Tag: foreign policy

During an appearance on FNC’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” White House senior economic counselor Peter Navarro explained the long-term implications for the Trump administration’s tariffs and how they will function to ensure fair trade for the United States.

“Let’s not forget, every economic report that’s been coming out in the last month has been pushing us towards expansion and strength,” Navarro said. “And we just had a blowout jobs number on Friday, 228,000 jobs. That was 50 percent higher than was predicted. So, again, there’s cognitive dissonance between what the media is saying, wanted to push us into recession, and what’s actually happening. I think you’re right, Jackie, that the tariff and trade policy is just one chapter in a book that contains all these other beautiful things that we’re going to do. If you just take, for example, the oil prices, oil prices were a dollar higher during the Biden years. For a commuting, working family, that’s about $1,000 worth of gas prices they had to pay. We’re going to get that back for them. These tariff revenues, by the way, Jackie, $600 billion, $700 billion they are going to raise a year, $6 trillion to $7 trillion over the 10-year period. They’re going to help pay for the tax cuts. I will tell you this, Jackie. Every single dollar that comes in, in tariff revenues that we take from the foreigners who have been cheating us are going to go right to the American public in terms of tax cuts and debt reduction.”

Keep reading

For all the criticism of Trump and the risk of a global trade war, as Macron wants to unleash a trade war to elevate France to the top of the EU, if we just look at the data, we can see why Trump has taken this approach. Even those Republicans like Rand Paul joining the Democrats in calling tariffs a tax, none of them are looking at this issue objectively or seriously. Under the Biden Administration, not only was there a wholesale invasion of illegal immigrants, but on the trade front, he paid no attention at all, and most seemed to assume he was too senile to pay attention.

They are resoundingly calling Trump insane, mainly because they have something to lose. Free Trade has been one-sided. There is a risk that France will push to impose trade barriers against others to support their Marxist agenda. That will be devastating, but we see the world economy headed into a recession for the USA, yet a Depression for the EU. The fact that Trump imposed a 10% tariff on the UK but 20% on the EU is actually driving a wedge between Starmer’s dream of overruling BREXIT to get back into the Marxist utopia of the EU.

In addition, the belligerence of Macron is having an impact. There is a growing discontent with the European Union and the 20% tariff on the EU, with Macron vowing that full retaliation may prove to be the wedge that starts the fragmentation of the EU. Hungary has its own currency and can quickly leave the EU and resume trade with both the USA and Russia. Ukraine has long suppressed the Hungarian people trapped within the boundaries of Ukraine. The same is true for all of those members questioning the EU yet did not join the euro.

Keep reading

Critics of President Trump’s April 2, 2025, executive order on tariffs argue that the policy lacks clarity or direction. Yet the order is anything but vague. In fact, it offers one of the most detailed diagnoses of America’s structural trade imbalances in decades—backed by specific data, a national security framework, and a roadmap for restoring fairness in global trade.

The problem isn’t the order’s content—it’s that few critics have bothered to read it.

At the heart of the executive order is the assertion that large and persistent U.S. goods trade deficits—totaling $1.2 trillion in 2024 and up over 40% in just five years—represent an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to America’s economy and national security.

These deficits, it explains, are not merely the result of market forces but the product of “disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers” erected by America’s trading partners.

The order doesn’t just assert this—it proves it. According to the World Trade Organization, the U.S. has one of the world’s lowest simple average Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) tariff rates at 3.3%.

In comparison: Brazil charges 11.2%, China 7.5%, the European Union 5.0%, India 17%, and Vietnam 9.4%.

The imbalance becomes even more striking in specific sectors. The U.S. imposes just a 2.5% tariff on passenger vehicle imports with internal combustion engines, while the EU charges 10%, China 15%, and India a staggering 70%. On network switches and routers, the U.S. imposes no tariff at all, but India levies 10%.

For apples, the U.S. allows duty-free imports; meanwhile, India charges 50% and Turkey over 60%. These are not rhetorical flourishes—they are hard data used effectively to show just how unreciprocated U.S. market access has become.

More importantly, the order does not treat trade policy as a narrow economic matter—it places it squarely within the realm of national security.

Keep reading

President Trump’s tariffs are already having an impact.

Earlier this week, Trump announced a sweeping new trade policy that included a universal 10 percent tariff on all imports into the United States.

In addition to this baseline measure, the administration introduced a system of reciprocal tariffs targeting countries with significant trade surpluses over the U.S.

The tariffs vary in severity, with higher rates imposed on nations deemed to have particularly unbalanced trade relationships or who refuse to buy American goods.

However, many countries are already offering the U.S. concessions:

Vietnam — Following the announcement of a nearly 50 percent tariff on their imports, Vietnam has immediately entered negotiations with the White House.

President Trump reported a “very productive call” with Vietnam’s Communist Party General Secretary To Lam, during which Lam expressed a willingness to reduce tariffs to zero contingent on the signing of a free trade agreement.

India — India has initiated discussions with the U.S. to address the trade barriers.

Officials are reportedly exploring the possibility of reducing or eliminating tariffs on certain U.S. imports and increasing purchases of American goods.

Israel — Israel wants to negotiate terms and potentially secure exemptions or reductions and has already agreed to scrap all its tariffs on U.S. imports.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will further discuss the issue with Trump on Monday.

European Union (27 countries) — The EU has proposed lowering car tariffs and increasing purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment in an effort to negotiate exemptions and reductions.

Trump has long complained about the EU’s unwilligness to buy American cars.

Japan — Japan has signaled a willingness to negotiate by pledging increased imports of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) and investments in artificial intelligence.

South Korea — South Korea is looking at possible trade concessions that would involve leveraging strategic sectors like semiconductors to reach a favorable agreement.

Thailand — Facing the prospect of billions in losses, the Thai government is planning to increase imports from the U.S. and reduce tariffs on American products to address the trade imbalance. 

Keep reading

Donald Trump’s tariff policies remain a lightning rod for debate. Democrats are sounding the alarm, warning of dire economic fallout and painting a picture of looming catastrophe.

Batya Ungar-Sargon, deputy opinion editor of Newsweek, made one of the strongest, most effective cases yet for former President Donald Trump’s tariffs during the latest episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher.” She broke down exactly why these tariffs are necessary, and by the end, she left Bill Maher flustered.

Ungar-Sargon’s explanation couldn’t have been clearer: manufacturing jobs and economic nationalism are crucial for the American middle class.

When the conversation turned to the economy of the 1970s, Ungar-Sargon wasted no time explaining why so many Americans look back on that era with nostalgia. “In the ‘70s, the largest share of our GDP was in the middle class,” she said. “And that was not separate from the fact that 25% of our economy was in manufacturing.”

Maher sought clarification, asking if that meant “most of what was produced came from the middle, and now it comes from the rich.”

“Now, the top 20% controls over 50% of the GDP,” Ungar-Sargon confirmed, highlighting how economic power has been funneled away from the working class. “That manufacturing is still being done; it’s just being done in other countries.”

Maher interjected, noting that the jobs have moved overseas for “wages we will not work for.”

This, of course, is true, but it also proved Ungar-Sargon’s point.

“Yes, that’s exactly right. You’re right, Bill,” Ungar-Sargon responded. “That’s what the tariffs are for. They are to make American workers more competitive in the global market.” She then challenged the defeatist attitude that has allowed China to dominate industries once vital to the American workforce. “Why are we accepting that there should be a race to the bottom? You know, China, what is its competitive advantage over us? It’s that it pays slave wages. Why should we accept that?”

Keep reading

If Trump is to be successful as regards tariffs, he must look at President William McKinley’s successes and mistakes.

As a young, struggling congressman, William McKinley’s friend President Rutherford Hayes told him to specialize and develop expertise in tariff policy. McKinley’s first legislative effort as a congressman was to increase tariffs in 1877. McKinley rose quickly to chair of the Ways and Means Committee. McKinley was instrumental in forming a Tariff Commission and became a framer of the 1882 Tariff Bill.

His chairmanship led to the passage of the famous “McKinley” Tariff Act of 1890. The Tariff of 1890 went too far and lacked the appropriate guardrails to address inflation and potential trade wars. The 1890 Tariff roughly added a 50% tariff on all manufacturing imports. McKinley’s colleagues overruled him, following the model of tariffs as revenue producers versus McKinley’s model of protectionism for American industry. The short-term adverse effects and political impact cost McKinley and many other Republicans their seats two years later.

McKinley’s return to Congress in 1896 would be the forge for America’s first voting alliance of workingmen and manufacturing capitalists, which won him the White House twice.  

The era of McKinley tariff protection lasted from 1880 to 1920. In 1880, the American steel industry struggled to expand against British steel’s supremacy but flourished under the McKinley tariffs. Steel production went from 1.3 million tons in 1880 to 11.2 million tons in 1900 to 28.3 million tons in 1910. In 1898, the American steel industry surpassed Britain in pig iron production. The U.S. gross national product grew from an estimated $11 billion in 1880 to $18.7 billion in 1890 to $35.3 billion in 1910. The American glass industry was another struggling industry in 1880 due to imports. By 1910, the McKinley tariffs reversed the trend, and the glass industry had increased its output five to tenfold. During the peak tariff years of 1896 to 1901 under President McKinley, steel production increased 111%, electrical equipment production increased 271%, and farm equipment increased 149%. During the same period, wages increased by 10% and employment by 20%. Even more impressive to free traders, prices fell as productivity and innovation mushroomed. Macro and microeconomic data of the period continue to be debated, but McKinley won the working-class dinner table.

Keep reading