Before 2024, a constitutional amendment mandating free trade seemed a bit borderline, since there are some legitimate reasons, from a pressure mechanism and negotiations to positive and negative externalities from certain industries to revenue, why modest tariffs, wielded by a competent government, might be good.
All that is dead, dead, dead. Tariffmageddon alters the risk profile of the government having tariff powers drastically, giving it insuperable advantage to a permanent, constitutionally mandated commitment to unilateral free trade. It's a heavy lift but that's the thing to work for.
There's a middle course, which is for Congress to take back tariff powers. The executive probably still needs some tariff authority to manage fast-moving situations, but this should be very tightly-scoped, limited in both time and extent, and require a declaration of emergency that must be ratified by Congress within a short period of time.
Right now, if Congress had to actually vote to support Tariffmageddon, the GOP couldn't muster the votes no matter how hard Trump whipped them. Of course, that doesn't mean it could never happen, but the current situation points out that just keeping Congress actively in the loop would probably be enough.
Independent of the question of free trade, essentially this identical argument applies to every policy position that you personally favor. Yes, the elected government is allowed to change policies, but it maybe isn't a good idea to try to enshrine a particular set of policy preferences from a particular time into the constitution specifically to make them hard to change.
Really, the problem with this specific issue is item number 1 in the second list, as its an abdication of the constitutionally-mandated responsibility of Congress.
Excellent piece. If I might offer a link to my own Substack (Bastiat's Window), I just concluded a trilogy of pieces on Trump's tariffs--the third of which is here: https://graboyes.substack.com/p/trade-winds-2025seriously-and-literally. In it, I offer a detailed description of how business would function (or not) in Richmond, VA, if the mayor had the same power over sales taxes that Donald Trump has over tariff-setting.
I also note that "Globalism" is to those on the right what 'trickle-down economics' is to those on the left. Both are vacuous pejoratives that translate loosely into English as, "Somewhere on Earth, buyers and sellers are engaging in voluntary trade and minding their own business AND WE HAVE TO STOP THEM.”
I think it would be great fun for Bryan Caplan to actually meet with Trump face to face, look into his eyes, and have a chat. I wonder if Bryan Caplan has ever come within 100 yards of Trump. I wonder if Bryan Caplan knows anything at all about Trump, other than what he's read or heard from someone else who has never met Trump and also doesn't know anything about Trump, other than what they have read or heard from someone else who doesn't like Trump. I wonder.
Tally up all the actual things Trump has done while in power. I double dog dare you. Don't leave anything out. Use an Ai to help you, just to make sure you don't leave anything out. Then compare the two sides of the ledger. Report back; tell us what you found.
All economists I know understand that trade deficits do not make a country poor. As a matter of fact, it is not countries that are poor or rich, it is people, which any intelligent person understands.
I tried this, using Claude.ai. The list is overwhelmingly bad and strongly confirms my belief that the Mad King is by far the worst president the US has ever had. I find very few actions I would consider positive. He's gutted state capacity, achieved nothing (perhaps less than nothing) in terms of efficiency improvements, seriously damaged the economy, done likely-irreparable harm to our relationships with allies and opponents both, issued hundreds of egregiously bad pardons, blatantly attempted to abuse prosecutorial power to gain political influence, corruptly generated at least tens of millions and more likely hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars of personal gain, undermined the rule of law in general and the judiciary in particular, including essentially defying a Supreme Court order, reduced federal revenues and increased federal borrowing costs while simultaneously attempting to increase the federal deficit, attempted to suppress freedom of the press... and much of it has required breaking laws like no other administration before, then demonizing the courts that attempt to hold the administration to the law.
Being as charitable as I can, I'm struggling to find *anything* he's done this term that's clearly beneficial for the country. Some of the immigration stuff could possibly be good, if implemented properly and with respect for constitutional rights, but it's all been done with shocking levels of incompetence. It's possible that trimming the federal workforce could be good (even though it's already at the smallest level per-capita that it's been since before WWII), but, again, it's been done so incompetently.
Can you find me something, anything, that this administration has done that is actually beneficial and has been well-executed?
Here's a list from the first term. The second term has only just begun
• America gained 7 million new jobs – more than three times government experts’ projections.
• Middle-Class family income increased nearly $6,000 – more than five times the gains during the entire previous administration.
• The unemployment rate reached 3.5 percent, the lowest in a half-century.
• Achieved 40 months in a row with more job openings than job-hirings.
• More Americans reported being employed than ever before – nearly 160 million.
• Jobless claims hit a nearly 50-year low.
• The number of people claiming unemployment insurance as a share of the population hit its lowest on record.
• Incomes rose in every single metro area in the United States for the first time in nearly 3 decades.
• Delivered opportunity for citizens of all backgrounds
• Record-low unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and those without a high-school diploma.
• Unemployment for women hit its lowest rate in nearly 70 years.
• Lifted nearly 7 million people off food stamps.
• Poverty rates for African Americans and Hispanic Americans reached record lows.
• Income inequality fell for two straight years, by the largest amount in over a decade.
• Bottom-50 percent of households saw a 40 percent increase in net worth.
• Wages rose fastest for low-income and blue-collar workers – 16 percent.
• African-American home-ownership increased from 41.7 percent to 46.4 percent.
• Brought jobs, factories, and industries back
• Created more than 1.2 million manufacturing and construction jobs.
• Enacted policies to reshore supply chains.
• Small-business optimism broke a 35-year record in 2018.
• Record markets & retirement accounts
• Dow first closed above 20,000 (2017) and topped 30,000 (2020).
• S&P 500 and NASDAQ repeatedly set records.
• Rural America
• EO modernizing biotech regulations for agriculture.
• $1.3 billion through USDA’s ReConnect broadband program.
• Record-setting pandemic rebound
• 56 percent of Americans said they were better off than four years earlier (Gallup, Oct 2020).
• Q3 2020 GDP growth of 33.1 percent – fastest ever.
• Added back 12 million jobs after lockdowns; recovery 23× faster than 2009-13 period.
• Unemployment fell from 14.7 percent (Apr 2020) to 6.7 percent (Dec 2020).
• Multiple housing, small-business and manufacturing sentiment records.
• Household net worth +$7.4 trillion (Q2 2020).
• Stabilized financial markets via Fed/Treasury facilities.
• Passed $3.2 trillion in historic tax relief (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act).
• Typical family of four earning $75k saw >$2k tax cut; doubled standard deduction and child credit.
Concise. The lesson here is “tough luck,” regardless of what future-oriented policy one chooses. Something will go wrong. Like everything in life, it’s how you react that matters.
What I know is that whatever you think you know about Trump is coming straight from legacy media, which by now, most people understand is a pack of lying, agenda-driven lackeys.
If you do not know Trump, have never met him, have never worked with him, or even with someone who has done these things, I ask again: you know this how?
I have no interest in continuing this conversation. I have no more time to waste.
If think the greatest push-back in any social system is the one that ultimately has the final say in *any* action. Reality.
The case for free trade isn't some detached from reality, heavenly realm solution where suddenly the need for thought dissappears. It is that wealth and economic growth is something positive for human life, and laws that protect the individual's rights is what both best allows for that and is consistent with a rational morality.
Sure, evil, irrational, destructive actors are still going to be out there. That's why you need the government in the first place. But all you can do is make the most rational decisions, which allow the possibility of success- and because this is reality, recognizing that nothing actually promises success, failure is always a possibility no matter how well planned something is.
It appears to me that economists elevate economic efficiency above all other values, and this is detrimental to social cohesion based on jobs with income which can support families. It also appears to me that tariffs are useful as a weapon, but not as a means of seizing economic advantage. With the largest economy in the world, we should be able to handle this - that is, give up some efficiency with the objective of maximizing social cohesion and still being able to use the tariff weapon. I wish I could entirely believe that this is Trump’s objective.
Should we have free trade with Russia and Iran and North Korea? I think it really is very important to keep sanctions on them. If I had to choose between free trade with everyone all the time, or getting to sanction enemy regimes but risk some tariffs on allies/neutral countries, it's a tough choice for me. Especially since like you said enshrining free trade in the constitution would come with other risks you listed.
I think you underrate the likelihood of countries not bothering with bilateral free trade if America grants them unilateral free trade. Lots and lots of people feel intuitively that it's good for them if other countries remove tariffs, and also good if they get to keep their own tariffs. Despite their own tariffs and the other countries tariffs both being quite bad. Without the ability to make a deal like "We'll remove our tariffs if you remove yours", I predict lots of countries will shoot themselves in the foot by never removing their own tariffs.
Valid points, but I don’t think that’s the message here. I believe the point is that something unpleasant will always happen regardless of what general policy one chooses, or how that policy is ensconced. So, best to pick the policy that maximizes greatest potential positive outcome, and prepare for the possible negative consequences. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. It’s how a country equips itself to deal with the possible risks of the chosen approach that matters. At least, it seems so to me.
Since we don’t have a constitutional mandate, and we do have an illiterate protectionist POTUS, we’re stuck (for now) with the manic game show version of tariff negotiations.
Yes. Once the politicians get involved, all bets are off except that they will make it worse, and then they'll pile on the fixes and make it worser.
I liken political meddling to adding new bandaids on top of old filthy ones, piling them up until the mess either kills the patient or falls off of its own accord. It's better to have none at all than the diseased mess they create.
I see no problem with allowing free trade even with actual war time enemies, only benefits.
First off, trade is far scarier to despots than to free people, because despots fear the contagion of free people. They are going to mismanage the trade so badly that there is no need for our politicians to meddle and give them someone to blame. Witness the Cuban embargo, which has probably kept the regimes in power longer than they would have without that handy excuse for their miserable planned economy.
North Korea has nothing to buy our exports with except stolen crypto currency. The need for cold hard cash or real products for barter might even encourage them to loosen their death grip on society, and modernize and produce things with actual barter value.
Iran probably has more to offer, but just like Cuba, they fear trade and contagion more than anyone cares to admit.
Russia also fears the contagion of free trade, but I get the impression Russian paranoia is so built in by now that free trade wouldn't make it any worse, and it probably would increase their meddling in Ukraine. BUT -- how would they pay for everything? Their greed for modern equipment and even weaponry would lead to increased oil exports and a drop in world oil prices.
As for actual war enemies, like WW II, I laugh. Sure, send your cargo ships to New York and Los Angeles, give us your scarce cash and gold and exports to buy our exports, and we'll sink your ships once they clear port and get far enough away that the flotsam doesn't bother us.
>I see no problem with allowing free trade even with actual war time enemies, only benefits.
So you're the US in 1940. Japan is committing atrocities in China. Their tanks, ships, and planes which allow them to maintain military superiority and continue to commit atrocities are all powered by oil. You'd keep selling them oil? Japan would happily pay with resources like fish and rice and mechanical pencils and anything else to get more oil, which they needed so much but had such limited supplies of.
You're the US today. Russia needs processed industrial metals to build their tanks. You'd sell them the metal? They'd happily pay by selling their oil like they are already, but would have an easier time of it without sanctions.
Perhaps you believe in central planning in the morals department as much as the economic.
If Japan is committing such atrocities, don't you trust the public to boycott them? Or do you think it is your moral imperative to think for the public because they are too dumb to think correctly?
Putin deserves all the abuse you can heap on him. Do you think we should be selling weaponry to Ukraine and not even trade with Russia?
I remind you Biden and the EU have been very careful to sell just enough to keep Russia at bay, but not enough to take back any conquered territory. There have been close to a million casualties combined. If the US had supplied no weapons, this would have been over with a lot fewer dead. If they had supplied a lot more weapons, Russia could have been pushed back.
Every time Biden and the EU announced new sanctions on Russia, my reaction was "What? These weren't already in place?" In other words, we have not yet cut off trade with Russia. Perhaps you remember that little mystery a few months ago about undersea cables in the Baltic, and one of the suspicious ships was a Russian tanker evading sanctions. Apparently we haven't been following your policy prescriptions as much as you might wish.
Is any of that your idea of humane foreign policy? Are you proud of what politicians have accomplished? Do you really think that leaving all those decisions to individuals would have been worse or more muddled?
>If Japan is committing such atrocities, don't you trust the public to boycott them? Or do you think it is your moral imperative to think for the public because they are too dumb to think correctly?
I think it is useful to band together for moral decisions at times. It's tempting to give in and buy the cheap goods from the atrocious regime; by voting together to ban such purchases, making the moral decision is easier.
On top of that, it only takes an handful of bad actors deceiving consumers to give a great deal of funding to Japan. One large wholesaler with no morals could buy a large shipment of Japanese goods, remove any indication that they're from Japan, and sell them to American consumers who'd be unaware they're funding Japanese atrocities.
>Putin deserves all the abuse you can heap on him. Do you think we should be selling weaponry to Ukraine and not even trade with Russia?
Yes. I don't think Biden went far enough at all. But I do think leaving the decisions to individuals would've been even worse.
>Oh, and also, your quote includes "actual war time enemies", yet both your examples are countries we are not at war with.
I'd think the decision about whether to trade with Japan in 1942 would be even more obvious than Japan in 1940.
And who decides when it is useful to band together, and how to band together? The government? Which changes every few years and sets no moral standard except expediency?
No thanks. Spontaneous organization is far more effective.
Before 2024, a constitutional amendment mandating free trade seemed a bit borderline, since there are some legitimate reasons, from a pressure mechanism and negotiations to positive and negative externalities from certain industries to revenue, why modest tariffs, wielded by a competent government, might be good.
All that is dead, dead, dead. Tariffmageddon alters the risk profile of the government having tariff powers drastically, giving it insuperable advantage to a permanent, constitutionally mandated commitment to unilateral free trade. It's a heavy lift but that's the thing to work for.
There's a middle course, which is for Congress to take back tariff powers. The executive probably still needs some tariff authority to manage fast-moving situations, but this should be very tightly-scoped, limited in both time and extent, and require a declaration of emergency that must be ratified by Congress within a short period of time.
Right now, if Congress had to actually vote to support Tariffmageddon, the GOP couldn't muster the votes no matter how hard Trump whipped them. Of course, that doesn't mean it could never happen, but the current situation points out that just keeping Congress actively in the loop would probably be enough.
Independent of the question of free trade, essentially this identical argument applies to every policy position that you personally favor. Yes, the elected government is allowed to change policies, but it maybe isn't a good idea to try to enshrine a particular set of policy preferences from a particular time into the constitution specifically to make them hard to change.
Really, the problem with this specific issue is item number 1 in the second list, as its an abdication of the constitutionally-mandated responsibility of Congress.
Excellent piece. If I might offer a link to my own Substack (Bastiat's Window), I just concluded a trilogy of pieces on Trump's tariffs--the third of which is here: https://graboyes.substack.com/p/trade-winds-2025seriously-and-literally. In it, I offer a detailed description of how business would function (or not) in Richmond, VA, if the mayor had the same power over sales taxes that Donald Trump has over tariff-setting.
I also note that "Globalism" is to those on the right what 'trickle-down economics' is to those on the left. Both are vacuous pejoratives that translate loosely into English as, "Somewhere on Earth, buyers and sellers are engaging in voluntary trade and minding their own business AND WE HAVE TO STOP THEM.”
If we valued free trade as much as we value individual freedom, we would inevitably find a way to betray it, too.
I think it would be great fun for Bryan Caplan to actually meet with Trump face to face, look into his eyes, and have a chat. I wonder if Bryan Caplan has ever come within 100 yards of Trump. I wonder if Bryan Caplan knows anything at all about Trump, other than what he's read or heard from someone else who has never met Trump and also doesn't know anything about Trump, other than what they have read or heard from someone else who doesn't like Trump. I wonder.
You mean, other than all of the actual things Trump has done while in power?
Tally up all the actual things Trump has done while in power. I double dog dare you. Don't leave anything out. Use an Ai to help you, just to make sure you don't leave anything out. Then compare the two sides of the ledger. Report back; tell us what you found.
I wonder if Trump has ever met an actual economist.
I guess that depends on what counts as an "actual" economist.
In this context, one who understands what trade deficits are and their effects. E.g., "Trade deficits do not make a country poorer" https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/trade-deficits-do-not-make-a-country
All economists I know understand that trade deficits do not make a country poor. As a matter of fact, it is not countries that are poor or rich, it is people, which any intelligent person understands.
I tried this, using Claude.ai. The list is overwhelmingly bad and strongly confirms my belief that the Mad King is by far the worst president the US has ever had. I find very few actions I would consider positive. He's gutted state capacity, achieved nothing (perhaps less than nothing) in terms of efficiency improvements, seriously damaged the economy, done likely-irreparable harm to our relationships with allies and opponents both, issued hundreds of egregiously bad pardons, blatantly attempted to abuse prosecutorial power to gain political influence, corruptly generated at least tens of millions and more likely hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars of personal gain, undermined the rule of law in general and the judiciary in particular, including essentially defying a Supreme Court order, reduced federal revenues and increased federal borrowing costs while simultaneously attempting to increase the federal deficit, attempted to suppress freedom of the press... and much of it has required breaking laws like no other administration before, then demonizing the courts that attempt to hold the administration to the law.
Being as charitable as I can, I'm struggling to find *anything* he's done this term that's clearly beneficial for the country. Some of the immigration stuff could possibly be good, if implemented properly and with respect for constitutional rights, but it's all been done with shocking levels of incompetence. It's possible that trimming the federal workforce could be good (even though it's already at the smallest level per-capita that it's been since before WWII), but, again, it's been done so incompetently.
Can you find me something, anything, that this administration has done that is actually beneficial and has been well-executed?
Here's a list from the first term. The second term has only just begun
• America gained 7 million new jobs – more than three times government experts’ projections.
• Middle-Class family income increased nearly $6,000 – more than five times the gains during the entire previous administration.
• The unemployment rate reached 3.5 percent, the lowest in a half-century.
• Achieved 40 months in a row with more job openings than job-hirings.
• More Americans reported being employed than ever before – nearly 160 million.
• Jobless claims hit a nearly 50-year low.
• The number of people claiming unemployment insurance as a share of the population hit its lowest on record.
• Incomes rose in every single metro area in the United States for the first time in nearly 3 decades.
• Delivered opportunity for citizens of all backgrounds
• Record-low unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and those without a high-school diploma.
• Unemployment for women hit its lowest rate in nearly 70 years.
• Lifted nearly 7 million people off food stamps.
• Poverty rates for African Americans and Hispanic Americans reached record lows.
• Income inequality fell for two straight years, by the largest amount in over a decade.
• Bottom-50 percent of households saw a 40 percent increase in net worth.
• Wages rose fastest for low-income and blue-collar workers – 16 percent.
• African-American home-ownership increased from 41.7 percent to 46.4 percent.
• Brought jobs, factories, and industries back
• Created more than 1.2 million manufacturing and construction jobs.
• Enacted policies to reshore supply chains.
• Small-business optimism broke a 35-year record in 2018.
• Record markets & retirement accounts
• Dow first closed above 20,000 (2017) and topped 30,000 (2020).
• S&P 500 and NASDAQ repeatedly set records.
• Rural America
• EO modernizing biotech regulations for agriculture.
• $1.3 billion through USDA’s ReConnect broadband program.
• Record-setting pandemic rebound
• 56 percent of Americans said they were better off than four years earlier (Gallup, Oct 2020).
• Q3 2020 GDP growth of 33.1 percent – fastest ever.
• Added back 12 million jobs after lockdowns; recovery 23× faster than 2009-13 period.
• Unemployment fell from 14.7 percent (Apr 2020) to 6.7 percent (Dec 2020).
• Multiple housing, small-business and manufacturing sentiment records.
• Household net worth +$7.4 trillion (Q2 2020).
• Stabilized financial markets via Fed/Treasury facilities.
• Passed $3.2 trillion in historic tax relief (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act).
• Typical family of four earning $75k saw >$2k tax cut; doubled standard deduction and child credit.
• Virtually eliminated the Estate (Death) Tax.
• Cut corporate rate 35 → 21 percent; 20 percent pass-through deduction.
• 100 percent expensing of capital investment.
• 400+ companies announced wage hikes, bonuses, new hiring/investment.
• $1.5 trillion repatriated from overseas.
• Opportunity Zones
• ~9,000 zones; zero capital-gains tax on long-term investments.
• $75 billion in funds, $52 billion invested; est. 500k new jobs.
• Eliminated 8 regulations for every 1 added; removed 25,000 pages from Federal Register.
• Cut compliance costs $50 billion (another $50 billion projected for FY 2020).
• Average household gained $3,100 annually from deregulation.
• Modernized NEPA, shortened major infrastructure reviews to ≤2 years.
• Rolled back Dodd-Frank rules on community banks; created Governors’ Initiative on Regulatory Innovation.
• Major rollbacks in housing, automotive CAFE, Waters of the U.S., internet and energy-efficiency rules.
• 20 top deregulatory actions projected to save consumers/businesses $220 billion / yr.
• Withdrew from TPP; replaced NAFTA with USMCA (expected +$68 billion GDP, 550k jobs).
• Buy American & Hire American executive order.
• Bilateral ag and digital trade deals with Japan; renegotiated KORUS FTA.
• Phase-One China deal: +$200 billion purchases, IP protections.
• Tariffs on Chinese goods, steel, aluminum, solar panels, washing machines.
• Overhauled Universal Postal Union; WTO reform agenda.
• $28 billion tariff-funded aid to farmers; 50+ new ag-market-access agreements.
• U.S. became net energy exporter for first time in ~70 years; #1 oil & gas producer.
• Left Paris Agreement; replaced Clean Power Plan with Affordable Clean Energy rule.
• Approved Keystone XL & Dakota Access pipelines; opened ANWR leasing; ended coal-leasing moratorium.
• Streamlined LNG export approvals; five-fold increase in LNG exports; 6 export terminals operating.
• Record highs in renewable production; doubled solar generation 2016-19.
• Doubled Child Tax Credit; record Child Care & Development Block Grant funding; 12-week paid parental leave for federal employees.
• CARES Act $3.5 billion for child-care needs during pandemic.
• Expanded apprenticeships to 850k; 460+ companies pledged 16 million training slots.
• Created skills-based federal hiring EO.
• Women’s Global Development & Prosperity Initiative reached 24 million women; launched W-GDP Fund and We-Fi.
• Technology leadership: AI, quantum, 5G named R&D priorities; Secure 5G & Beyond Act; $1 billion AI/quantum institutes; Huawei security coalition.
• Early travel suspensions from China, Iran, Europe, UK, Brazil; bilateral border closures with Canada & Mexico.
• Declared national emergency; FEMA NRCC activated; White House Task Force formed.
• Invoked Defense Production Act 100+ times; billions of PPE pieces distributed; ventilator stockpile ×10.
• Project Air Bridge, Supply Chain Task Force, Javits Center hospital, USNS Comfort/Mercy deployments.
• Built world’s largest testing system (200 million tests, 2 million / day capacity).
• Fast-tracked 300+ test EUAs; distributed rapid tests to nursing homes, HBCUs, etc.
• Therapeutics: EUAs for convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies; Remdesivir approval; 370+ therapies in trials.
• Operation Warp Speed: Pfizer & Moderna vaccines developed in 9 months (~95 % effic.).
• CARES Act $2.3 trillion relief plus $900 billion follow-on legislation; Paycheck Protection Program.
• Price-transparency rules for hospitals & insurers.
• Insulin & EpiPen price-cap agreements; Most-Favored-Nation drug-pricing model.
• Ended ACA individual-mandate penalty; expanded short-term and association health plans.
• Finalized rule to stop “surprise billing.”
• Record HIV initiative to end epidemic by 2030; PrEP for uninsured; pediatric-cancer moonshot.
• 450 miles of new border wall in key sectors.
• Migrant Protection Protocols (“Remain in Mexico”).
• Asylum reforms, public-charge rule, visa-overstay crack-downs.
• Ended catch-and-release; historic ICE/CBP narcotics and gang arrests.
• EO to exclude illegal aliens from apportionment count; agreements with Central-American nations to curb migration.
• First Step Act: criminal-justice reform, sentence reductions, recidivism programs.
• Expanded Project Safe Neighborhoods; violent-crime prosecutions at record highs.
• Combated human trafficking: EO, $400 million DOJ grants, full-time task forces.
• Protected Second Amendment: EO rejecting international small-arms treaty; banned bump stocks while defending firearm ownership.
• Opioid strategy cut overdose deaths (2018 decline, first in 29 years); 12,466 lb opioids seized FY 2019.
• Three Supreme Court Justices – Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
• 54 appellate, 174 district, 3 international-trade judges confirmed (230+ total).
• Created White House Opportunity & Revitalization Council; revived Federalism via regulatory relief.
• Launched Governors’ Initiative on Regulatory Innovation.
• Secured $2.2 trillion in defense funding; three consecutive pay raises (largest in a decade).
• Established United States Space Force – first new service since 1947.
• Destroyed 100 % of ISIS caliphate; killed al-Baghdadi and Soleimani.
• VA MISSION Act (community-care choice), VA Accountability Act (easier removal of poor performers).
• Reduced veteran homelessness by 6 percent; tele-health visits ↑ 1,200 percent during pandemic.
• Secured $400 billion increase in NATO spending commitments; doubled allies meeting 2 % GDP.
• Withdrew from Iran JCPOA and Paris Climate Agreement; instituted maximum-pressure sanctions on Iran.
• Abraham Accords: Israel-UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco normalization.
• First-ever presidential summits with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.
• Recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital; moved U.S. embassy.
• Brokered Serbia-Kosovo economic normalization; facilitated historic Sudan-Israel flight.
• Countered Chinese theft/espionage (TikTok, Huawei, international 5G standards).
• Great American Outdoors Act – largest investment in national parks/public lands history.
• Save Our Seas Act; marine-litter strategic plan; One Trillion Trees Initiative.
• 1.3 million acres of new wilderness; 4 million acres opened for hunting/fishing access.
• Active-forest-management EO to reduce wildfire risk.
• Restored due-process rights in campus Title IX proceedings; prohibited CRT-style trainings in federal agencies.
• Promoted school choice: 15 states expanded programs; Opportunity Scholarship Program reauthorized in D.C.
• Banned federal funding for K-12 transgender sports mandates; protected religious freedom on campus
Wonder if Bryan has ever gotten as close to Trump as Jeffery Epstein did?
Concise. The lesson here is “tough luck,” regardless of what future-oriented policy one chooses. Something will go wrong. Like everything in life, it’s how you react that matters.
I wish we could muster an effective reaction to today's situation. But I don't see the possibility.
What I know is that whatever you think you know about Trump is coming straight from legacy media, which by now, most people understand is a pack of lying, agenda-driven lackeys.
If you do not know Trump, have never met him, have never worked with him, or even with someone who has done these things, I ask again: you know this how?
I have no interest in continuing this conversation. I have no more time to waste.
If think the greatest push-back in any social system is the one that ultimately has the final say in *any* action. Reality.
The case for free trade isn't some detached from reality, heavenly realm solution where suddenly the need for thought dissappears. It is that wealth and economic growth is something positive for human life, and laws that protect the individual's rights is what both best allows for that and is consistent with a rational morality.
Sure, evil, irrational, destructive actors are still going to be out there. That's why you need the government in the first place. But all you can do is make the most rational decisions, which allow the possibility of success- and because this is reality, recognizing that nothing actually promises success, failure is always a possibility no matter how well planned something is.
It appears to me that economists elevate economic efficiency above all other values, and this is detrimental to social cohesion based on jobs with income which can support families. It also appears to me that tariffs are useful as a weapon, but not as a means of seizing economic advantage. With the largest economy in the world, we should be able to handle this - that is, give up some efficiency with the objective of maximizing social cohesion and still being able to use the tariff weapon. I wish I could entirely believe that this is Trump’s objective.
Should we have free trade with Russia and Iran and North Korea? I think it really is very important to keep sanctions on them. If I had to choose between free trade with everyone all the time, or getting to sanction enemy regimes but risk some tariffs on allies/neutral countries, it's a tough choice for me. Especially since like you said enshrining free trade in the constitution would come with other risks you listed.
I think you underrate the likelihood of countries not bothering with bilateral free trade if America grants them unilateral free trade. Lots and lots of people feel intuitively that it's good for them if other countries remove tariffs, and also good if they get to keep their own tariffs. Despite their own tariffs and the other countries tariffs both being quite bad. Without the ability to make a deal like "We'll remove our tariffs if you remove yours", I predict lots of countries will shoot themselves in the foot by never removing their own tariffs.
Valid points, but I don’t think that’s the message here. I believe the point is that something unpleasant will always happen regardless of what general policy one chooses, or how that policy is ensconced. So, best to pick the policy that maximizes greatest potential positive outcome, and prepare for the possible negative consequences. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. It’s how a country equips itself to deal with the possible risks of the chosen approach that matters. At least, it seems so to me.
Since we don’t have a constitutional mandate, and we do have an illiterate protectionist POTUS, we’re stuck (for now) with the manic game show version of tariff negotiations.
Yes. Once the politicians get involved, all bets are off except that they will make it worse, and then they'll pile on the fixes and make it worser.
I liken political meddling to adding new bandaids on top of old filthy ones, piling them up until the mess either kills the patient or falls off of its own accord. It's better to have none at all than the diseased mess they create.
I see no problem with allowing free trade even with actual war time enemies, only benefits.
First off, trade is far scarier to despots than to free people, because despots fear the contagion of free people. They are going to mismanage the trade so badly that there is no need for our politicians to meddle and give them someone to blame. Witness the Cuban embargo, which has probably kept the regimes in power longer than they would have without that handy excuse for their miserable planned economy.
North Korea has nothing to buy our exports with except stolen crypto currency. The need for cold hard cash or real products for barter might even encourage them to loosen their death grip on society, and modernize and produce things with actual barter value.
Iran probably has more to offer, but just like Cuba, they fear trade and contagion more than anyone cares to admit.
Russia also fears the contagion of free trade, but I get the impression Russian paranoia is so built in by now that free trade wouldn't make it any worse, and it probably would increase their meddling in Ukraine. BUT -- how would they pay for everything? Their greed for modern equipment and even weaponry would lead to increased oil exports and a drop in world oil prices.
As for actual war enemies, like WW II, I laugh. Sure, send your cargo ships to New York and Los Angeles, give us your scarce cash and gold and exports to buy our exports, and we'll sink your ships once they clear port and get far enough away that the flotsam doesn't bother us.
>I see no problem with allowing free trade even with actual war time enemies, only benefits.
So you're the US in 1940. Japan is committing atrocities in China. Their tanks, ships, and planes which allow them to maintain military superiority and continue to commit atrocities are all powered by oil. You'd keep selling them oil? Japan would happily pay with resources like fish and rice and mechanical pencils and anything else to get more oil, which they needed so much but had such limited supplies of.
You're the US today. Russia needs processed industrial metals to build their tanks. You'd sell them the metal? They'd happily pay by selling their oil like they are already, but would have an easier time of it without sanctions.
Perhaps you believe in central planning in the morals department as much as the economic.
If Japan is committing such atrocities, don't you trust the public to boycott them? Or do you think it is your moral imperative to think for the public because they are too dumb to think correctly?
Putin deserves all the abuse you can heap on him. Do you think we should be selling weaponry to Ukraine and not even trade with Russia?
I remind you Biden and the EU have been very careful to sell just enough to keep Russia at bay, but not enough to take back any conquered territory. There have been close to a million casualties combined. If the US had supplied no weapons, this would have been over with a lot fewer dead. If they had supplied a lot more weapons, Russia could have been pushed back.
Every time Biden and the EU announced new sanctions on Russia, my reaction was "What? These weren't already in place?" In other words, we have not yet cut off trade with Russia. Perhaps you remember that little mystery a few months ago about undersea cables in the Baltic, and one of the suspicious ships was a Russian tanker evading sanctions. Apparently we haven't been following your policy prescriptions as much as you might wish.
Is any of that your idea of humane foreign policy? Are you proud of what politicians have accomplished? Do you really think that leaving all those decisions to individuals would have been worse or more muddled?
>If Japan is committing such atrocities, don't you trust the public to boycott them? Or do you think it is your moral imperative to think for the public because they are too dumb to think correctly?
I think it is useful to band together for moral decisions at times. It's tempting to give in and buy the cheap goods from the atrocious regime; by voting together to ban such purchases, making the moral decision is easier.
On top of that, it only takes an handful of bad actors deceiving consumers to give a great deal of funding to Japan. One large wholesaler with no morals could buy a large shipment of Japanese goods, remove any indication that they're from Japan, and sell them to American consumers who'd be unaware they're funding Japanese atrocities.
>Putin deserves all the abuse you can heap on him. Do you think we should be selling weaponry to Ukraine and not even trade with Russia?
Yes. I don't think Biden went far enough at all. But I do think leaving the decisions to individuals would've been even worse.
>Oh, and also, your quote includes "actual war time enemies", yet both your examples are countries we are not at war with.
I'd think the decision about whether to trade with Japan in 1942 would be even more obvious than Japan in 1940.
And who decides when it is useful to band together, and how to band together? The government? Which changes every few years and sets no moral standard except expediency?
No thanks. Spontaneous organization is far more effective.
Oh, and also, your quote includes "actual war time enemies", yet both your examples are countries we are not at war with.
Other countries shooting themselves in the foot is THEIR business. Negotiating to stop shooting OURSELVES in OUR foot is the height of foolishness.
Yes both the people of US and those countries would be better off with free trade
*Posted from my iPhone