legal ground on which the tariffs are based means that no one is sure they'll be around to the end of this administration, much less into the next, so there's little interest in adapting long-term plans to a temporary state of affairs.

If they're supposed to encourage consumers to buy domestic, they've failed on that count too. Many goods simply are not available manufactured in the US (see above). If the tariffs were applied gradually and incrementally, maybe people would adapt, but from the consumer's mount of view, everything just gets more expensive, so what are they supposed to do? Again, applying tariffs to raw materials means that it's impossible for American businesses to undercut foreign imports even if they wanted to.

Like everything from this administration, the tariff are an impulsive decision based on poor economic understanding and incompetent execution.

In other words, they are a regressive tax --- pure and simple.

If tariffs are held strong, there will be two possible outcomes:

1) Domestic production will be increased (via American businesses as well as onshoring foreign businesses), providing jobs and ultimately lower-cost products

2) International tariffs will be decreased across the board - resulting in a more level field for American businesses to compete in foreign nations

Few realize American goods have been tariffed internationally for decades, resulting in a difficult-or-impossible business climate for American businesses.

The situation is akin to Wall Street's infamous short-term outcome favorability. Tariffs are a long-term game, and people have to be willing to trade some short-term outcomes for the long-term economic health of America and it's businesses (and jobs, wages, etc).

When has reduced competition ever resulted in lower-cost products?

Even for goods we already mass produce, companies respond to tariffs of their competitor's goods by hiking their own prices up.

That works when those countries are selectively tariffed while others are let off. Blindly applying tariffs to whatever satisfies the mood is not the way.

> or alternatively to apply pressure to a sector to bring it on shore.

For this to work, the cost of onshore production must be lower than the tariffed price. The inputs must be made cheaper and not tariffed. Again the US administration is not doing any of these strategically.

> The inputs must be made cheaper and not tariffed.

Not necessarily. It's presumably not as efficient, but you'd still expect the entire chain to head in the desired direction eventually.

I have talked to some purchasing people at my company and it seems it's going exactly the other way. The company is moving as much production as possible away from the US to serve the international market without paying for tariffs.

The purpose of a thing is what is does. If a tariff can be used to stop a war, then tariffs are meant as a strategic bargaining chips.