Tariffs are complicated and it’s important to look at the history behind them. Trump seems to take inspiration from the McKinley-era playbook, but the U.S. economy back then looked nothing like it does now. There was no federal income tax, the government was largely funded by tariffs, and we weren’t deeply integrated into global supply chains. It’s also worth remembering what came next: the rise of Theodore Roosevelt and a broader populist wave that reshaped how government interacted with both industry and labor.
Tariffs can be useful, especially when targeted and strategic. There’s a legitimate case to be made for recalibrating trade with certain countries. But what’s missing in this current round is a coherent strategy. These aren’t being deployed in a measured, long-term framework—they’re framed as “reciprocal,” but really they’re a reaction to trade imbalances, many of which are rooted in structural realities: raw material exports, limited consumer markets, and weak purchasing power in a lot of these countries. They can’t import U.S. goods even if they wanted to.
And here’s the core issue: I don’t think these tariffs will bring jobs back in the way they’re being sold. If the goal was real onshoring, a better approach would’ve been a modest, across-the-board tariff—say, 10%—which is what he advertised during the campaign. Add a clear timeline with built-in escalation and give companies time to adapt. Pair that with real federal incentives and funding to support domestic manufacturing, and you’ve got a plan.
But that’s not what we’re seeing. This feels like a headline play more than an industrial policy. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump walks this back soon, claims a few “renegotiated” deals as a win, and moves on—without making the structural changes needed to actually bring jobs home.
And I’ll be honest—I have personal concerns about all of this. Playing with the stock market—along with everything tied to it like retirement accounts, consumer confidence, and business investment—is playing with fire. You shake that too hard, and the fallout doesn’t just hit the donor class. It hits regular people. That’s a huge gamble politically, and if it backfires, there’s no easy way to spin it.
