SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
The Batshit Tariff Madness of King Trump
There are certainly issues that can be raised about trade, and our policies have often not benefited the country’s workers—but the president's approach is just crazy.
Apr 03, 2025
Suppose your doctor suddenly insisted that you needed to follow a strict diet and exercise regimen. He said he realized you had a serious problem when he divided your height by your birthday, and it came out way too high. You would probably decide that you need a new doctor.
This is basically the story of Donald Trump’s new round of import taxes (tariffs) on our trading partners. Trump somehow decided that trade was bankrupting the country, even though we were creating jobs rapidly, the economy was growing at a strong pace, and inflation was slowing to normal rates when he took office.
Trump’s response is to give the country the most massive tax increase in its history, possibly exceeding $1 trillion on an annual basis, which comes to $7,000 per household. And this tax hike will primarily hit moderate and middle-income families. Trump’s taxes go easy on the rich, who spend a smaller share of their income on imported goods.
Trump’s team calculated our trade deficit with each country and divided it by their exports to the United States. Trump decided that this figure was equal to that country’s tariff on goods imported from the U.S.
There was much that Trump said in his Rose Garden address that made little sense. He repeated his bizarre claim that the United States had its greatest period of prosperity in the 1890s. This was a time when workers put in seven days a week, unions were largely illegal, and life expectancy was less than 50.
He then attributed the Great Depression to the income tax, and had it continuing after World War II and President Roosevelt’s death. In Trump’s telling of history, the post-war Golden Age from 1945 to 1973 did not exist. This was a period when the economy was growing rapidly, the gains from growth were broadly shared, and the top income tax rate was between 70 percent and 90 percent.
Trump’s account of the present was no more based in reality than his history of the United States. He told us that our trading partners and closest allies were all ripping us off.
Canada is one of the prime villains in Trump’s story. This is based on their trade surplus with the United States, which Trump insists is $200 billion a year. In reality, Canada’s trade surplus is roughly $60 billion, and this all due to the oil we import from them. Without our oil imports, we would have a trade surplus with Canada.
Ironically, Trump encouraged us to import more oil from Canada in his first term in office. Apparently, he has now decided that they are ripping us off by selling us the oil he wanted us to buy.
The fact that Trump’s aides have been unable to get him to correct his imaginary Canada trade surplus number is a clear warning that Trump’s big tariffs are not grounded in reality. There are certainly issues that can be raised about trade, and our policies have often not benefited the country’s workers.
The rapid expansion of trade with China and other developing countries in the first decade of this century cost us millions of manufacturing jobs. It also devastated manufacturing unions. As a result, the unionization rate in manufacturing is now barely higher than in the rest of the private sector. The historical wage premium paid in manufacturing has largely disappeared.
But it is a huge and absurd jump from this fact to Trump’s claim that all of our trading partners are ripping us off. In fact, in the course of his rambling address Trump gave a great example of how trade was benefitting the country.
Trump’s method of calculating tariffs is comparable to the doctor who assesses your proper weight by dividing your height by your birthday. Any doctor who did this is clearly batshit crazy, and unfortunately so is our president.
An outbreak of Avian flu sent egg prices soaring when Trump first took office. In response to the record high prices, Trump’s Agriculture Secretary negotiated huge purchases of eggs from South Korea and Turkey, making our trade deficits with both countries larger. Nonetheless, Trump boasted about how his administration had brought egg prices down.
It was this sort of warped thinking that is the basis for the massive tax that Trump is imposing on the goods we import from our trading partners. Incredibly, it turns out that the tax rates Trump put in place, from 10 percent on goods from the UK to 49 percent on Cambodia, which were ostensibly “reciprocal” tariffs, bear no relationship whatsoever to the tariffs or trade barriers these countries place on our exports.
Instead, Trump’s team calculated our trade deficit with each country and divided it by their exports to the United States. Trump decided that this figure was equal to that country’s tariff on goods imported from the U.S.
Trump’s method of calculating tariffs is comparable to the doctor who assesses your proper weight by dividing your height by your birthday. Any doctor who did this is clearly batshit crazy, and unfortunately so is our president. And apparently none of his economic advisors has the courage and integrity to set him straight or to resign.
Trump’s New Order: Making DC Safe, and Beautiful, and Compliant
The executive order’s timing, scope, and ambiguity suggest that the federal government is not preparing for peaceful civic engagement on April 5, but rather girding itself for defiance.
Apr 03, 2025
"We've seen encampments cleared, phones tapped, and permits held up—but this? This feels like they're preparing for war," said Marisol Jennings, a D.C.-based organizer who has coordinated protests since 2017.
Just days before thousands of Americans are expected to gather in Washington, D.C. to protest the Trump administration's policies, a sweeping new executive order threatens to transform the nation's capital into a showcase for authoritarian policing.
Signed on March 27, the order—Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful—appears less concerned with beautification than with containment. Its provisions call for surging federal law enforcement, accelerating immigration crackdowns, and strictly enforcing vague "quality-of-life" directives for the city. And its timing, just a week before what organizers are calling the most consequential day of protest since President Donald Trump's return to office, is raising alarm from civil rights lawyers, city officials, and veteran demonstrators.
April 5 could become a barometer for how far Americans are willing to go to resist encroaching authoritarianism—and how far their government is willing to go to stop them.
This aggressive reordering of public space arrives at a politically volatile moment. On April 5, demonstrators from across the country will convene under the banner "Hands Off!"—a coordinated protest against Project 2025, growing executive overreach, and the erosion of democratic norms. But these protests will unfold on ground that has just been legally redefined. The executive order establishes a federal task force with sweeping discretion to enforce federal statutes, remove homeless encampments, and sanitize public areas—rhetoric that critics fear is coded language for suppressing civil dissent. One of the EO's most striking directives calls for expanding the presence of federal law enforcement in Washington, D.C., and increasing enforcement of so-called "quality-of-life" regulations in public spaces, including parks and federal landmarks.
Civil liberties advocates point to the EO's targeting of "unpermitted" demonstrations and disruptive gatherings as a thinly veiled attempt to preempt large-scale mobilization. In a city where the right to protest has long been protected even under strain, the threat of being forcibly removed or detained for a sign, a chant, or an unauthorized step into the street carries profound implications. "You don't need to ban protests if you can criminalize every protester," one ACLU attorney told me. "Public noise ordinances, anti-loitering laws, unauthorized signage—those become the new tools of political suppression."
The fear is not hypothetical. Activists organizing the April 5 protests have already reported increased surveillance and delays in permitting. Groups representing immigrants and unhoused communities are reconsidering participation altogether. The EO directs federal agencies to maximize "enforcement of Federal immigration law" and redirect available "law enforcement resources to apprehend and deport illegal aliens in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area," a mandate that has already created a chilling effect among undocumented residents, some of whom now fear that attending a peaceful march could result in deportation. In response, the National Homelessness Law Center warned that the order "will worsen homelessness in D.C., violate rights, and waste resources," especially with the federal push to "promptly remove and clean up all homeless encampments."
Then there is the question of firearms. Nestled within the order is a provision directing local entities to expedite and reduce the cost of concealed carry licenses in the District of Columbia. In a city with some of the country's strictest gun laws, this shift could radically alter the atmosphere of a mass protest. Armed counterprotesters, legally carrying under the new directive, may now appear in greater numbers—creating conditions ripe for intimidation or escalation. Police, too, may respond with heightened aggression, assuming the risk of firearms in the crowd. As one security analyst from Georgetown University put it, "You're introducing legal ambiguity and lethal potential into an already volatile situation."
But the risk of physical violence is just one dimension of the broader threat.
For many organizers, the stakes are not just physical—they're existential. "This is a test run," said Rami Kareem, a civil rights attorney affiliated with the Brennan Center for Justice. "What they're doing in D.C. could easily be replicated in Atlanta, Phoenix, or Milwaukee if it succeeds. If people stop showing up out of fear, the right to protest dies quietly, without a single law being passed."
Legal analysts point out that the EO contains intentionally broad language, such as directing agencies to deploy a "more robust Federal law enforcement presence" to ensure "that all applicable quality of life, nuisance, and public-safety laws are strictly enforced." Additionally, the EO mandates "prompt removal and cleanup of all homeless or vagrant encampments and graffiti on Federal land." These directives could grant law enforcement considerable discretion to interpret and potentially suppress protest gatherings, signage, and activities under the guise of enforcing public safety and beautification measures.
Even before the order, Project 2025 had stirred significant public anxiety about the centralization of federal authority and the erosion of institutional norms. But this EO provides an immediate, tangible mechanism to contain dissent—not just in D.C., but in any city with significant federal presence. As national attention turns toward the capital on April 5, many movement leaders see it as a galvanizing moment: either a line is held in defense of civil resistance, or a line is crossed in the normalization of political suppression. "If people stay home out of fear, it tells them this worked. If we show up in mass, it tells them we still have power," Jennings said. "That choice is still ours."
What's at stake goes far beyond the fate of one demonstration. April 5 could become a barometer for how far Americans are willing to go to resist encroaching authoritarianism—and how far their government is willing to go to stop them. If the demonstrators are met with violence, surveillance, or mass arrests, it may radicalize a new generation of resistance. If they succeed in holding ground peacefully, it may mark the resurgence of a national movement grounded in visibility and defiance.
Either way, this is not just a march—it is a test. Of power, of will, and of what kind of country this is becoming. Washington, D.C. is not only a geographic location; it is the symbolic heart of American democracy. If peaceful protests in the capital can be stifled under a vague mandate of "beautification," it sets a precedent that ripples outward. Critics argue this beauty is being defined in opposition to presence, protest, and poverty. The message is clear: Public dissent may now be treated as public disorder. That message is not lost on organizers, some of whom now fear their demonstration may be remembered not for its power—but for its suppression.
City leaders are in a bind. Mayor Muriel Bowser has offered cautious criticism of the order, noting that her administration already addresses crime and homelessness through existing programs. But the new federal task force was created without local input, and its presence sharply curtails D.C.'s home rule. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton warned that the order strips power from D.C. residents under the guise of national pride. In her statement, she added the order was "thoroughly anti-home rule" and "insulting to the 700,000 D.C. residents who live in close proximity to a federal government, which continues to deny them the same rights afforded to other Americans." Yet legally, city officials may have little recourse. On federal land, the task force's authority is unchecked.
As April 5 approaches, the atmosphere in Washington is one of deep unease. The executive order's timing, scope, and ambiguity suggest that the federal government is not preparing for peaceful civic engagement, but rather girding itself for defiance. If protesters are met not with the protections of the Constitution but with barricades, surveillance, and selective enforcement, then this spring may be remembered not as the moment democracy was defended in the streets—but the moment it was quietly roped off, one barricade at a time.
Trump Is Wielding Tariffs to Help Billionaires, But They Can Be a Tool for Fair Trade, Too
Rather than reflexively dismiss tariffs altogether, those of us who care about sweatshop labor, plastic pollution, climate change, and other destructive by-products of tariff-free trade can still use them to demand a fairer economy.
Apr 03, 2025
President Donald Trump has said “tariff” is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” He claims tariffs will restore American trade supremacy, bring lost jobs back to the United States, and most bizarrely, replace income taxes.
Tariffs can be a useful tool to regulate global trade in the interest of jobs, wages, labor rights, the environment, and consumers—if applied correctly.
But Trump’s chaotic, overly broad tariffs are only likely to hurt working people. They won’t ensure labor rights or protect the environment. They won’t even return jobs to the U.S., if his first term tariffs are any indication.
Tariffs on oil imports, for example, if done correctly, can foot the bill to repair the climate destruction that fossil fuel companies profit from, and incentivize phasing out oil and gas altogether.
Because new tariffs require congressional approval, Trump manufactured a crisis about the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants across U.S. borders in order to use executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. He insists that foreign governments and companies pay these tariffs—and that imposing them on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China will solve all of the U.S.’ economic problems.
Tariffs aren’t the same as income taxes. When applied to goods being imported from, say, Canada, tariffs aren’t paid by either the Canadian manufacturer or the Canadian government. They’re paid by the U.S. importer to the U.S. government. So a company like Walmart would pay a fee in order to be able to import specific goods from Canada.
Importers will often pass increased tariffs on to consumers, resulting in higher prices. But as Hillary Haden of the Trade Justice Education Fund explained to me in an interview, that’s not a given. Sometimes tariffs are absorbed by the importer as the cost of doing business.
Unsurprisingly, the stock market is leery of tariffs, as are investors and free market champions, who’ve pushed for decades to demolish trade barriers via such initiatives as the World Trade Organization (WTO). Indeed, China has already filed a lawsuit against Trump’s tariffs at the WTO.
With the world’s free-trade-based economy teetering on a knife’s edge, Democrats are attempting to undo Trump’s haphazard tariffs, especially against our neighbors, Mexico and Canada. After all, it was a Democratic president—Bill Clinton—who signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1992, turning all three member nations into a tariff-free zone. (In 2020, Trump signed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement, replacing NAFTA.)
There’s good reason to criticize Trump’s blanket tariffs. But rather than reflexively dismiss tariffs altogether, those of us who care about sweatshop labor, plastic pollution, climate change, and other destructive by-products of tariff-free trade can still use them to demand a fairer economy.
In 1999, hundreds of thousands of activists, including union members and environmentalists, marched against the WTO in Seattle. The “Battle of Seattle,” as it came to be known, was the high point of the so-called anti-globalization movement, which sought to prioritize human rights, workers’ rights, conservation, and other considerations before corporate profits.
It was the pursuit of a “fair-trade” economy over a free-trade one.
So it’s ironic that President Trump is wielding tariffs as a central pillar of his pro-billionaire economic agenda—and his liberal opposition is championing free trade. Neither pro-billionaire trade nor unregulated trade is in the interests of working people.
Tariffs on oil imports, for example, if done correctly, can foot the bill to repair the climate destruction that fossil fuel companies profit from, and incentivize phasing out oil and gas altogether.
Similarly, tariffs on products manufactured with slave labor or underpaid labor can level the playing field for manufacturers who pay their workers a fair, living wage and ensure safe working conditions.
Rather than reflexively opposing tariffs because it is Trump’s latest fixation, we ought to demand a protectionist economy that can apply tariffs carefully, strategically, and thoughtfully in order to undo the damage of free market capitalism.
The Deep Sea Is Not for Sale—the ISA Must Reject Corporate Pressure
The multilateral body, recently decried for its seemingly pro-industry stance, should reorient itself back toward its most weighty purpose: protecting the seabed for the benefit of humankind as a whole.
Apr 03, 2025
The deep sea, Earth’s last untouched ecological frontier, is an ancient, living system that regulates our climate, stores carbon, and hosts breathtaking biodiversity. It is the common heritage of all of us. It is not a resource bank for speculative profits. And it is not for sale.
Yet, the deep-sea mining industry, led by The Metals Company (TMC), is determined to change that. The company has threatened to submit the world’s first commercial mining application in June 2025—with or without regulations in place. And now, in a desperate new move, it says it will bypass the International Seabed Authority (ISA) altogether and seek mining permits under the United States’ 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHRMA).
TMC’s reckless and dangerous attempt at a deep-sea neocolonial land grab came on the penultimate day of the ISA’s 30th Council session, ahead of a discussion of its mining application and a Fourth Quarter 2024 Earnings Update call. As it became clear that it would be forced to leave the meeting empty-handed, when nations rejected its wish to secure a process to have its commercial application approved, the company doubled down. Its tactics echo those of the oil and gas industry—manufacturing urgency and demanding fast-tracked approval.
The truth is this: deep-sea mining is a “cause in search of a purpose.” Greed, driven by speculative profit rather than public need, is driving the push for the launch of this destructive industry.
Member states and the ISA’s newly appointed Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho swiftly condemned it as a blatant attempt to sidestep international law and undermine the multilateral governance of the global commons. This pressure from TMC and other industry players forces a defining question for the ISA: Will it uphold its mandate to protect the seabed for the benefit of all humankind, or will it cave to corporate pressure?
Contrary to industry complaints, the careful ISA deliberations that have taken place over the years are safeguards to ensure that crucial unresolved questions around environmental risk, equity, science, and underwater cultural heritage are addressed. Notably, in this session, the African Group spotlighted long-ignored issues of how benefits will be shared and the socioeconomic impacts of seabed mining on terrestrial mining countries. These questions cut to the core of justice and global balance, and they demand answers before any approval can be considered.
Outside the meeting rooms, public opposition is mounting. Greenpeace International and Pacific allies brought the voices of over 11,000 people from 91 countries directly to the ISA urging deep-sea conservation. Thirty-two countries now support a moratorium, ban, or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining. The United Nations Environment Program has echoed these calls, emphasizing the need for robust, independent science before any decisions are made. And legal scholars have dismissed recent threats of lawsuits from contractors as baseless.
The industry is increasingly being recognized for what it is—a false solution. Deep-sea mining proponents claim that mining the seabed would reduce pressure on land-based ecosystems. However, research suggests deep-sea mining is more likely to add to global extraction than replace it. Meanwhile, emerging battery technologies, recycling breakthroughs, and circular economy models are rapidly reducing any purported demand for virgin metals from the seafloor.
With its original green-washing narrative unraveling, TMC and others are now stoking geopolitical tensions, positioning themselves as a strategic necessity for national security. However, the cracks are showing. For instance, TMC recently surrendered a third of its mining contract area in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), after ending a services agreement with its Kiribati-sponsored partner, Marawa. The industry faces failed mining tests, equipment and vessel delays, no finalized regulations, and growing investor skepticism over the industry’s environmental and financial viability.
The truth is this: deep-sea mining is a “cause in search of a purpose.” Greed, driven by speculative profit rather than public need, is driving the push for the launch of this destructive industry.
And the risks are profound. A recent study published in Nature found reduced biodiversity and ecosystem degradation more than 40 years after a small-scale mining test. Recovery of these nodules, which take millions of years to form, in human timescales is impossible.
But there is still hope. The recent appointment of Leticia Carvalho, a scientist who is calling for transparency, inclusivity, sustainability, environmental protection, and science-driven governance, as the secretary-general of the ISA presents a real opportunity. The multilateral body, recently decried for its seemingly pro-industry stance, should seize it and reorient itself back toward its most weighty purpose: protecting the seabed for the benefit of humankind as a whole.
The ISA’s dual mandate under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—to both manage the mineral resources of the seabed and ensure the effective protection of the marine environment—has always been fraught with tension. But in this era of climate chaos, biodiversity loss, and ocean degradation, it is precaution and protection that must prevail. The health of the ocean, the rights of future generations, and the principle of the common heritage of humankind demand it.
As the world heads toward the U.N. ocean conference in Nice, France this June—just a few weeks before the July ISA Assembly—leaders will have a crucial chance to show where they stand. They must reject TMC’s and the rest of the deep-sea mining industry’s attempts to force the ocean floor to be opened for exploitation with no assurance of marine protection. They must not allow themselves to be bullied into the adoption of a weak Mining Code built on industry-favored timelines. They must honor their roles as stewards—not sellers—of the international seabed.
The deep sea is not for sale—and the ISA still has a chance to prove it.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.