In Defence of Trump’s Tariffs, By Charles Taylor (Florida)
The American Greatness article titled "Trump's Tariffs Will Create Millions of Jobs" by Spencer P. Morrison, published on March 3, 2025, gives the case for Trump's tariffs.
https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/03/trumps-tariffs-will-create-millions-of-jobs/
The core defence of Trump's tariffs, as articulated in the American Greatness article, rests on their potential to reshore economic production and create millions of jobs in the United States. Morrison argues that tariffs are a "powerful tool" to shift manufacturing from the Third World back to America, boosting Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over time. In 2024, the U.S. ran a trade deficit of $918 billion, meaning Americans consumed far more than they produced domestically. Tariffs aim to reverse this by incentivising companies to build factories in the U.S. to avoid import duties, thereby increasing domestic production and employment.
Morrison contrasts the short-term focus of critics—who predict job losses from supply chain disruptions—with the long-term gains of industrial revitalisation. He uses an analogy: if taxes were eliminated, media might claim immediate job losses in accounting, but the broader economy would grow over time. Similarly, tariffs may cause temporary pain (e.g., higher costs for importers), but the payoff is a stronger manufacturing base. Historical evidence supports this: the U.S. thrived under protective tariffs during the 19th century, becoming an industrial powerhouse. Trump's 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10 percent on China, announced in early 2025, could spark a similar renaissance by making foreign goods less competitive and encouraging firms to invest stateside.
Beyond economics, Trump's tariffs serve as a geopolitical tool to address longstanding grievances with trading partners, a point emphasised in another American Greatness piece from February 5, 2025, titled "Are Trump's Tariffs Really Tariffs?" Here, Victor Davis Hanson argues that these aren't traditional industry-protecting tariffs but "last-gasp tools of American leverage" after decades of failed diplomacy. For instance, the 25 percent tariffs on Mexico target its refusal to curb cartel-driven fentanyl exports—linked to more American deaths than all 20th-century U.S. wars combined—and its facilitation of 10-12 million illegal border crossings since 2021. Mexico earns $63 billion annually in remittances from these migrants, often subsidised by U.S. taxpayers, yet resists cooperation.
Similarly, tariffs on China (10 percent) punish its role in supplying fentanyl precursors and violating trade agreements, while those on Canada (25 percent) address what Trump calls a "massive subsidy" via trade imbalances—Canada exports 70 percent of its goods to the U.S., benefiting from American markets while resisting reciprocity. The American Greatness article by Morrison reinforces this: tariffs force nations to negotiate fairer terms, protecting U.S. sovereignty and security. By March 5, 2025, as reported by Reuters, Canada and Mexico had already begun retaliatory talks, suggesting Trump's strategy is prompting action where pleas failed.
Trump's tariffs also promise a fiscal boost, offsetting the cost of extending his 2017 tax cuts amid a $36.1 trillion national debt (noted in Americas Quarterly, February 3, 2025). The Tax Foundation estimates that a 25 percent tariff on Canada and Mexico, plus 10 percent on China, could generate $300 billion annually, while broader proposals (e.g., 10 percent across-the-board) might yield $2 trillion over a decade (CBS News, November 26, 2024). This revenue could fund domestic priorities without raising income taxes, aligning with Trump's pledge to maintain low taxes for Americans. Morrison argues that critics overlook this, focusing only on consumer price hikes while ignoring the reinvestment potential of tariff dollars into U.S. infrastructure or job programs.
The American Greatness articles frame tariffs as a corrective to a parasitic global economy where the U.S. props up others. Hanson notes that allies like Canada and adversaries like China, exploit American openness—Canada with subsidised trade, China with intellectual property theft and cheap labour. Morrison adds that shifting production back to the U.S. reduces this dependency, strengthening national resilience. For example, U.S. energy and lumber could replace Canadian imports, while manufacturing could supplant Chinese goods, as Trump asserted at Davos on January 23, 2025 (Al Jazeera). This aligns with his "America First" vision, prioritising self-sufficiency over globalist integration that has hollowed out industries since NAFTA (The Guardian, March 4, 2025, notes millions of factory jobs lost post-1994).
While critics cite studies like the Federal Reserve's finding that Trump's 2018 tariffs didn't boost manufacturing jobs (CBS News), supporters argue the context differs now. First-term tariffs were narrower (e.g., 25 percent on steel), facing retaliation that offset gains. The 2025 tariffs are broader and paired with a stronger negotiation stance, as seen in Trump's threats of steeper levies if concessions aren't met (CNN Business, February 3, 2025). Industry voices bolster this: in Tupelo, Mississippi, a manufacturer told NPR (March 4, 2025) that while steel costs rose, he'd pass them on, believing tariffs are a temporary "political tool" to spur U.S. investment. If firms like his build new plants, as Trump predicts, jobs follow.
Tariffs aim to shield American workers from globalisation's fallout, a point Dustin Guastella makes in The Guardian (March 4, 2025). Manufacturing supports high-wage jobs—unlike the opioid and alcohol businesses that grow when factories close. Morrison echoes this, arguing that tariffs prioritise future generations over short-term corporate profits. The $918 billion trade deficit reflects lost production that could employ millions; reversing it could revive Rust Belt towns. Forbes (November 8, 2024) notes that even if some sectors (e.g., auto) face higher costs, others (e.g., steel) could see a boom, balancing the ledger over time.
Critics, like those at the Center for American Progress (December 18, 2024), warn of higher prices and job losses—e.g., $3,000 added to car prices (PBS News, February 2, 2025). Morrison counters that this myopic view ignores adaptation: companies will relocate to avoid tariffs, as Trump told Bloomberg (CBS News). Historical tariffs under McKinley in 1890, which raised duties to 50 percent, fuelled U.S. growth despite initial disruption (Center for American Progress). Retaliation fears (BBC, January 31, 2025) are overblown—Canada and Mexico rely on U.S. markets (80 percent and 70 percent of exports, respectively, per Americas Quarterly), giving Trump leverage to extract concessions.
Trump's tariffs, as defended here, are a bold gambit to restore American manufacturing, secure borders, and fund domestic priorities. The American Greatness article by Morrison provides the economic backbone—millions of jobs and higher GDP—while Hanson's piece adds strategic depth, framing tariffs as leverage against exploitative partners. Revenue potential, industry optimism, and historical precedent bolster the case, outweighing short-term costs like price hikes or trade spats. With tariffs in effect, the U.S. stands at a crossroads: endure temporary turbulence for a stronger future, or cling to a faltering status quo. Trump bets on the former, and his defenders argue history will vindicate him.
Comments