Instead of resorting to hyperbole, look at it this way:

$2 trillion is parked overseas. It is parked overseas because the opportunity cost of bringing it back here is higher than leaving it overseas, mostly due to corporate tax rates that are higher than they are overseas. We can leave tax rates as they are and gain $0, we can lower corporate tax rates and hopefully bring a (large) fraction of that back here to benefit the economy as a whole, or some other solution that increases the wealth of the nation that has not been thought of yet.

If you're considering an alternate solution, bear in mind that history has shown that imposing taxes in situations like this results in increased friction in moving the wealth back and generally less wealth for the nation imposing the taxes.

So maybe it bears some resemblance to trickle-down economics, but is there even a marginally better solution available?

I wasn't using hyperbole. It was an honest question. I'm not an economist, but I try to stay up, and this sounds - to me, a non-economist - just like trickle-down economics (with regard to the parent comment - not yours).

Is there a different phrase I should use so as to not offend?

Edited for clarification

Your identification of this as trickle-down economics comes from WkndTriathlete's assumption that bringing the money back here will benefit the economy as a whole (as opposed to the few who obviously directly benefit). I think this idea has been mostly debunked but the topic is complex and there are probably details that reasonable people can disagree over.

Appreciate the response! I agree that there is room for disagreement. I was just curious to see if there was some nuance that I am missing.

If the US lowered corporate taxes but increased personal taxes for the top gainers, would that be a more palatable solution?

If you meant "eliminate corporate income taxes", it would be a great compromise. We should never be taxing capital formation and investment, only when it's converted into consumption.