If you're building here, if you're making here, if you're working in the United States. we just gave you a big fat tax break, but if you're going to ship American jobs overseas, thanks to Donald Trump, you're going to pay a big fat tariff.

The claim can be broken down into two main components: first, that businesses building, making, or working in the U.S. Received a substantial tax break under Donald Trump; second, that companies shipping American jobs overseas face significant tariffs as a consequence of Trump’s policies.

Regarding the tax break, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) enacted under President Trump did lower corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, providing a large tax cut for many businesses operating domestically. This reform was intended to incentivize domestic investment and job creation. However, some analyses indicate that certain provisions of the law also created incentives for companies to shift profits and jobs offshore due to how offshore earnings were taxed. Thus, while there was a "big fat tax break" for businesses in the U.S., it was not an unqualified incentive solely for domestic operations.

On tariffs, the Trump administration imposed tariffs on various imported goods, including a notable 25% tariff on foreign-made automobiles and other products, aiming to protect American manufacturing jobs and penalize companies that outsource production. These tariffs increased costs for importers and consumers but were intended as a deterrent against offshoring jobs. However, tariffs apply to imports regardless of whether companies have moved jobs overseas; they are not a direct penalty specifically tied to outsourcing decisions but rather a trade policy tool.

The claim’s phrasing "thanks to Donald Trump, you're going to pay a big fat tariff" simplifies complex trade policy mechanisms. Tariffs are paid by importers of foreign goods, which may include companies that have offshored production but also others. Moreover, tax breaks and tariffs operate through different mechanisms; one is a fiscal incentive, the other a trade barrier.

In summary, the claim captures the general thrust of Trump-era policies: significant corporate tax cuts domestically coupled with tariffs aimed at discouraging offshoring. However, it glosses over nuances such as how some tax provisions may have inadvertently encouraged offshoring and how tariffs function in practice. Therefore, the claim is mostly true but somewhat simplified and lacking important context.