Commentary by Jerry Lanson

Even as Donald Trump’s shadowy ICE operatives spread terror through documented and undocumented immigrant communities nationwide, there are growing signs his authoritarian administration is imploding.

I am neither an economist nor a military strategist. But even ignoring another round of massive protests across the country last Saturday, the news of the last few days is quite astonishing.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the stock market has been in such freefall that its performance for the month of April could be the worst since 1932 at the height of the Great Depression.

Nobel Prize-winning economist and former New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes that international confidence in the United States’ economic policies has dissipated so rapidly that the country faces the real possibility of a “sudden stop,” something that happens when “the inflow of money dries up.”

“It’s not just the destructive tariffs,” he notes. “It’s also the chaos as policy zigzags wildly, and the craziness. If you were a foreign investor, would you want to bet on America right now?”

The results of a sudden stop, he warned, often is “economic misery.”

In the meantime, the value of the dollar continues to plunge, and gold has reached an all-time high as investors scramble to find a safe place for their money. Trump fired his third IRS commissioner a few days ago.

Then there is the state of the Defense Department.

The New York Times Tuesday reported in exceptionally strong language that inexperienced and reckless Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “has produced a run of chaos that is unmatched in the recent history of the Defense Department.” It adds that, Hegseth’s inner circle of close advisors “is in shambles.”

Trump insists he is sticking by Hegseth and said “he’s doing a great job” after reports Hegseth shared top secret information about military operations on his personal phone in a newly disclosed Signal chat with his wife and bother. The chat took place as US fighters headed toward targets in Yemen and disclosed their location.

Despite Trump’s words, NPR has reported that “The White House has begun the process of looking for a new leader at the Pentagon.”

Meanwhile, a new Reuters-Ipsos poll released Tuesday shows Trump’s approval has dropped to 42 percent, “the lowest level since his return to the White House,” according to the hub politicalwire.com.

Furthermore, the poll found that 83% said the president must obey federal court rulings, Political Wire reports.

To date, the Trump Administration has ignored a 9-0 court ruling that his administration should “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old Maryland father of three who was wrongly deported to El Salvador and continues to be held in isolation there. 

The administration continues to insist without evidence that Abrego Garcia, a construction worker who had lived in this country since his teen years, is a gang member, the same claim it used to deport hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador without due process or charge or a hearing. A report by Bloomberg News said roughly 90% of these men, now sitting in a notorious El Salvadorian prison with no hope of trial or release, had never been charged with a crime in the United States.

The Supreme Court has ordered a temporary halt to any further deportations.

This column originally appeared in Lanson’s Jerry’s Substack.

_____
THURSDAY 4/24/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

During the opening of the Tesla Q1 2025 earnings call — where the company reported a 71% decline in net income and a 9% decrease in revenue — CEO Elon Musk said:

“Now, the protests that you'll see out there, they're very organized, they're paid for. They're obviously not going to say, admit that the reason that they're protesting is because they're receiving fraudulent money or that they are the recipients of wasteful largesse, but they're going to come up with some other reason. But that is -- the real reason for the protests, the actual reason is that those receiving the waste and fraud wish to continue receiving it. That is the real thing that's going on here, obviously.”

Sounds like his boss, albeit a little more articulate.

He is claiming that the protestors are “receiving fraudulent money or. . .are the recipients of wasteful largess.”

It is always someone else who is to blame. Always.

The people, who are also being paid by some unnamed group or individual (too bad Biden isn’t richer because everything that blame can be ascribed to he fits well), are also somehow making ill-gotten gains.

Musk is referring to the backlash to his activities at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

As the Cato Institute — which was founded in 1974 as the Charles Koch Foundation, so you know this is no hotbed of liberalism — points out, Musk’s claims about savings are about as realistic as his claims about self-driving cars (in 2015 he said there would be coast-to-coast self-driving capability in a matter of months, then in 2018 he said full self-driving by 2019; in 2019 he said there would be one million robotaxis by 2020. . . ).

Cato notes that in October 2024 he said DOGE would cut $2 trillion. Then it was $1 trillion. 

Now it is $150 billion.

Cato — and this is as of April 23: 

“Unfortunately, even that $150 billion claim is optimistic. Itemized, verifiable cuts (those with receipts) sit at just $63 billion. Many of these receipts lack detail, contain errors, or otherwise have excessive savings claims that make the topline figure suspect.”

Yes, it is all in keeping with Trump’s Musk’s claims. If something doesn’t go as planned, just throw out some other nonsense to cover up the one that didn’t come to be.

Arguably, many of the people who are protesting at Tesla dealerships are not part of a financed cabal. More likely these are people who are — dare I say? — pissed at things like chainsaw-like cuts at many federal agencies.

The number of people cut varies. Cato has it at “about 12,000 personnel on net (closer to 130,000 personnel cut in gross).

No matter how you look at it, many of whom were involved in the administration and execution of programs that benefit all Americans’ health, safety and overall well-being.

Should some of them been eliminated? Certainly. But the DOGE reckless approach to human resources is evidently enough to make people who have never driven a Tesla or have no such intention ever to get out and protest Musk.

Musk said on the call that as he’ll stay engaged at DOGE for “the remainder of the President's term, just to make sure that the waste and fraud that we stop does not come roaring back, which will do if it has the chance.”

But he’ll reduce his time to a day or two.

Is it because of the protestors?

No.

It is because Tesla stockholders have seen the value of their stock drop.

On December 17, 2024, Tesla was trading at $479.86. On April 23 it was down to $257.41. Which was at least better than April 8, when it was $221.86.

Musk said, “at Tesla, we've gone through many, many crises over the years and actually been through many near-death experiences. We were probably on the ragged edge of death at least on maybe a dozen times. It's been so many times.”

What he didn’t say was that it took the company 17 years to earn a profit. It didn’t have one until 2020.

What he also didn’t mention that last year Tesla made $2.76 billion in carbon credit revenues. 

The US Department of Energy, US Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, all contribute to the funding of those credits.

And in Q1 2025 Tesla had total net income of $409 million — but thanks to $595 million in regulatory credits it didn’t have to report a loss of $189 million.

If the government works to Musk’s benefit, great. If it doesn’t, then it is going down.

Perhaps this hypocrisy has more to do with the protests than Musk is willing to acknowledge.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings, where he writes primarily for the right column.

_____
THURSDAY 4/24/25

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

SALISBURY, Connecticut — This is a quiet, community-oriented, affluent village in the state’s northwestern corner. But yesterday, No Kings Day, in the lexicon of sprawling, nationwide protests against the Trump Administration’s assault on the Constitution, drew about 100 people to the intersection of two roads opening onto the two-block long main street.

They gathered with signs and determination at 11 a.m., Saturday, one of hundreds of protests across the country. “Resist Like It’s Germany in 1938,” read one poster, a reference to the rising repression of Jews and others there in the days before World War II.

Given the Easter holiday weekend, the sweep of protests nationwide Saturday seemed quite remarkable, even if crowds were somewhat smaller than the millions who came out nationwide April 5. Yet some leading elected Democratic leaders continue to be clueless, plotting strategy for the 2026 midterms instead of recognizing that the Constitutional crisis is right now, a moral abyss marked most strikingly by ICE’s arrests and sometimes deportation without charge or due process of documented immigrants and occasionally citizens.

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old Maryland father of three disabled children shipped to an El Salvadoran gulag has come to symbolize this growing phenomenon. Though he was arrested by mistake (as acknowledged initially by the Trump Administration), though the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that the administration should “facilitate” his return home, Donald Trump and his Justice Department have steadfastly refused, saying that only El Salvador’s dictator can decide to release him. It’s a ludicrous and dangerous position. The U.S. government is paying El Salvador millions of dollars to jail deported immigrants and to expand its prisons, presumably, as Trump told President Nayib Bukele, so that “homegrown” Americans can be sent there.

Yet The New York Times reported Saturday that California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom considers the Abrego Garcia affair the "distraction of the day,” a comment that shows a singular disinterest in the Constitution and rule of law. Newsom, and other Democrats who share that view — they reportedly fear “playing into Trump’s hands” — should be ashamed, both for their moral spinelessness and their stupidity.

The case of Abrego Garcia is no “distraction.” It is the clearest measure to date of whether our democracy has a chance of surviving until the next election.

Law is the foundation of democracy. Abrego Garcia is a human being who cannot be discarded so Democrats can focus on tariffs. And Abrego Garcia surely is not and will not be alone. Again, Donald Trump wants to ship citizens to El Salvador's jails.

If Abrego Garcia is abandoned in El Salvador, no one will be safe. As Ezra Klein wrote in the NYT this week, the emergency is now. Democratic leaders like Newsom must stop being clueless and instead, like Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who journeyed to El Salvador in an attempt to free Abrego Garcia, shout out his case for freedom, calling on the public to stand behind them.

Only then can we hope to continue to have free and fair elections, not only in 2028, when Newsom hopes to be president, but in 2026. Less than 100 days into the Trump Administration, it is jarringly clear that if we hope to restore some semblance of democracy, time is short.

Lanson is author of Jerry’s Substack.

_____
MONDAY 4/21/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

The Supreme Court’s 7-2 emergency order, halting the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants, erodes national sovereignty. This unsigned ruling, opposed only by Justices Thomas and Alito, delays critical deportations under a law designed to empower decisive action against border security threats. By prioritizing judicial oversight over executive authority, the Court undermines the president’s ability to protect American communities from the consequences of unchecked migration.

Illegal immigration imposes a staggering $150 billion annual burden on taxpayers, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (2023). The Court’s decision risks emboldening open-border policies, incentivizing further illegal entries and straining public resources. Conservative principles demand robust enforcement of immigration laws to ensure public safety and economic stability, yet this ruling creates uncertainty, leaving communities vulnerable to the impacts of lax border control.

Congress must act swiftly to clarify the Alien Enemies Act’s scope, reinforcing the administration’s authority to secure the border. Activist courts should not obstruct lawful measures that prioritize citizens’ interests. Conservatives call for bold, unapologetic policies to restore order and safeguard the nation’s future against the perils of illegal immigration.

Corbett writes about myriad issues at My Desultory Blog.

______
MONDAY 4/21/25

Commentary by Sharon Lintner

If Mahmoud Khalil is deported, it will signal the end of free speech in the United States. The mere fact that he has been detained jeopardizes our First Amendment rights. [Khalil is the graduate student from the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, facing deportation over leading pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University over the war in Gaza.]

No more independent thinking, no opposing views without fear of severe, life changing retaliation.  

There's plenty more I'd like to say, but as I write this I'm wondering how long it will be until we cannot write about or verbally express a dissenting position?  That thought alone proves we are no longer free and cannot count on the protection of the First Amendment. 

The day that we pause and question whether it's safe to express our opinion is here: Today is that day. 

_____________________________________________

Send your COMMENTS by email to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line.

_____
WEDNESDAY 4/16/25

So long as we can continue to publish, your civil comments backed by facts are welcome here. Which means, both the right column and the left column. 

For this column, conservatives of both the pro-MAGA and the anti-Trump stripes are welcome.

For the left column, we welcome moderates and the far left, and everyone in-between.

Please keep in mind that for either column, you are not expected to repeat, or always agree with, the talking points of “your side.” 

Send your COMMENTS by email to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line.

The Hustings is designed to spark civil discourse and honest debate among citizens who will certainly disagree on news and issues. Scroll down with the track bar on the far right to read recent debates and commentaries including …

•Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s “This is Strategy?” questioning the White House whipsawing of tariffs, specifically the temporary suspension of tariffs on Chinese-imported smartphones, computers and semiconductors. 

•Contributing Pundit Rich Corbett on how tariffs could prompt the return of American manufacturing in “Should the US Play the Tariff Game?”

•In the left column, do not miss commentaries by contributing pundits Hugh Hansen, Sharon Lintner and Jim McCraw under the heading “About Those Tariffs.” Macaulay has a column about long-term implications for the US’s future economic leadership in the corresponding right column, “Trump Trashes Trust.”

_____
WEDNESDAY 4/16/25

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

In a letter Monday to the Harvard University community, President Alan M. Garber said that the university had rejected the ever-expanding demands of the Trump Administration to control what’s taught and learned on campus in exchange for continued federal research support.

He wrote: “Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to ‘maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government...’

“They include requirements to ‘audit’ the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to ‘reduc[e] the power’ of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.

“The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Just what comes next in the university’s standoff with the Trump administration is uncertain. While Garber made clear the university’s willingness to investigate and address legitimate concerns about anti-semitism — the Trump administration’s hypocritical rationale for its attacks on top universities — he also made explicitly clear that the university would not accede to the administration’s demands. His letter ended: 

“Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity -- and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.”

The release of Garber’s letter’s came within an hour or two of a second major piece of news: El Salvador President Nayib Bukele announced that he would not release a Maryland father of three wrongly deported to a notorious jail there. Bukele was meeting with President Trump, who smiled approvingly as Bukele spoke, The New York Times reported.

Bukele’s statement — and Trump’s approving acquiescence — sets up a Constitutional crisis with the Supreme Court, which last week ordered the administration to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The US has acknowledged the Maryland man was wrongly deported, but insisted it couldn’t bring him home without El Savador’s approval.

Garber’s statement pits the oldest, wealthiest and arguably most prestigious university in the United States against a president who has seemed determined to eviscerate the independence of American higher education.

The New York Times reported Monday that, “Mr. Trump and his top aides are exerting control of huge sums of federal research money to shift the ideological tilt of the higher education system, which they see as hostile to conservatives and intent on perpetuating liberalism.”

The administration’s threat to withdraw $9 billion of promised funding to Harvard and to defy the Supreme Court’s order sets up dual fronts in Trump’s effort to assert a level of authoritarian power never before seen in this country.This column originally appeared in Jerry’s Substack. Reprinted by permission.

_____________________________________________

Tariff Debate

There is a lot of opinion to read on this page and we hope, to spark your comments on President Trump’s wild global trade war. 

In today’s right column, be sure to read Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s “This is Strategy?” questioning the White House whipsawing of tariffs, specifically the temporary suspension of tariffs on Chinese-imported smartphones, computers and semiconductors. 

Scroll down with the far-right trackbar to read an alternate right-column take; Contributing Pundit Rich Corbett on how tariffs could prompt the return of American manufacturing in “Should the US Play the Tariff Game?”

As if these two opposing position columns are not enough to prompt your response, you can scroll further down the page to read left-column opinions by contributing pundits Hugh Hansen, Sharon Lintner and Jim McCraw under the heading “About Those Tariffs.” Macaulay has a column about long-term implications for the US’s future economic leadership in the corresponding right column, “Trump Trashes Trust.”

Send your COMMENTS by email to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line.

_____
MONDAY 4/14/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

All of a sudden, the tariffs on smartphones, computers, semiconductors, and other electronics made in China received exemptions — not free passes. (There’s still the 20% tariff on Chinese goods predicated on the fentanyl issue.)

A few things need to be thought about in the context of a message that came from the US Customs and Border Protection agency. 

Why did Donald Trump do this? Is it because of his admiration for Xi Jinping? Unlikely.

Rather, it is probably because he knows that people care more about iPhones than they do about him and were the full-blown tariffs — as in 145% -- applied to them, people wouldn’t get angry at Tim Cook.

They’d blame Trump.

Second, note how this is seemingly a knee-jerk reaction.

Also notice how this retraction was not done by Trump with a flourish of a Sharpie. No, it came in a bulletin.

He certainly couldn’t be seen admitting that maybe the tariffs on iPhones would be le unpalatable to the American public.

(How much? The Wall Street Journal cited numbers from a research firm that calculate the parts of a 256 GB iPhone Pro costs Apple $550. So tariffs are applied to that number, not the number you find at an Apple store. In the case of that phone, the price is $1,099. So if Apple wants to recoup the money it is paying for tariffs, that gets added to the $1,099. Let’s say it is the 145% (the aforementioned 20% plus the remainder that will show up a few sentences from now): $550 + 145% = $797.50. Add that to the current $1,099 retail price and you get $1,896.50. And it should be noted that on April 10 the Consumer Price Index showed the price of a dozen eggs reached a new high, $6.23. Remember when Trump was running and said he would reduce prices?)

On April 2, so-called “Liberation Day” (liberation from what? 401(k)s?), a 34% tariff was announced on Chinese goods imported to the US. So what did the Chinese do a couple days later? They applied 34% tariffs on US goods. What did Trump do? He increased the tariff on China to 84% on April 8. 

Trump in his executive order on that: “In my judgment, this modification is necessary and appropriate to effectively address the threat to the national security and economy of the United States.”

Protecting national security is core to what a president should be doing.

So how does that square with this, from an executive order signed on April 4 about protecting TikTok:

“During this period, the Department of Justice shall take no action to enforce the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the “Act”) (Public Law 118-50, Div. H) or impose any penalties against any entity for any noncompliance with the Act, including for distributing, maintaining, or updating (or enabling the distribution, maintenance, or updating) of any foreign adversary controlled application as defined in the Act.”

Ah, maybe protecting the public from a “foreign adversary controlled” app is overrated.

Back to the tariffs.

What did China do in response to Trump raising the stakes?

It increased the duty on US goods to. . .84%.

What did Trump do? He raised the tariff on China to 125%. (With the other 20% tariff that gets to 145%.)

The explanation for this one:

“In my judgment, this modification is necessary and appropriate to effectively address the threat to US national and economic security posed by the PRC’s contribution to the conditions reflected in large and persistent trade deficits, including PRC industrial policies that have produced systemic excess manufacturing capacity in the PRC and suppressed US domestic manufacturing capacity, which conditions are made worse by the PRC’s recent actions.”

The ”large and persistent trade deficits” come from American companies buying lots of stuff from China that they sell in the American market.

The “industrial policies that have produced systemic excess manufacturing capacity in the PRC” “suppressed US domestic manufacturing capacity” only because US manufacturing companies didn’t — and don’t — have the same kind of support from their government to build factories.

The Trump Administration talks a lot about reducing regulations on companies. In some cases this is good, as it can facilitate getting things done with no red tape tripping them up. In other cases, the old phrase about “the fox guarding the hen house” comes to mind. Let’s face it, not all corporate managers are good actors.

But for the good ones: Just imagine how much time is being wasted by people at American companies right now trying to figure out their supply chains — only to have Trump swerve and remove some tariffs while adding others.

Business runs on facts and numbers, not on whims.

Funny thing: Nowhere does Team Trump indicate how many manufacturing jobs are going to be made in the US as a result of the president’s tariffs.

Nowhere is it pointed out that it takes years to build, equip and launch factories, so all of the talk about “temporary pain” is nonsense: Years of pain.

In addition to which: If companies build new factories in the US you can be absolutely sure that they are going to apply Industry 4.0 principles to it, which means AI, lots of automation. . .and not a whole lot of people.

Again, something that doesn’t get pointed out. 

And then there’s this from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on ABC’s This Week on the subject of the suspension of the tariffs on the silicon-based products from China: 

“We need to have these things made in America. We can’t be reliant on Southeast Asia for all the things that operate for us. So what he’s doing is he’s saying they’re exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, but they’re included in the semiconductor tariffs, which are coming probably in a month or two… . So this is not like a permanent sort of exemption.” 

Again, look at this: The tariffs are (mainly gone) from these products — but then they are likely to be back. When are they going to be back? Well, it might be one month or it might be two. Or maybe it will be next week

Trump has a persona of being a good businessman.

Anyone who ran a business like this would hear two words: “You’re fired!”

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
MONDAY 4/14/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Quick quiz:

• Who is Jaime Harrison?

Answer:

• Harrison is the former chair of the Democratic National Committee. He was in that position from January 21, 2021 until February 1, 2025. Which means he was head of the DNC when Trump beat Harris. Harrison ran for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina in 2020. He was hammered by Lindsay Graham.

Second question:

• Who is Ken Martin?

Answer:

• Martin is the current chair of the DNC, having succeeded Harrison in February. Prior to heading up the DNC, Martin was the chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. That party was formed in 1944. One of the supporters of the formation of the DFL was Hubert H. Humphrey. Humphrey was hammered by Richard Nixon in the 1968 Presidential Electoral College: 191 votes versus Nixon’s 301.

Third question:

• Who is the current visible leader of the Democratic Party?

Answer:

• I don’t know.

There had been the thought that somehow when Martin took the role at the DNC he would be out there, leading the Democrat response to whatever Trump is doing. That would be more than a full-time job.

Like him or not, you’ve got to acknowledge that Trump is certainly an active senior citizen by nearly any measure.

But maybe Martin is doing lots of things out of the broadcast, and more importantly, social media eyes. That is not good.

An argument could be made that the Lewis-Martin-like combo of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the visible face of the Democratic Party. Which is fine, assuming that the party imagines it can give up on the center and right electorate.

This is also the case with, say, Gavin Newsom. Not only do plenty of Americans look at California with more than a modicum of suspicion, but Newsom is undoubtedly a bit too slick for the majority of the voters.

James Carville had suggested that the Democrats just let Trump collapse on his own. But were that to happen (and arguably, if the markets continue to fall and the counter-tariffs take a big bite out of things like soybean sales from the great state of Louisiana (yes, we’re looking at you, Mike Johnson), then this may happen), remember:

Nature abhors a vacuum.

And the Dems would have no one in place to take the mantle of leadership. . .which would leave things in the hands of JD Vance.

Not exactly the kind of alternative that the Democrats have in mind.

But given what they haven’t done, it seems they’re not all that keen on winning.

And on that subject, remember that in 2016 Trump said:

“We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, ‘Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore, Mr. President, it’s too much.’ 

And I’ll say, ‘No it isn’t. We have to keep winning. We have to win more!’”

Even when he isn’t winning he’s still winning vis-à-vis today’s Democratic Party.

_____
FRIDAY 4/11/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

Tariffs have long been a divisive topic in economics. For decades, mainstream economists have championed free trade, arguing that tariffs — essentially a tax on imports ultimately paid by consumers — hinder economic growth by disrupting the free flow of goods across borders.

For most of my life, I’ve been a proponent of free — but fair — trade. I believed in the principle that “a rising tide lifts all boats,” and that less government intervention and lower taxes were the best ways to empower consumers. Free trade not only fosters economic efficiency but also reduces the likelihood of conflict by creating mutual interdependence among nations. In contrast, tariffs — as a form of taxation — distort markets by placing a thumb on the scale.

Yet, not everyone agrees that tariffs are the villain they’re often made out to be. Some see them as a legitimate tool to address the downsides of globalization, unfair trade practices, and the protectionist barriers used by other countries.

Let’s begin with the conventional wisdom. Economists have traditionally viewed tariffs as a net negative. When a country imposes tariffs on imported goods, it drives up prices for its own consumers. The result? Less competition, higher costs, and a drag on efficiency. Free trade, on the other hand, encourages specialization — countries focus on producing what they do best, and consumers benefit from cheaper, higher-quality products. This logic has driven decades of trade liberalization, from the creation of the World Trade Organization to sweeping agreements like NAFTA.

The data supports this view: global economic growth has surged under freer trade. However, for many Americans, the benefits of globalization have come with a bitter aftertaste — lost jobs, shuttered factories, and the growing perception that the system no longer works in their favor. This is where tariffs reenter the conversation.

When manufacturing jobs vanish in regions like the Rust Belt, the promised retraining programs and new opportunities often fail to materialize. Meanwhile, foreign competitors sometimes enjoy advantages such as lax labor standards, government subsidies, or currency manipulation — conditions that feel less like fair competition and more like exploitation.

From this perspective, tariffs become a counterpunch. The United States, with its vast consumer market, has leverage. Why not use it? Under President Trump’s “Liberation Day” declaration, tariffs were used as a tool to protect American workers and to pressure trading partners into fairer deals. Consider the trade war with China: tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods were intended to address long-standing issues like intellectual property theft and trade imbalances. Whether they succeeded fully remains a matter of debate.

Beyond the economic implications, tariffs carry political weight. They convey strength — a willingness to stand up for the “little guy” against the impersonal forces of globalization. This has made them particularly appealing in current US policy, especially in sectors such as steel and aluminum, which have strong constituencies in politically significant states. Tariffs are now seen not only as an economic tool but also as a matter of national security — critical to ensuring the country’s industrial capacity in the event of another global conflict.

Still, tariffs carry broad economic costs. They raise input prices for businesses and ultimately increase costs for consumers. Retaliation is another risk — as seen when American soybean farmers lost export markets during recent trade disputes. The tension is inescapable: tariffs are a high-stakes gamble, not a silver bullet.

To free-trade purists, tariffs are an outdated and blunt instrument. To others, they represent a means of reclaiming control in a global economy that has left too many behind. As international trade continues to evolve, the debate over tariffs isn’t going away. In fact, they remain a fixture in global economic policy — whether the United States embraces them or not.

Whether viewed as a strategic lever or a flawed relic, tariffs force us to confront the trade-offs in today’s deeply interconnected world.

Corbett writes about a variety of subjects, including tariffs and the economy, at My Desultory Blog.

_____
FRIDAY 4/11/25