logo
The hidden moral cost of America's tariff crisis

The hidden moral cost of America's tariff crisis

Gulf Today6 days ago

In the spring of 2025, as American families struggle with unprecedented consumer costs, we find ourselves at a point of "moral reckoning." The latest data from the Yale Budget Lab reveals that tariff policies have driven consumer prices up by 2.9% in the short term.
In comparison, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projects a staggering 6% reduction in long-term GDP and a 5% decline in wages. But these numbers, stark as they are, tell only part of the story.
The actual narrative is one of moral choice and democratic values. Eddie Glaude describes this way in his book 'Democracy in Black': Our economic policies must be viewed through the lens of ethical significance — not just market efficiency. When we examine the tariff regime's impact on American communities, we see economic data points and a fundamental challenge to our democratic principles of equity and justice.
Far too often, the burden of such policies falls disproportionately on those who are least able to bear it. Black Enterprise reports that Black-owned businesses face a dual challenge: economic survival and preserving their role as community anchors. The average American household is preparing to shoulder an additional $3,800 annual costs.
Still, this figure masks a more profound inequity — BIPOC communities and working-class families spend a higher percentage of their income on consumer goods, meaning they bear a disproportionate share of the tariff burden. The state of our economic solvency is particularly crucial because it intersects with a concept known as the 'value gap."
The value gap is a premise that white(ness) lives are valued more than others, which Gluade argues remains embedded in our economic and legislative policies. Trump's enacted tariffs' disparate impact on ethnic and uniquely diverse-owned businesses isn't merely coincidental; it reflects more profound structural inequities in our financial system.
Small businesses, particularly those in marginalized communities, face existential threats. According to Small Business Majority, 53% of small companies are concerned about tariffs' negative impacts. These aren't just statistics — they represent community pillars, generational wealth builders, and engines of local economic mobility. Adherence to a moral imperative requires us to move beyond purely economic calculations. It invites deeply reflective and prophetic questioning of ourselves and our systems. We must ask: What kind of society do we wish to be? How do our trade policies reflect our values? The answer lies not in protectionist rhetoric but in "democratic practices" — policies that strengthen communities rather than fracture them. Many economists forecast that 72% of small businesses anticipate higher prices; we are not just seeing market dynamics at work. The country is witnessing the erosion of community resilience, the narrowing of economic opportunity, and the weakening of social bonds that sustain democratic life. Finding sound solutions requires reimagining our economic policies through a moral lens and prioritizing equity and community well-being. Hence, developing trade policies that:
* Recognize the interconnected nature of economic justice and democratic health
* Account for disparate impacts on marginalized communities
* Support rather than undermine local economic ecosystems
* Prioritise long-term community stability over short-term political gains
The potential impact of the proposed tariff on US communities and consumers could not result in economic consequences. Such tariffs bring to bear a moral crisis that demands a response grounded in principled and practical solutions. Pathways forward are possible with increased economic adjustments; they fundamentally rethink how we value community, equity, and democratic participation in financial decisions. A democracy's economy ought to be more than just market efficiency. It should be morally courageous and committed to shared prosperity.
Fierce debate over Trump-era tariffs transcends mere spreadsheets and GDP calculations. It is not an argument about trade deficits or quarterly economic indicators — it's a mirror reflecting our national identity and core values. When leaders indiscriminately slap tariffs on steel from Canada or solar panels from China, we're not just adjusting numbers on a balance sheet but making profound statements about how we view our place in the global community. Unfortunately, protectionist policies often hit hardest in unexpected places: the main street's mom & pop shops, rural American manufacturers who can't afford higher material costs, the local farmer watching crops rot because their usual markets have vanished, or the single parent facing steeper prices at the grocery store. Instead of retreating behind economic walls, policies that match the complexity of our times are essential — policies that protect American workers while staying true to our traditions of innovation, fair play, and economic opportunity for all. We are left to choose between continuing in a direction that exacerbates economic inequality and community fragmentation or embracing a vision of monetary policy as a moral practice that strengthens our democratic fabric while ensuring no community bears an unjust burden in our pursuit of economic security.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US suspends student visa processing in fresh swipe at foreign applicants
US suspends student visa processing in fresh swipe at foreign applicants

Gulf Today

time8 hours ago

  • Gulf Today

US suspends student visa processing in fresh swipe at foreign applicants

The US State Department has ordered the suspension of student visa processing in the latest escalation of a Trump administration crackdown on foreign students criticised on Wednesday by China. President Donald Trump's administration is seeking unprecedented control over leading US universities, including revoking foreign student visas and deporting some of those involved in protests against the war in Gaza. A cable signed Tuesday by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and seen by AFP orders embassies and consulates not to allow "any additional student or exchange visa... appointment capacity until further guidance is issued." The government plans to ramp up vetting of the social media profiles of international applicants to US universities, the cable said. Rubio earlier rescinded hundreds of visas and the Trump administration has moved to bar Harvard University from admitting non-Americans. China's foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning on Wednesday said Beijing urged Washington to "safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of international students, including those from China." Graduation students, faculty, and family pose for pictures in Harvard Yard in Cambridge. AFP Hundreds of thousands of Chinese students attend US universities, long viewed by many in China as beacons of academic freedom and rigour. The sweeping US measures have resulted in foreign governments moving to snap up affected students, with Japan and Hong Kong urging local universities to take in more international applicants. In Taiwan, a PhD student set to study at the University of California told AFP they were left "feeling uncertain" by the visa pause. "I understand the process may be delayed but there is still some time before the semester begins in mid-August," said the 27-year-old student who did not want to be identified. "All I can do now is wait and hope for the best." Protests at Harvard The suspension of visa processing came as Harvard students protested on Tuesday after the government said it intended to cancel all remaining financial contracts, Trump's latest attempt to force the institution to submit to unprecedented oversight. Trump is furious at Harvard for rejecting his administration's push for oversight on admissions and hiring, amid the president's claims the school is a hotbed of anti-Semitism and "woke" liberal ideology. A judge issued a restraining order pending a hearing on the matter scheduled for Thursday, the same day as the university's graduation ceremony for which thousands of students and their families had gathered in Cambridge, Massachusetts near Boston. Graduation students, faculty, and family gather in Harvard Yard in Cambridge. AFP The White House, meanwhile, doubled down in its offensive, saying that public money should go to vocational schools that train electricians and plumbers. "The president is more interested in giving that taxpayer money to trade schools and programmes and state schools where they are promoting American values, but most importantly, educating the next generation based on skills that we need in our economy and our society," spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News on Tuesday. Some Harvard students were worried that the Trump administration's policies would make US universities less attractive to international students. "I don't know if I'd pursue a PhD here. Six years is a long time," said Jack, a history of medicine student from Britain who is graduating this week and gave one name. Harvard itself has filed extensive legal challenges against Trump's measures. Alumni plan to file a legal brief against Trump on June 9, filmmaker Anurima Bhargava told a virtual meeting staged by Crimson Courage, a grassroots alumni group. The group is gathering thousands of signatures to show the courts the depth of support for the existing legal action. The Trump administration is also piling financial pressure on Harvard. It has announced the cutting of Harvard's government contracts, estimated by US media to be worth $100 million. In the last few weeks, the elite educational and research powerhouse has already seen billions of dollars in federal grants frozen and millions of dollars of federal contracts torn up. The university has sued both to block the revocation of its right to recruit and sponsor foreign students, 27 percent of its total roll, as well as to overturn the withdrawal of federal funding. On Monday, Trump vowed he would prevail in the increasingly public struggle with Harvard, claiming that foreign students there include "radicalised lunatics, troublemakers." Agence France-Presse

Hamas is studying another US ceasefire proposal for Gaza. What has changed?
Hamas is studying another US ceasefire proposal for Gaza. What has changed?

Middle East Eye

time10 hours ago

  • Middle East Eye

Hamas is studying another US ceasefire proposal for Gaza. What has changed?

Hamas said on Thursday it was studying a Gaza ceasefire proposal by US envoy Steve Witkoff, which Israel announced it had accepted, as starvation stalks the enclave and Israel ramps up its air strikes. "The leadership of the Hamas movement has received Witkoff's new proposal from the mediators and is currently studying it responsibly, in a manner that serves the interests of our people, provides relief, and achieves a permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip,' Hamas said. Witkoff sounded an optimistic note speaking at the White House on Wednesday, saying, 'I have some very good feelings about getting to… a temporary ceasefire and a long-term, peaceful resolution of that conflict.' US President Donald Trump on Thursday confirmed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had accepted a new ceasefire proposal from Witkoff, but added that Hamas had not yet accepted. However, reports that Israel and Hamas were nearing an agreement have occurred regularly throughout the 18 months of war, only to wither a few days later. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Hamas and Israel reached a brief three-stage ceasefire in January, but the deal collapsed in March after Israel took back several of its captives and resumed bombing Gaza, walking away from the deal before talks with Hamas on a permanent end to the war could start. While the Trump administration has broken with Israel on bombing the Houthis, negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, and lifting sanctions on Syria, it has given Israel full backing to wage war on Gaza. What we know about Witkoff's proposal According to Axios, the latest Witkoff proposal is similar to the one Israel broke in March. It calls for the release of captives in return for 60 days of no fighting. The deal would set a timeline for Hamas and Israel to begin negotiating a permanent end to the war and withdrawal of Israeli troops. Several factors have changed since then, but it's unclear how they might impact the talks. In May, the Trump administration began to rely on a new intermediary with Hamas, Palestinian-American businessman Bishara Bahbah. Bishara Bahbah, new US intermediary to Hamas The national chairman for Arab Americans for Trump established a backchannel for Hamas directly to the Trump administration that led to the release of US-Israeli citizen Edan Alexander from captivity earlier this month. Mercenary firm set to oversee Gaza aid for Israel goes on LinkedIn hiring spree Read More » Despite the new diplomatic shake-up, the main roadblock to a deal has not changed. Hamas wants a guarantee that, in return for returning the 20 captives believed to be alive, Israel will agree to a permanent end to the war. Israeli media reported on Thursday that Netanyahu was prepared to move forward with a temporary truce. Netanyahu has regularly insisted on the right to resume fighting and has pledged to totally disarm and eliminate Hamas. Speaking in May, Netanyahu said for the first time that one of his conditions for ending the war was the right to enact a plan floated earlier this year by Trump, which called for the forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. Will Israel agree to a permanent ceasefire? Israel did withdraw from some points in Gaza in January and February, but it has established the Netzarim Corridor to deploy troops from east to west of Gaza quickly. Hamas is unlikely to forget that Israel quickly reoccupied the enclave in March with little public pressure not to from the US, or Egypt and Qatar, the two Arab mediators. Israel's military said on Monday it wants to control 75 percent of Gaza and force roughly two million Palestinians there into a narrow zone in the south near the Egyptian border. What's inside the boxes of aid being distributed in Gaza? Read More » There was some confusion on Monday after media reports said that Hamas had agreed to a 60-day ceasefire proposed by Witkoff, only for Israel to deny the offer was on the table. Talks are ongoing as Gaza descends into anarchy and starvation. Israel has been blockading the entry of all food, water, and medicine into the enclave until recently. The US and Israel established a controversial organisation in May dubbed the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to distribute aid. Its aid centre in Rafah, staffed by American mercenaries, was overrun with thousands of starving Palestinians. The Israeli military opened fire on the crowd, and images on social media showed Palestinians boxed into narrow fences to obtain aid. The foundation has been slammed by the UN and other aid groups for militarising aid. On Wednesday, four Palestinians died storming a UN warehouse in search of food. At least 44 Palestinians were killed by Israeli strikes across Gaza on Thursday. The total death toll since the war began in October 2023 has surpassed 54,000.

US court blocks most Trump tariffs, says president exceeded his authority
US court blocks most Trump tariffs, says president exceeded his authority

Dubai Eye

time11 hours ago

  • Dubai Eye

US court blocks most Trump tariffs, says president exceeded his authority

A US trade court blocked President Donald Trump's tariffs from going into effect in a sweeping ruling on Wednesday that found the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from US trading partners. The Court of International Trade said the US Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president's emergency powers to safeguard the US economy. "The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage," a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January. "That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it." The judges also ordered the Trump administration to issue new orders reflecting the permanent injunction within 10 days. The Trump administration minutes later filed a notice of appeal and questioned the authority of the court. The court invalidated with immediate effect all of Trump's orders on tariffs since January that were rooted in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law meant to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during a national emergency. The court was not asked to address some industry-specific tariffs Trump has issued on automobiles, steel and aluminum, using a different statute. The decisions of the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade, which hears disputes involving international trade and customs laws, can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, and ultimately the US Supreme Court. TRADE TURMOIL Trump has made charging US importers tariffs on goods from foreign countries the central policy of his ongoing trade wars, which have severely disrupted global trade flows and roiled financial markets. Companies of all sizes have been whipsawed by Trump's swift imposition of tariffs and sudden reversals as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. A White House spokesperson on Wednesday said US trade deficits with other countries constituted "a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute". "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," Kush Desai, the spokesperson, said in a statement. Financial markets cheered the ruling. The US dollar rallied following the court's order, surging against currencies such as the euro, yen and the Swiss franc in particular. Wall Street futures rose and equities across Asia also rose. The ruling, if it stands, blows a giant hole through Trump's strategy to use steep tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners. It creates deep uncertainty around multiple simultaneous negotiations with the European Union, China and many other countries. Trump has promised Americans that the tariffs would draw manufacturing jobs back to US shores and shrink a $1.2 trillion US goods trade deficit, which were among his central campaign promises. Without the instant leverage provided by tariffs of 10 per cent to 54 per cent or higher, the Trump administration would have to find new forms of leverage or take a slower approach to negotiations with trading partners. BUSINESSES HURTING The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 US states. The companies have said the tariffs will hurt their ability to do business. "There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all," the judges wrote in their decision. At least five other legal challenges to the tariffs are pending. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat whose office is leading the states' lawsuit, called Trump's tariffs unlawful, reckless and economically devastating. "This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can't be made on the president's whim," Rayfield said in a statement. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the US or freeze their assets. Trump is the first US president to use it to impose tariffs. The Justice Department has said the lawsuits should be dismissed because the plaintiffs have not been harmed by tariffs that they have not yet paid, and because only Congress, not private businesses, can challenge a national emergency declared by the president under IEEPA. In imposing the tariffs in early April, Trump called the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his 10 per cent across-the-board tariff on all imports, with higher rates for countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits, particularly China. Many of those country-specific tariffs were paused a week later. The Trump administration on May 12 said it was also temporarily reducing the steepest tariffs on China while working on a longer-term trade deal. Both countries agreed to cut tariffs on each other for at least 90 days.

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