logo
Trump's tariffs are hurting Tennesseans and the local economy. Here's how

Trump's tariffs are hurting Tennesseans and the local economy. Here's how

Yahoo06-05-2025

U.S. Representative John Rose argues in his recent Tennessean op-ed that Tennessee's manufacturing sector thrives under President Donald Trump's economic policies, celebrating his tariffs as a boon for local producers.
Yet over 1,700 economists disagree, seeing no credible economic justification for tariffs, and warning that they will only prop up inefficient producers at the expense of more efficient industries. This will undermine economic efficiency, employment, and wage growth here in Tennessee.
Economists aren't convinced by any of the three justifications the Trump Administration advances for tariffs. More concerning, however, is that each one is mutually exclusive, meaning Trump can't possibly pursue more than one of these goals without undermining the other two.
If Trump's goal is job protectionism, then tariffs must be high enough to force Americans to buy American. However, this means no tariff revenues will be collected because Americans will not purchase foreign goods. If revenue is the goal, then tariffs must be low enough so Americans will still pay the tax, which means they will not protect American jobs. If negotiation towards free trade is the goal, then neither job nor revenue objectives will be achieved.
Let's assess why economists don't buy Trump's justifications for tariffs:
Tariffs cause job loss, not protection
Tariffs protect some American jobs in a few sectors by destroying far more American jobs in other sectors.
Dockworkers, truckers, and delivery drivers are the first Americans to lose their jobs under tariffs. Next comes job losses at American firms that import inputs, such as materials, parts, and compounds, to produce goods and services.
Advocacy group Farmers for Free Trade on Thursday, March 6 held a panel discussion with Tennessee business leaders and experts to discuss the potential impacts of trade conflict and tariffs on local businesses, farmers, distillers and construction professionals.
Nearly 60% of our imports are inputs, so tariffs will substantially raise costs for American companies. These costs will be passed along to consumers, resulting in fewer sales and, thus, job loss. For instance, steel tariffs to protect jobs in the steel industry caused massive job losses in the American automobile, motorcycle, and farming equipment sectors.
Propping up inefficient firms at the expense of efficient firms also undermines the market incentives for innovation, hard work, and cost-cutting that drive American prosperity.
Tariffs slash foreign investment in the American economy
When Americans buy fewer foreign goods, fewer US dollars are supplied to foreign markets, making the dollar appreciate against other currencies. Americans often fail to realize that when they buy a foreign product, those dollars return to the U.S. and are used to buy American goods and services, including tourism and higher education, and to fuel investment in our economy.
Opinion: Trump is wrong. He has no voter mandate for his wrecking ball policies.
But tariffs make American goods and services more expensive, hurting our exporting industries and reducing foreign investment in our country. Retaliatory tariffs, which can be expected, only serve to amplify these losses.
Tariffs cost Americans money
Tariffs are a tax paid by American consumers, and they can't be evaded by simply buying American. To meet the increased demand for American goods, American producers must expand production by bidding up the cost of resources, such as materials and labor, from other American companies.
Tariffs tend to be a regressive tax because a set tax will fall heavier on the budgets of the poor than the wealthy. And the hope that tariffs will replace the income tax is a delusion. No credible estimates come even close to raising enough revenue.
Tariffs erode America's goodwill with other countries
No matter what index of tariffs or non-tariff barriers you look at, the World Trade Organization, Heritage Foundation, or the Fraser Institute, America has some of the highest tariffs and non-tariff barriers among our major trading partners.
Combined with the fact that we are by far the world's richest large nation—having 26% of the world's GDP despite only 4% of the world's population—it is absurd to think we are being taken advantage of by trading partners.
Trump started negotiations not by lowering our tariffs to match our trading partners but by jacking them up across the board. He ripped up previous trade agreements, including one he signed and declared 'the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement' ever. That is hardly starting off negotiating in good faith.
We tend to forget that mutually beneficial trade is between people, not governments, so even if a deal is inked, it doesn't mean that our trading partners have the money to purchase our high-end exports. Countries like India, China, and Vietnam—with per capita GDPs of only $2,500, $12,500, and $4,300 (compared to nearly $83,000 for the US)—won't be buying our automobiles anytime soon. With foreigners boycotting American goods worldwide, it is also unclear whether trade deals will convince foreigners to buy American again, an effect that could last years.
Here's how Trump's tariffs impact Tennessee directly
Tennessee's economy, heavily tied to manufacturing and exports, suffers from these ripple effects.
The state exported nearly $40 billion in goods in 2024, including $4.25 billion in medical instruments, $2.63 billion in automobiles, and $2.26 billion in computers. And roughly 1/5th of Tennessee's jobs are driven by international trade.
But Trump's 2025 'Liberation Day' tariffs can be expected to slash exports, raise input costs, and reduce competitiveness for firms like Nissan in Smyrna, Jack Daniels in Lynchburg, or Bridgestone in La Vergne. A recent Goldman Sachs report estimated that a 10% tariff alone could destroy five U.S. jobs for every job created, even without retaliation.
The support for tariffs is driven by a misunderstanding that the U.S. no longer manufactures anything. This is nonsense. The U.S. is manufacturing more than it ever has in inflation-adjusted terms. We are the second-largest exporter of manufactured goods in the world and the largest exporter of services.
We are losing jobs in manufacturing, but this is driven primarily by automation, not international trade. Automation is allowing people worldwide to move out of mundane, low-skilled jobs. This affords people the occupational choice to pursue meaningful work and leads to the wide variety of goods and services we enjoy.
And service jobs produce our most valuable resource: time. As Americans get wealthy enough, we use some of that increased purchasing power to free up more time for family and fun.
Tennesseans deserve policies that enhance, not erode, their economic edge. Trump's tariffs threaten higher consumer prices, fewer jobs, and a weaker future. We should reject the 'ripped off' myth and embrace the open trade that powers Tennessee's prosperity.
This is a photo of Daniel Smith, Director of the Political Economy Research Institute and Professor of Economics at Middle Tennessee State University.
Daniel J. Smith is the Director of the Political Economy Research Institute and Professor of Economics at Middle Tennessee State University.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: There is no economic justification for Trump's tariffs | Opinion

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services

time16 minutes ago

Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Association to halt the Trump administration's further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress. But in Friday's ruling, Leon wrote that as much as the 'Court laments the Executive Branch's efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,' recent court decisions suggested that the case should be heard in a separate court dedicated to contractual claims. He cited the Supreme Court's decision allowing the administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money despite a lower court order barring the cuts, saying that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the institute after President Donald Trump signed a March 14 executive order that refers to it and several other federal agencies as 'unnecessary.' The agency's appointed acting director then placed many agency staff members on administrative leave, sent termination notices to most of them, began canceling grants and contracts and fired all members of the National Museum and Library Services Board. The institute has roughly 75 employees and issued more than $266 million in grants last year. However, a Rhode Island judge's order prohibiting the government from shutting down the museum and library services institute in a separate case brought by several states remains in place. The administration is appealing that order as well.

California professor sues university over suspension for online comments on Gaza
California professor sues university over suspension for online comments on Gaza

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

California professor sues university over suspension for online comments on Gaza

A professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco filed a lawsuit Wednesday, alleging that the university violated her freedom of speech by suspending her for her online comments on Israel's war in Gaza, according to court documents. Rupa Marya's social media posts included expressing 'solidarity with the hospitals and healthcare workers that Israel was attacking in Gaza,' according to court documents. The complaint stated that Marya 'felt an obligation to speak out and did so using her X account.' Israel's war in Gaza has left more than 52,000 people dead since Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas militants killed 1,200 people in Israel and took 251 people hostage. Israel has received intense criticism from around the world, including from the United Nations, for its actions in Gaza. 'Firing Dr. Marya doesn't only violate her right to free speech, it threatens all of us,' attorney Mark Kleiman said in a statement. 'We all need to urgently speak up against these kinds of attacks on our basic rights to advocate for justice, and we expect the Court will agree with us that Dr. Marya's rights have been violated and must be remedied.' Marya was placed on leave in September 2024 and her clinical privileges were suspended by the UCSF Executive Medical Board on Oct. 1. The board called her a 'possible imminent danger' and cited social media posts, according to court documents. Her privileges were reinstated on Oct. 15. According to court documents, Marya received 'rape and death threats' as well as 'repeated harassment and threats' because of her posts, according to court documents. Before her suspension, Marya had several interactions with the university regarding her online activity. In November 2023, the dean of UCSF's School of Medicine notified Marya that the school would be assessing whether her social media activity violated university policies. In response to one of Marya's social media threads that went viral in January 2024, UCSF posted a statement regarding a circulating 'conspiracy theory.' 'Although the statement did not name Dr. Marya, Dr. Robert Wachter acknowledged in an email that it was in direct response referring to Dr. Marya's social media thread from January 2,' the complaint claimed. 'UCSF's January 6 statement accused Dr. Marya of promoting a 'racist' and 'antisemitic' 'conspiracy theory.'' According to court documents, Marya's posts "never impeded the performance of her duties as a physician or faculty member, or the regular operation of the University.' 'As a medical doctor, American citizen and as a person of South Asian descent raised in the Sikh religious tradition, Dr. Marya has long been concerned about American foreign policy, including in the Middle East and the issues surrounding the conflict between Israel and Palestine,' the complaint reads. 'Her posts take aim at state policy and supremacist political ideologies, not at any religious or ethnic group.' A spokesperson for the University of California, San Francisco said that because of privacy laws, the school is unable to comment on the lawsuit. Marya completed her residency in internal medicine at the University of California at San Francisco in 2007, was subsequently offered employment and joined the faculty. For the past five years, however, Marya had no teaching duties and focused exclusively on patient care in the non-teaching hospital medicine services, according to court documents. Marya was also appointed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to the Healthy California for All Commission in 2021, an initiative to advance a system for universal healthcare in the state. This article was originally published on

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report.

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