Trump’s Trade War Begins: Disaster to follow

My Facebook comments:

Trump has declared world trade war, disrupting business plans, abrigating contracts, upending consumer budgets, rendering $billions of productive investment useless, hammering Americans’ retirement portfolios, and killing jobs. It’s much worse than expected, which was already bad. For the first time, an American Administration is deliberately trying to engineer a global recession—or worse. And it’s based on discredited poverty-inducing 17th Century economics. It’s pre-Adam Smith. It’s primitive. And it’s also based on unimaginable paranoia. What does it even mean when Trump says “other countries have been ripping us off” and other such nonsense? Countries don’t trade. Private individuals do. When a foreign company exports its product to the U.S. to offer for sale, and an American decides to buy it, both sides win. Trade is WIN-WIN. Who's getting “ripped off?” Nobody. 

Economically, Trump’s collectivist premise that this will “make America wealthy again” really means make the government wealthier. The money raised by the tariffs—which will be much less than Trump dreams—will not enrich the average American. It will be sucked out of American consumers to enrich the government. Somebody’s getting ripped off, alright—American consumers, American businesses that depend on global trade, and foreign companies that supply the goods that enrich Americans’ lives. Trump cares about America, in the same sense as a big government Progressive—but he doesn’t care about Americans.

Trump’s trade war is not only economically destructive. It is immoral. It violates the inalienable individual rights of Americans to freely trade with other people. Economic freedom is fundamental to Americanism. Trump is trampling all over the American Dream.

Too many Americans have been flipping out over a few Federal workers losing their jobs and some spending being cut. But this is penny-ante stuff—and in principle positive. The real danger is in Trump’s trade war. I hope Congressional Republicans get a backbone, join with Democrats—as 4 rational Republicans just did on Canada tariffs—and outlaw Trump’s whole tariff scheme, and curb the presidential power to impose tariffs willy-nilly by executive order—a power no president should have. No, it’s not the end of the world—not yet. Perhaps the hope that this is all a negotiating ploy, and things will ultimately work out, is still alive. But we’re in dangerous territory. Make no mistake. Trump has led our country into taking the first step down a road that ends in World War III. Congress must stop Trump on this issue. That would really be Putting AMERICANS First.

At this posting, the stock market is experiencing a massive coronary. 

But there is one potential silver lining developing. Trump’s unconstitutional power grab may be jolting Congress into growing a spine. The Washington Post reported . . . 

A bipartisan bill that would give Congress final approval on tariffs imposed by a president was introduced Thursday by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington). The bill seems to have little chance of passage but underscores the unease among some Republicans with Trump’s tariffs plan, which sent shock waves through financial markets and rattled business owners around the world on Thursday.

I’m not holding my breath. Maybe enough Republicans will join all Democrats in stripping Trump, and the presidency, of it usurped power to impose tariff taxes, which Constitutionally belongs to Congress. Unfortunately, too many Republicans are blind Trump backers, Democrats have their own protectionist problems. But “I’ll keep my fingers crossed.”

Related Reading:

Trump just imposed the largest tax hike since 1942 without congressional approval

Trump’s tariffs are a tax by another name, and the power to levy taxes lies with Congress.

If Trump were trying to implement an income tax hike of similar magnitude by executive order, it would be plainly unconstitutional. Everyone knows that only Congress can set tax rates. What’s different about tariffs? On its face, nothing. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”

The McKinley Tariff that Trump has said he admires was not an executive order signed by President William McKinley; it was legislation sponsored by McKinley when he was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. So, too, the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act — which did much to worsen the Great Depression — was passed by Congress. It was not an executive order from President Herbert Hoover.

The problem is that, since the 1930s, Congress has delegated considerable authority to the president to set tariff rates. But, as in so many other areas, Trump is stretching executive authority beyond the breaking point.

The United States has done much better during the past 50 years than other industrialized economies: U.S. GDP per capita is 2.4 times larger than Japan’s and 1½ times larger than Germany’s. In October, just before Trump’s election, the Economist proclaimed the U.S. economy “The envy of the world.” How is this an emergency?

“This is a shocking abuse of the president’s authority to declare national emergencies,” she told me. “I don’t think that will stand up to a court challenge.” It is imperative that Congress take back the power to set tariff rates. Only elected legislators are allowed to raise taxes, and only elected legislators should be allowed to raise tariffs — which are simply taxes under another name.

Phony Liberation From a Phony War

Hillary’s Cave-in to the Left on Free Trade

NAFTA, Whatever its Flaws, Was a Good Thing

‘Buy American’ is UN-American—Harry Binswanger

The real reason Trump is destroying the economy: Trump is imposing ruinous tariffs because American democracy is no longer strong enough to stop him. [Mostly spot on. But I have to take issue with his reference to America as a Democracy. This reference confuses the issue, and leads to unnecessary contradictions. America is a Constitutional Republic. But the author’s basic argument is correct; Trump is violating the Constitutional checks and balances by imposing taxes without Congress, and is abusing emergency powers—albeit by using powers that he inherited.]

Why is Trump rewriting US economic history? Anyone?

Stop H.R.28 - Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025

An activist friend of mine, referring to a proposed Federal law,  posted the following on March 3, 2025:

My political post for the month: some may be aware that this evening the Senate will be voting on the Protection of women in sports act *, which would prevent those with bats & balls, and those who identify with those who don’t have them, from competing against those who were born without them. This is a law that supports women in sports, and clearly those who oppose it really don’t care about women losing athletic opportunities and achieving the success they deserve. How anyone could support a political party that supports this travesty is beyond me! It amazes me that the Republican Senators need just 3 Democratic votes to pass this legislation and that it is uncertain they will get them. It is this sort of outrageous policy stance that is causing Democrats - and will continue to - lose elections. #protection of women in sports act [sic]

My Comments:

I agree with the intent but not the bill. These decisions should be left to the governing bodies of the particular sports organizations, be that be school boards, rule-making bodies of private sports institutions, et al. As a believer in reigning in the size and scope of government, especially the Federal Government, I don’t want to have Congress wading into this issue. As I recall, Trump wants to eliminate the Department of Education and leave education to the states. I agree. As I understand this Act, it applies only to school athletic programs. If Trump means what he says, he will veto this bill if it ever gets to his desk.

My friend responded:

my take is that because of the law Title IX, the regulations propagated by the federal government and the several “dear colleague“ letters that have been issued by the DOE, requiring adherence to DOE policy statements or threatening revocation of funding, this can only be resolved at the federal level. The alternative is that you could have Lea Thomas’s spring up in various states competing against women in other states that prohibit those with bats and balls from competing against those without. It’s handled with federal level legislation. [sic]

• 
  

My reply:

It’s already been resolved—by the courts, which threw out Biden’s twisted LBGTQ policy in its entirety a week and a half before Trump took office. “The alternative” is exactly the point—it’s rightfully and properly an issue for the states and their courts. Title IX is a bad law. It invites twisted interpretations. Congress should focus its energies on repealing, or at least amending, Title IX. H.R.28 is an unnecessary and dangerous escalation in Federal power over education.

For the record, I support the complete separation of education and state—and a Constitutional Amendment to lock in that principle—in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of church and state, and I will support any legislation that advances educational freedom toward that ultimate goal.

* [Note: The bill failed to get the votes in the Senate.]

Related Reading:

Beware of Federal Education Policies—Even If You Like Them by Kerry McDonald for FEE

Transgender vs. Transgender Impersonator [aka gender identity]

Crossing, a Transgender Memoir by Dierdre McCloskey

On the ‘Transgender’ Phenomenon

Why elite women’s sports need to be based on sex, not gender Doriane Lambelet Coleman

Beneath the Title IX Controversy

Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits? by me for TOS

Education in a Free Society—C. Bradley Thompson for The Objective Standard

QUORA: 'What is one constitutional amendment that should be added to the U.S. Constitution that does not exist today? Why does it need to be added?'

The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools—Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard

The Idiotic “Economic Blackout” Charade

CNN reported on the February 28, 2025 “economic blackout. In Today’s ‘economic blackout’ began from an unlikely source. But it’s tapped into Americans’ anger, CNN’s  Nathaniel Meyersohn reports:

In early February, John Schwarz, a self-described “mindfulness and meditation facilitator,” proposed a 24-hour nationwide “economic blackout” of major chains on the last day of the month.

Schwarz urged people to forgo spending at Amazon, Walmart, and all other major retailers and fast-food companies for a day. He called on them to spend money only at small businesses and on essential needs.

“The system has been designed to exploit us,” said Schwarz, who goes by “TheOneCalledJai” on social media, in a video to his roughly 250,000 followers on Instagram and TikTok. “On February 28, we are going to remind them who really holds the power. For one day, we turn it off.”

I posted this article to Facebook, with this commentary, slightly edited for clarity:

John Schwarz, the architect of the recent  “economic blackout” of major retailers and fast-food companies, says the purpose is to protest “the system [that] has been designed to exploit us.” Are these the same companies growing big by successfully “exploiting” us by providing mass market products that improve our lives and that we willingly buy? Is this the same system, called Capitalism, that grew out of the Founding principles of unalienable individual rights that make America great and moral and our lives so rich and free?

Schwarz demands that we “spend money only at small businesses and on essential needs.” Are these the same small businesses many of whom started the bait-&-switch practice of greeting us with a welcome sign for credit cards, only to then charge us a penalty for using them? And why only “essential needs?” Is poverty the goal of this guy? What makes our lives worth living is that we can afford much more than essential needs.

Schwarz’s ignorant crusade is, of course, Marxist nonsense. Companies no more exploit us than consumers exploit them. Companies engage in voluntary trade with their customers. Trade is win-win and thus non-exploitative. Count me out of this and other such idiotic, anti-American charades. I won’t join the army of useful idiots who blindly fall for it. Business—especially big business—is today’s most persecuted minority. We should be thankful for big business and instead be protesting the encroachment of big government on our lives and freedoms.  

The article puts MAGA as the inspiration for the protest. But undoubtedly it was probably inspired, at least in part, by Joe Biden’s Big Lie of blaming private enterprise for the inflation the Federal Government's own policies caused. Remember “shrinkflation,” “greedflation,” and “corporate Greed?”

Related Listening:

America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business by Ayn Rand, Recorded live at Chicago’s McCormick Place. [This talk was also published as an essay in Rand’s book Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal.]

Obama’s Fascist “Partnership” With Big Business

B of A's Debit Charges: It's About More Than Fees

Big Government vs. Big Business; or, Political Power vs. Economic Power

The Dollar and the Gun by Harry Binswanger

The Star-Ledger Exploits a Workers Death to Attack Big Business

Quora: ‘Is capitalism based on the exploitation of others?’

DEI Exposed for What it Means, and Where it Leads

New Jersey Spotlight News )NJSN) has a very revealing piece on President Trump’s war on the Left’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) movement—Taylor Jung’s ‘Chilling effect’ feared as Trump administration attacks DEI. Here is an annotated review of Jung’s “news” article. Indented portions are direct quotes from the article, with my emphasises.

Escalating federal pressure to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives is raising more questions than answers about the future of anti-discrimination programming in New Jersey and across the nation.

I have observed that NJSN leans strongly Left in its reporting. So right off the bat, incredibly disingenuous! DEI requires discrimination. Only the tribalism of relying on statistical "disparities" rather than actual evidence can justify seeing DEI programs as an anti-discrimination tool.

  

Last week, the Department of Justice signaled it could criminally investigate companies engaged in what it called “illegal” race- and sex-based discrimination under the “guise” of DEI. 

Note the framing. DEI requires race- and sex-based discrimination to achieve its self-described “equitable” ends, which means eliminating statistical disparities. Yet, Jung prefaces its reporting with a “what it called ‘illegal’” preface, and followed it up by referring to DEI as a “guise”—to what end . . . to protect racism? Apparently:

Legal and workforce experts say it could have a “chilling” effect on programs meant to combat prejudice 

How do you combat prejudice through race- and sex-based discrimination? 

and to promote equitable working environments 

"Equitable" means fair and impartial. How does discrimination lead to that? Of course, to the Progressive/Woke Left, equitable means Egalitarianism, the enemy of fairness and merit. 

It is also not clear what criminal laws the Trump administration is citing, those experts say.

“I think that, yes, that is an effort to utilize the kind of mechanism of civil rights law, not in favor of the groups that have been historically served by those laws because they were the impetus for those laws, but instead to say, ‘We believe society has gone too far in the direction of protecting the interest of those groups,’” said Stacy Hawkins, a professor at Rutgers Law School.

Note what's missing from this diatribe—the individual. And the individual is who gets discriminated against—i.e., marginalized, if the Left's favorite term has any meaning—when "protecting the interest of those groups." Groups are made up of individuals. Those who erase the individual from any moral, social or political consideration are not defenders of any group, and the Civil Rights Laws do not and were never meant to protect groups, only individuals. The law should never favor or disfavor any group. It should universally secure and protect individual rights and equal protection of the law. 

In order to systematize sex and race based discrimination, the DEI crowd is totally misrepresenting the Civil Rights Laws. Certainly, the historical  discrimination against black Americans were “the impetus for those laws." But the Civil Rights laws were never a mechanism for reverse discrimination. They insert universal principles meant to protect all groups from the kind of discriminatory injustices that victimized the black group, through the mechanism—the principles—of individual rights.

Workers are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on gender, race, color, religion and nationality. But Title VII is a civil law, not a criminal one.

This may be true. But whether civil or criminal, DEI requires precisely what Title VII prohibits—workplace discrimination based on gender, race, color, religion and nationality (Whether this provision should apply to private enterprise is another discussion).

This should be obvious to any objective person. I can’t believe Jung can’t see the blazing contradiction in his reporting. So, why DEI? 

“It is unconscionable that the Trump administration would coopt the language and vision of the civil rights movement in these executive orders as it attempts to send our nation back to an era of rampant, state-sanctioned discrimination [!!!]

 Which is exactly what DEI does. Biden's "whole of government approach" to systemitizing DEI is new era of rampant, state-sanctioned discrimination. This is exactly what Trump's policy is designed to save us from, as is obvious to anyone with any inkling of understanding capacity. By now, the absurdity and evasiveness of this article can not be hidden. Read on:

Ultimately, these measures drive us farther away from a future when health is no longer a privilege, but a right for all,” said Dr. Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a funder of NJ Spotlight News.)

There you have it. The ultimate goal of collectivist DEI. Totalitarian Socialism. Who would enforce this "right" to health? Slaves, that's who. If someone needs health care as a right, then those with the capability to provide it—the doctors and other health professionals—cannot refuse to provide it. Those who pay for it cannot refuse. The same goes for any economic "right"—a "right" to housing, education, food. Socialism is slavery, and totalitarian Socialism is the ultimate goal of anyone who preaches Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. After all, Socialism requires collectivism, and what better way to condition people to accept collectivism than by systematizing the easiest form of collectivism—racism.

Related Reading:

Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell

The Racism of “Diversity” by Peter Schwartz for Capitalism Magazine

Don’t Allow the Left to Own ‘Diversity’

SEC’s Boardroom ‘Diversity’ Rule Is Racist, Unnatural, and Politically Motivated

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

DelBarton Student’s 'Diversity' Initiative, Though Well-Meaning, is Based on Counter-Productive Premises

The Founding Fathers, Not ‘Diversity,’ is the Solution to ‘Our Racialized Society’

From 'Diversity Maps' to Forced Integration: Obama's Racist Housing Policy Masks the Real Problem—Lack of Free Markets

This is Rich—a ‘Diversity’ Exec Crying ‘Racism.’

U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, the Fed, ‘Diversity’, and Racism

Some Thoughts On Trump’s immigration Policies

First, let's look at the entire context. Remember that Joe Biden caused the problem that Trump is now reacting to. It was Biden who ignored the rule of law to unsecure the border and open the flood gates. That said, these Biden immigrants were essentially invited in by an American president. Is it now fair to unconditionally deport them? Does Trump's "mass deportation" scheme not amount to America breaking its promise to these same immigrants? I agree that presidents should do their Constitutional duty to enforce the laws. But it was Biden who failed in this duty. I find it incredibly disingenuous for Progressives to now sing the siren song of the benefits and rights of American immigration while at the same evading the person responsible for the migrant problem we now have, which in part helped elect Trump—Joe Biden. Yes, immigration is on balance good—and entirely beside the point. If Biden had had a rational immigration policy, there wouldn't be any Trump immigration executive orders to get outraged over.

That said, I don't agree with Trump's mass deportation solution. Yes, Trump is enforcing the law, after Biden flouted it. But the entire context should consider fairness and justice. What Trump should do now is to establish a legal pathway for the non-criminal, non-national-security-risk Biden immigrants—which is most of them—to remain in our country, as a matter of moral imperative. They uprooted their lives to make the grueling and dangerous trip to America, after all, on the open invitation of an American president, Joe Biden. It is that consideration that should hold sway. We are, after all, dealing with human lives who merely want to live in freedom and make a living.

For what it’s worth, my stance on immigration has been for open immigration coupled with strong, secure borders to screen out people who represent health, criminal, or national security threats. My position has evolved to include the ability to support themselves through work as a condition of entry. 

Related Reading:

Six big immigration changes under Trump - and their impact so far by Nadine Yousif

BBC News

Time to Rethink Immigration

My LTE on Immigration

Immigration and Individual Rights, by Craig Biddle

Immigrants on the Dole? That's a Myth, by Shikha Dalmia (Bloomberg)

Temp Workers’ 'Abuse' Stems from Immigration Policy

Armstrong on Myths and Facts about a Rights-Respecting Immigration Policy