logo
Trump's tariffs are reckless – but they hold a key lesson for Democrats

Trump's tariffs are reckless – but they hold a key lesson for Democrats

The Guardian15-04-2025

To tariff or not to tariff? Today's tweet-length political discourse pretends this is a binary choice. Donald Trump has pitched across-the-board import levies as a panacea to rebuild American manufacturing, while Democrats insist the president's proposals are an attempt to crash the economy, and that their party should tout its opposition to all tariffs.
But neither the policy nor politics of this moment are that neat and simple. While too few or too many tariffs can destroy economies, there is a Goldilocks zone that's just right. It's just being omitted from the conversation.
Policy-wise, Trump's tariff-all-imports initiative lands on the 'too many' side, ignoring some basic economic realities. In offering almost no implementation period, it provides industry no grace period to actually re-shore factories and other capital-intensive operations to produce goods in the US. In applying tariffs across the board rather than in a targeted fashion, Trump's proposal makes few accommodations for commodities – from coffee and vanilla to various rare earth minerals that America cannot produce at scale within its own borders.
Trump's approach is more a power grab than a trade policy – one forcing his erratic decisions on America without the consent of Congress. The strategy allows him to reprise his practice of preserving levies that hit political opponents while granting lucrative exemptions to reward big donors and powerful industries. The likely result: unnecessarily higher prices, industry-crippling retaliation, an uncertain policy environment that paralyzes investment, ever-more rampant corruption and few enduring benefits for the domestic macroeconomy.
That said, liberals' suggestion that Trump's behavior proves all tariffs are bad and the existing tariff-free trade policy is ideal – well, lived reality belies those arguments, too.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) and the reduction of tariffs on China during the 1990s and 2000s removed a financial disincentive for companies to cut costs and boost their profits by shifting production to countries that allow workers to be exploited and the environment to be despoiled. Unsurprisingly, since the trade deals passed, the United States has lost more than 70,000 manufacturing facilities and millions of factory jobs – an economic apocalypse that coincided with an unprecedented increase in suicides, drug overdoses and other 'deaths of despair.'
For much of the working class, wage and job losses were not offset by the financial benefits of cheaper imported goods. While wealthy 'Davos Men' of the 1990s and 2000s touted the 'creative destruction' of tariff-free international commerce, legions of displaced American workers weren't afforded the robust support system (healthcare, retraining, pensions, etc) other trade-exposed countries provide. Here in the US, resources were instead spent on wars, bank bailouts and tax cuts for the rich.
Meanwhile, as pandemic shortages most recently illustrated, America's anti-tariff frenzy diminished our capacity to make necessities we shouldn't depend on other countries for.
Scoffing at such concerns, Hawaii's Democratic senator Brian Schatz recently insisted: 'It should not be a goal of our national economic policymakers that we make our own socks.' His since-deleted tweet was a glib, anti-Trump broadside against tariffs only a few years after Schatz touted his own party's use of tariffs to re-shore American jobs. Similarly, some liberal pundits have mocked the idea that America should even try to rebuild some of its manufacturing capacity.
These glib brush-offs distract from security, sovereignty and self-sufficiency problems that come with the United States now relying on other nations for everything from medical supplies and medicine to military and energy equipment to the computer chips that power the economy.
Bubbling beneath liberals' free-trade dogma is the snobby insinuation that nobody in America actually wants to work in factories – a notion egged on by Chinese AI videos. But polling cited by media, libertarians and Democratic TV influencers as alleged proof of this hypothesis actually illustrates the opposite: not only do the vast majority of Americans believe it is important for the country to rebuild its manufacturing capacity, a whopping one-fourth of the country's workers believe they would be better off if they were able to change jobs to go work in manufacturing.
Republicans looking to own the libs and Democrats aiming to demonize Trump may be at one another's throats on cable TV and social media, but they are also united in one cause: in this era that rewards partisan polarization, they are both incentivized to pretend there's no middle ground between Maga's blanket tariffs that threaten an immediate national recession and liberals' free trade fundamentalism that caused permanent Depression-like conditions in the heartland.
Left unsaid in all of the political noise is the Goldilocks zone when it comes to trade: targeted tariffs in conjunction with other investment policies can create a more comprehensive industrial policy – which absolutely can create conditions to begin rebuilding American industry and boost manufacturing employment.
That's not a theory. It's exactly what started happening just before Trump's second term.
Once a doctrinaire free trader, Joe Biden as president championed a mix of carefully calibrated tax incentives, spending programs, and – yes – tariffs. He and his administration did a terrible job of publicizing the policy's triumph – but it was working. During Biden's term, the United States added more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs, far outpacing Trump's first term. Many of the jobs and factory investments occurred in Republican-dominated states that had been hammered by past free trade policies.
'Democrats should embrace tariffs as one component of a broader industrial strategy to revitalize American manufacturing and make whole communities that have been hollowed out by decades of bad trade policy,' the Pennsylvania representative Chris Deluzio recently wrote in an op-ed.
Deluzio, who represents the kind of swing district Democrats often lose, added on X: 'President Trump's tariff approach has been chaotic and inconsistent … But the answer isn't to condemn all tariffs. That risks putting the Democrats even further out of touch with the hard-working people who used to be the lifeblood of the party. If you oppose all tariffs, you're signaling that you're comfortable with exploited foreign workers making your stuff at the expense of American workers. I'm not, and neither are most voters.'
Despite echoing what had been the core economic doctrines of the most recent Democratic White House, Deluzio was promptly dogpiled by liberals and so-called Never Trump Republicans – some of whom called for him to be primaried and thrown out of Congress.
Those criticizing Deluzio, Michigan's Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer, and other Democrats staking out a middle-ground position on tariffs see this as a with-us-or-against-us political litmus test. But populist Democrats, rather than their free trade absolutist critics, are not only right on the policy merits, but also more in touch with the nuanced politics of the issue.
When trade policy became a high-profile national issue in the 1990s, the Democratic president Bill Clinton broke with unions and pushed Nafta, which delivered Democrats a jackpot of campaign cash from business donors. But the move so alienated working-class voters that some of the most consistently Democratic congressional districts quickly became the most reliably Republican in the country, according to a recent study by Princeton, Stanford and Yale researchers.
Three decades later, as trade once again takes center stage, polls suggest a similar dynamic at play. Survey data shows a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with how Trump is using tariffs and how he is managing the economy – and Democrats are smart to home in on that line of criticism.
But data also show that for the first time in generations, Republicans have equaled Democrats when voters are asked which party 'cares more about the needs and problems of people like you'.
The takeaway: voters perceive Trump's tariff gambit as a policy initiative but also as a values statement. They rightly oppose Trump's specific form of tariffs, but they also seem to see the debate as a deeper 'which side are you on' litmus test. However dishonest and fraudulent Trump's particular tariff sales pitch is, his advocacy for an entirely different trade paradigm is designed to signal to America's working class that – unlike past presidents – he hears their long-ignored grievances since Nafta began laying waste to their communities.
Put another way: Trump's trade war is part of his larger culture war.
In a recent Lever Time interview, the United Automobile Workers president, Shawn Fain, summed up the discordant political moment. His union endorsed former vice-president Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, and Fain has critiqued both Trump's across-the-board tariffs and his labor policies. But Fain has also endorsed Trump's targeted auto industry tariffs and credited the president with centering trade policy as a priority, suggesting that was one reason nearly half of his union's members voted for Trump in the last election.
'In my first 28 years as a UAW member working at Chrysler, all I saw was plants close year after year, and I feel a rage,' said Fain, who donned a 'Ross Perot Was Right' T-shirt during the interview. 'And so when you see a person like Donald Trump come along and start talking about tariffs and trade and people still are threatening their plants being closed, that spoke to people.'
A generation ago, Democrats seemed to appreciate the reality described by Fain – and they seemed to understand the error of their free-trade ways.
'We can't keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result – because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing,' said Barack Obama in his 2008 presidential campaign. 'It's a game where trade deals like Nafta ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Walmart. That's what happens when the American worker doesn't have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that's why we need a president who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a president who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard.'
Obama's populism delivered Democrats a huge electoral victory that year, including in major industrial swing states. But as president, he quickly betrayed his promises to create fairer trade policies, instead championing more Nafta-style trade deals – thus giving Trump a political weapon to bludgeon Democrats with and win his first presidential term.
Nearly a decade later, Trump no doubt hopes his tariffs will recreate his 2016 magic, goading his opponents into defending the trade status quo while he bills himself as a populist.
Democrats don't have to take the bait – they can and should hammer his economic record and his particular use of tariffs, but they also must finally break with the free-trade orthodoxy that has electorally devastated their party and economically destroyed so much of America.
David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an award-winning investigative journalist. He is an editor at large at Jacobin, and the founder of the Lever. He served as Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign speechwriter.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump reveals the advice he gave Barron about drugs and tattoos
Trump reveals the advice he gave Barron about drugs and tattoos

Daily Mail​

time21 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Trump reveals the advice he gave Barron about drugs and tattoos

President Donald Trump revealed his 'formula for good parenting' as 19-year-old Barron wraps up his first year in college. 'I always said the same thing. I said: no drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes. I also would say don't get tattoos, but I don't say it too strongly, because a lot of people have gotten tattoos, and that's what they choose to do,' Trump told The New York Post in a podcast interview released Wednesday. Many of the president's supporters at rallies sport tattoos and even some members of Trump's Cabinet, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The 78-year-old president has made a point of not drinking, as his older brother, Fred Trump Jr., suffered from alcoholism and died young, at age 42. He boasted that his five children - Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany and Barron - were 'born smart.' 'Barron is great. He is very tall and good,' the president said of his youngest, his only child with first lady Melania Trump. The president also revealed the sad reason why Barron was drawn to studying at New York University - he thought his late grandmother would live nearby. 'He just wanted to be there,' Trump said. 'He wanted to be there because his grandmother was gonna stay and wait for him in an apartment near the school. And she passed away.' Barron Trump is spotted leaving class at New York University last month. President Donald Trump said his 'formula for good parenting' was to tell his broad to avoid alcohol, cigarettes, drugs and even tattoos Melania's mother Amalija Knavs died in January 2024 at the age of 78. 'She was fantastic. Melania's mother was a fantastic woman. And Melania is a fantastic mother, by the way. She loves Baron,' Trump said. 'He's very tall and he's a good-looking guy.' Barron started at NYU as a freshman later in the year. Trump said he warned his son 'a little bit' about 'all the lefty professors' at the school. During the 2024 cycle, Barron, at that point 18, popped his head up more on the campaign trail. He attended his first Trump rally at his father's Doral golf club in Miami in July - the rally the Republican nominee attended before the Butler, Pennsylvania event where he was nearly assassinated. Barron also pushed his father to appear on particular podcasts, which likely helped the president increase his strength among the young male vote - a bloc Democrats usually overwhelmingly win. Trump lauded his other children in the interview too. 'Eric has done a fantastic job,' the president said. 'Ivanka, you know Ivanka? Yes. Very well. She's so great,' he continued. 'And Tiffany has done really well,' he said. She went to a great law school and did very well. Always a good student.' Eric Trump, and brother Donald Trump Jr., have been inking deals as the heads of the Trump Organization, while Ivanka has stepped back from the political limelight, after working in the first Trump administration. She did travel with her father over the weekend. Tiffany Trump had her first child, a son, in May. But it's Donald Trump Jr. who's most often referenced when there's talk of a Trump dynasty. Trump wasn't sure if Don Jr. would ever run for president. 'I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I think all of them probably have a future in politics, frankly. And Don is very good. A good guy. He's an outdoorsman,' the president said.

Head of controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation refuses to reveal who funds it
Head of controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation refuses to reveal who funds it

NBC News

time28 minutes ago

  • NBC News

Head of controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation refuses to reveal who funds it

TEL AVIV — The new executive chairman for the controversial American-backed humanitarian organization distributing aid in the Gaza Strip refused to reveal the donors who are financing the agency, though he did tell NBC News that to his knowledge the group is not funded by the Israeli government. Johnnie Moore, an evangelical Christian and former PR consultant who advised President Donald Trump during his first term, was appointed executive chairman of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) last week as the organization reeled from the resignation of his predecessor. It has also faced criticism from the United Nations and aid groups for a lack of independence from Israel, which backs the organization along with the U.S. Since it started operating late last month, the group has set up aid distribution sites in Gaza in response to international pressure over serious malnutrition in Gaza, where Israel recently lifted an 11-week complete blockade on food, aid and medical supplies entering the enclave. But regular bouts of deadly violence in and around those sites has also brought increasing scrutiny on the GHF's source of funding and the degree of autonomy it has from Israel. In an exclusive interview with NBC News last week, Moore said it was 'a private foundation.' 'Like lots of private foundations, you know, it doesn't disclose its donors,' he said. 'Anything that we do and anything that we say publicly is going to distract from the mission, and we have one mission, just one mission, which is to feed Gazans.' Pressed on accusations that Israel was financing and controlling the organization, Moore said that 'based upon what I know, this is an independent initiative that is not funded by the Israeli government.' Other questions have also swirled around the GHF, even before it launched four aid distribution points in southern and central Gaza. A day before it began operations in the strip, Moore's predecessor Jake Wood resigned, saying in a letter published by Reuters that continuing to work with the group would compromise his 'neutrality, impartiality and independence.' United Nations agencies and major aid groups that previously ran hundreds of community kitchens and bakeries in the enclave have also refused to cooperate with it, saying it violates humanitarian principles by allowing Israel to decide who receives aid, forces widespread displacement in Gaza, and concentrates distribution in areas that may not be accessible to everyone. Setting up so few sites for food distribution meant crowd control problems were inevitable, according to Ciaran Donnelly, the senior vice president for international programs at the International Rescue Committee, which ran major relief operations in Gaza. 'No aid organization would recommend doing it that way,' he said. Inside Israel, as well, critics have questioned its independence. Last month in front of Israel's legislature, opposition leader Yair Lapid, without providing evidence, accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government of funding the GHF through foreign shell companies. And last week, citing unnamed public officials, Israel's public broadcaster, Kan, reported that the Israeli government had sent hundreds of millions of shekels to the group. Israel's government has repeatedly denied it funds the GHF. Any organization 'being used by occupying powers' would not be able to carry out its task according to the humanitarian principles of impartiality and independence, said Philip Grant, the executive director of TRIAL International, a Geneva-based nongovernmental organization that advocates for victims of war crimes. TRIAL International has called on the Swiss government to investigate GHF, whose only registered presence outside the U.S. is in Geneva. While the GHF has said it is working to open new sites, including in northern Gaza, no such distribution points have opened yet, forcing some Palestinians with advanced injuries and disabilities to walk long distances for aid — often through dangerous areas and extreme heat. Such onerous requirements for something as basic as food could amount to war crimes, Grant said, and could even lead to accusations that organizations like GHF are complicit. 'This operation comes with a huge risk in terms of violations of the Geneva Conventions,' Grant said. 'Especially the forced displacement of populations, which, if carried out, would be a participation in the war crime of enforced displacement of civilian population.'

Dan Bongino wants to move FBI training program from iconic Quantico HQ to Alabama: report
Dan Bongino wants to move FBI training program from iconic Quantico HQ to Alabama: report

The Independent

time28 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Dan Bongino wants to move FBI training program from iconic Quantico HQ to Alabama: report

Leaders in the FBI are reportedly pushing to move one of the bureau's training programs from its headquarters in Quantico, Virginia, to Huntsville, Alabama, as part of President Donald Trump's desire to move federal agencies out of the Washington D.C. area. Dan Bongino, the FBI deputy director, has preliminarily proposed moving the FBI National Academy, a 10-week training academy for 250 domestic and international law enforcement officers, to Huntsville, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday. The FBI's training program for new bureau hires and other parts of its facilities, including the laboratory division, would remain at Quantico, people familiar with the discussion told The Post. While the proposal is still in preliminary stages, it aligns with Trump's April deadline asking agencies to create plans to move their headquarters from Washington D.C., to separate areas of the country to ' be where the people are.' However, the push to move to Huntsville, the most populous city in Alabama, has drawn criticism from some personnel who believe the move could be unjustifiably costly, The Post reported. While the FBI has operated at Redstone Arsenal, a U.S. Army base near downtown Huntsville, for decades, some expressed concern that sending hundreds of staff and agents to set up the training facility would require upgrades. 'If you look at FBI field offices, for example, you'll see many that are not located in downtown areas given the highly specialized nature of these facilities and their security requirements,' Norman Dong, the former Public Buildings Service commissioner under the Obama administration, told Federal News Network in April. 'In places like Atlanta or Sacramento, these FBI offices are located far outside of the central city,' Dong added. The FBI Academy is currently located in Quantico, a town in Prince William County, Virginia, which is approximately 35 miles outside of D.C. A spokesperson for the FBI said that any relocation options were being evaluated to determine if it could save the bureau money while also serving as a sufficient facility. Since Trump took office in January, the bureau has undergone significant changes, beginning with its leadership. Trump nominated Kash Patel to serve as FBI director despite Patel having a history of taking controversial pro-Trump stances. The president then tapped Bongino, a former Secret Service agent who became a popular right-wing podcaster, as deputy director. After Patel was sworn in, he said he would relocate roughly 1,000 staff and agents out of the D.C. office and said he'd move 500 people to the Huntsville facility so the FBI could have more of a presence in other cities. Trump proposed moving federal buildings and agencies outside of D.C. during his first administration, but the plan did not have immense success, in part due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Trump moved the Bureau of Land Management's headquarters from D.C. to Grand Junction, Colorado in 2019 so it could be closer to the land it manages. However, a review by the Biden administration found that the move caused more than 80 percent of the agency's employees to leave. Eventually, the headquarters were restored back to Washington D.C.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store