Opinion: Trump tariffs part of a longer-term trend
'Individual ambition serves the common good,' wrote Adam Smith, masterful 18th-century analyst of the emerging Industrial Revolution. Free trade that is also fair trade reinforces the modern division of labor.
From early in World War II, the United States led a broad movement toward freer trade that has been the foundation of our unprecedented postwar prosperity. That may be changing. President Donald Trump's tariff moves are distinctively dramatic, but are part of a longer-term trend.
Protectionism has been growing since the last phase of the Obama administration. The administration's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty negotiations initially garnered strong bipartisan support, but 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and others ultimately opposed the treaty.
Eventually, the TPP and the similar Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) were sidelined.
These regional negotiations followed several important bilateral trade agreements. In 2011, after four years' delay, the U.S. Congress ratified free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Approval was timed to coincide with the visit of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. The largest bilateral trade agreement in history ended tariffs on more than 90% of trade categories between the two nations.
South Korea reflects other Asian economies in abandoning previous protectionism designed to shelter promising but weak domestic enterprises. Following the Korean War, the nation was among the poorest in the world, but today ranks among the richest and most productive economies in the world.
These trade agreements also generated bipartisan congressional support. Normally warring Democrats and Republicans found temporary consensus on international trade.
After World War II, regular comprehensive international negotiations greatly expanded trade in both goods and services. The limited Dillon Round during the Eisenhower administration was followed by the Kennedy Round, a comprehensive reduction in trade barriers completed in 1967. Sentimental but also substantive reasons led to naming these breakthrough negotiations for the assassinated president, who initiated the effort and secured fast track authority from Congress.
The landmark Kennedy achievement was followed by the Tokyo Round, completed in the 1970s, and the Uruguay Round in the 1980s. The Uruguay Round during the Reagan administration, spearheaded by U.S. Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter, was a major success. The current Doha Round, expanded to include developing nations, is stalled by vexing agriculture issues separating Africa and Europe.
In 1944 at Bretton Woods New Hampshire, in the midst of global war, the Allies hammered out the post-war economic structure, to operate under the UN — the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), enacted in 1948, became the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. Functions of the institutions have changed, but the structures have proven remarkably durable. Those leaders planned long-term.
The original United Nations vision was in the Atlantic Charter, announced by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt after their epic Newfoundland summit several months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. In his comprehensive history of the Second World War, Churchill notes that he wrote the first draft of the Charter.
Adam Smith and others realized free trade was related to political freedom. His classic 'The Wealth of Nations' was published in 1776, the same year the American Revolution began.
Trump's tariffs hearken back to an earlier period, when the modern U.S. economy was emerging. Economic realities are different now. Protectionist trends are present, but powerful international realities have not changed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
14 minutes ago
- CBS News
GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Washington — The White House and Republican leaders in Congress are urging lawmakers to quickly get behind the centerpiece of President Trump's legislative agenda, saying the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles adds urgency to the push to secure additional resources for border security. House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X on Monday that the legislation, which addresses Mr. Trump's tax, energy and immigration priorities, "provides the ESSENTIAL funding needed to secure our nation[']s borders." Republicans call the legislation the "one big, beautiful bill." "The lawlessness happening in LA is ANOTHER reason why we need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill IMMEDIATELY," Johnson said, pledging that Congress will support Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who he said are "fighting to keep Americans safe against illegal aliens AND the radical left." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a similar message earlier Monday, saying the scenes unfolding in some areas of Los Angeles "prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources." "America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country," Leavitt said in a post on X. "That's why President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill funds at least one million annual removals and hires 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents." Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Trump's agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025, in Washington, legislation is now in the hands of the Senate after the House narrowly approved it last month following weeks of intraparty disagreement over its components. Though the bulk of the funding allocated in the legislation goes toward tax cuts, it also includes resources aimed at bolstering border security and defense. It provides $46.5 billion for the border wall, $4.1 billion to hire Border Patrol agents and other personnel and more than $2 billion for signing and retention bonuses for agents. It also imposes an additional $1,000 fee for people who are filing for asylum in the U.S. The disagreement among Republicans over the bill has largely centered on cuts meant to offset the bill's spending, including restrictions to Medicaid. In the House's razor-thin GOP majority, the disagreements threatened to tank the bill's progress at every stage. And as the bill moved to the Senate for consideration last week, Johnson warned the upper chamber against making significant changes that would throw off the delicate balance. Senate Republicans initially voiced support for separating the complicated tax components and border security provisions into two separate bills to deliver Mr. Trump a victory on immigration early on in his tenure. But House Republicans opposed the approach, expressing doubts that the president's agenda could pass through the narrow GOP majority in the lower chamber in separate parts. Senate Republicans are now seeking to amend the House-passed bill, sending it back to the House for approval with a goal of getting the legislation to the president's desk by the July 4 holiday. And with a 53-seat majority, the upper chamber can afford to lose just three Republicans. Last week, opposition from Elon Musk threatened to throw a wrench into the legislation's progress, after he stoked concerns by fiscal hawks about the bill's impact on the deficit. The episode, which began with Musk calling the bill "a disgusting abomination," erupted into a dramatic and public feud between Musk and the president last week. But the dispute did not appear to spark significant new opposition the the bill in Congress. The urgency expressed Monday surrounding securing additional border resources comes as Mr. Trump called for the National Guard to enforce order in the L.A. area amid protests over activity by ICE, prompting a clash with California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom warned that the move would inflame the situation, while urging that there is no shortage of law enforcement. The governor indicated late Sunday that his office plans to sue the Trump administration over Mr. Trump's move. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the president's move on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday, claiming Newsom "has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that [Newsom] makes bad decisions, and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Gov. Newsom to get some sanity," Noem added.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' includes 5-year investment in kids
(NewsNation) — President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' has touched on several facets he feels will help the American people presently and in the future, including investing in the country's youth. Trump on Monday plans to highlight the 'Trump Account,' in which the federal government would make a one-time contribution of $1,000 into a tax-deferred, low-cost index fund account that will track the overall stock market to every U.S. citizen born between Jan. 1, 2024, and Jan. 1, 2029. The accounts will be private property controlled by the child's guardians. Trump's big bill also seeks to undo the big bills of Biden and Obama The accounts will begin at $1,000 per child, with the opportunity to contribute an additional $5,000 yearly throughout the child's life. Several business leaders — including those from Dell, Uber and Goldman Sachs — have announced billions of dollars in collective investments into 'Trump Accounts' for the children of their employees. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump Could Use The Insurrection Act To Deploy Troops In LA
As protests continue to flare in Los Angeles over the Trump administration carrying out immigration raids and deploying National Guard troops to the area, President Donald Trump has floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act over objections from California's governor and the mayor of LA. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which generally gives the president the authority to quell rebellion or unrest by deploying the military, would be an escalation of the administration's actions so far in California. On Saturday, Trump deployed at least 300 National Guard troops to downtown Los Angeles after thousands of protesters took to the streets. They largely concentrated themselves in the city's garment district, where federal agents had started conducting raids for undocumented workers on Friday. According to the Department of Homeland Security, rioters assaulted multiple ICE officers, 'slashed tires, defaced buildings and taxpayer funded property,' the agency said in a statement on Saturday. (The agency also singled out several Democratic lawmakers, accusing them of 'villainizing and demonizing' ICE agents.) Local news station KTLA reported Monday that at least five LAPD officers have been injured, requiring medical care. Six other officers experienced minor injuries that did require hospitalization. Many protesters were not violent nor particularly destructive, but some individuals lobbed rocks and fireworks at police, or set driverless cars on fire. Los Angeles police made roughly 150 arrests on Sunday, according to The New York Times. Law enforcement used flash-bangs and rubber bullets against protesters. During a live broadcast on Sunday, police hit a journalist in the leg with a rubber bullet. Trump signed a proclamation late Saturday that mobilized the Guard to respond to protests against the raids, claiming the demonstrations interfered with the 'faithful execution of federal immigration laws.' As tensions escalated on Sunday, the Pentagon said it was prepared to send in at least 500 active U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. Trump's proclamation is not an invocation of the Insurrection Act but instead relies on Title 10, or 10 USC 12406, a federal code that allows him to wield his authority as president to federalize the National Guard but only under very limited circumstances. Those circumstances include: an actual foreign invasion or the threat of a foreign invasion, an actual or threatened rebellion against 'the authority of the government of the United States,' or when the president is unable to executive the nation's laws with 'regular forces.' Before boarding Air Force One on Sunday, Trump was asked by reporters whether he intended to invoke the Insurrection Act outright. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' he said, adding that he wouldn't let protesters 'get away with it.' 'We're not going to let them get away with it. We're going to have troops everywhere, we're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart,' Trump said. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have objected to the White House's use of the National Guard, and Newsom has said he intends to sue the administration. Newsom called the move by Trump to federalize California's National Guard 'purposefully inflammatory.' Typically, it is a state's governor who has control over that state's Guard, not the federal government. And notably, within Trump's proclamation is language that appears to clarify this. Under Title 10, the president is allowed to call the Guard into federal service in any state but 'orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States.' The Insurrection Act of 1807 — which is a bit of a misnomer since it is actually a combination of several statutes enacted by Congress from 1792 to 1871 — is a federal law that gives the president the power to deploy the military or National Guard to put down domestic rebellions, uprisings or other fits of civil unrest. The act uses Congress' constitutional authority to 'provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.' When the Insurrection Act is invoked, it suspends the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the military from getting involved in local or state law enforcement. Invoking the law is rare; it has occurred just 30 times in history. The last time was in 1992 as riots gripped Los Angeles following the acquittal of police officers accused of viciously beating Rodney King and California's governor called on then-President George H.W. Bush for help. Trump floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act in 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis sparked a wave of nationwide protests, most of which were peaceful. Martial law and the Insurrection Act are not one and the same. The Insurrection Act is invoked, typically, to have the military assist civilian law enforcement. Martial law refers to when the military becomes enforcers of local and state laws. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the president can unilaterally declare martial law or whether he would need Congress to approve the declaration. A president can use the Insurrection Act in a number of ways. For example, its provisions state that troops can be deployed under the act regardless of whether a state asks for them to be sent there. And the law cites various reasons presidents may send them. Troops can be deployed to quell violent unrest or to simply enforce federal law in a given locality. (The latest president to invoke the Insurrection Act against a state's will was Lyndon Johnson when he federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights protesters that marched from Selma to Montgomery.) The president does not need congressional approval to invoke the Insurrection Act, though he is required to at least issue a proclamation first that demands anyone causing unrest leave that area before troops are sent in. Many provisions built into the Insurrection Act are vague. One statute gives the president the right to suppress rebellion, domestic violence or some 'unlawful combination or conspiracy' in any state impeding U.S. law. Conspiracy is not defined in this Insurrection Act statute, meaning, as the Brennan Center for Justice notes, this provision under the Insurrection Act umbrella could be interpreted to mean that the president can use military force against any two people he thinks are conspiring to break the law. Trump Sets National Guard On Los Angeles As Protesters Counter Immigration Raids: Live Updates California Governor Plans To File Lawsuit Against Trump Over National Guard Deployment To Protests 'Arrest Me, Let's Go': Newsom Punches Back At Trump Border Czar Kamala Harris Torches Trump Over 'Cruel, Calculated' Move Targeting Los Angeles Trump Deploys National Guard As Los Angeles Protests Against Immigration Agents Continue