It already is, actually

Exports are going to decrease

You were talking short term. You said immediate damage

Both short and long term

In short term they are benefiting USA

Even then, you're more or less saying that short term benefits outweigh producing something sustainable in the long term

No. I am saying that they are theoretically equal.

Not particularly...

International trade, particularly without tariffs, shifts out the ultimate amount of potential productivity possible

It'd force some short term shifts in specialization (potentially, domestic industries don't need to pay transportation fees as high and would have shorter delays in shipment, so there are a lot of domestic boons), but in the long run, would result in greater overall productivity

That overall loss is equalised by earlier boons and increase in government exchequer. You can literally prove it via mathematical equations

Over time, however, the amount of damage caused would continually increase

Leading to the overall loss being by far greater

And a large portion of the immediate benefit perceived was due to rapid, last minute purchases of products before the tariffs were put in place

Hell, there's got to be a massive bailout now due to lost sales by farmers

$12,000,000,000 US dollars going straight to that

Do you know what is cost of capital?

I do

So, that continually increasing damage, if discounted would be actually decreasing.

Because it would be divided by exponential series

And exponential series is one of the fastest growing series that naturally exists

exponential series?

1/r^n

I know what exponentiality is

So? You know that for every passing year, we increase exponent by 1

ehm, what?

Discount rate effect increases exponentially.

We're still looking at a lessened supply with greater tariffs

That would never overtake growth in exponential series.

howso?

A $100 gain today will be more than $10,000 gain after 100 years. That is a factor of 100. So, if USA's share even becomes a quarter than it currently is, it would still be more beneficial to have a short term gain.

We're also considering the wellbeing of other nations too

Specialization in what one holds a comparative advantage in still, regardless, culminates in greater productivity long run and benefits both nations rather than just a single one

I am not sure what more I can show you. No, it does not happen that way. The more liberal econmonies did benefit by globalisation but they also were the biggest sufferers of depression because of lack of autarky. Data shows that developing nations were lesser affected than developed nations.
That happened because these nations were entirely dependent on other nations for certain products.

It was in 2000, then 2008

When one nation got affected, others linked to it also got affected, creating a chain reaction, especially in the real estate crash in 2008

USA's GDP growth rate for example, decreased by 200%, while India's GDP growth rate only decreased by 66%

UK's GDP growth rate also decreased by 200%

And do you know how much of growth rate Uganda lost?

20%

*they didn’t have much to lose in the first place*