The Economic Reality of Tarrifs

I know Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, CATO and the Heritage foundation are dancing on the grave of Trump’s tariffs, as are Democrats (who never met a tax they didn’t like) and some of my more libertarian leaning friends and while I completely recognize what tariffs are in effect, I live in the real world and believe Patton was right­—never follow rules your enemy ignores.

I consider myself a man of conservative and Christian principles and values, but I struggle with people who, like American libertarians, fight tariffs on principle and seem to believe that if America acts as if there is a global free market when there is not, everything will be fine. They don’t seem to understand (or care) that other nations use tariffs as a trade weapon, and if America doesn’t respond in some fashion, like tariffs of its own, America suffers. It just seems to me to be an unworkable situation for Americans to pretend the world plays by our rules when it doesn’t.

That tension has become one of the defining disagreements on our side of the aisle. On paper, libertarians are not wrong. In a world where everyone plays by the same rules, tariffs are taxes on your own people. They raise prices, protect inefficiency, and invite corruption. The elegance of the argument is precisely why it is so appealing: voluntary exchange is good, and government interference is usually bad.

My problem with that argument is that it assumes a world that does not exist.

Free markets require mutual restraint. They depend on comparable labor standards, environmental regulations, effective law enforcement, and honest currency practices. Remove those, and trade stops being free exchange and becomes a strategic contest between governments. The question is no longer whether two companies can trade profitably, but whether one nation is deliberately using policy to hollow out another nation’s productive capacity.

Other nations openly practice economic nationalism. They subsidize industries, manipulate currency, block market access, force technology transfers, and target foreign sectors for destruction. They do not treat trade as a neutral marketplace; they treat it as a geopolitical tool. When Americans insist on unilateral free trade in response, they are not defending markets — they are refusing to acknowledge strategy.

It is the economic equivalent of bringing a rulebook to a knife fight and, as you are being stabbed to death, quoting the rules to your assailant as to why murder is illegal. If your murderer cared about the rules, he wouldn’t be stabbing you in the first place.

The libertarian concern is understandable. Once the government gains the power to intervene in trade, politicians can reward friends and punish enemies. History contains countless examples of protectionism decaying into cronyism. But the opposite error is equally dangerous: treating the global economy as a voluntary association of individuals rather than a competition among sovereign states.

A nation is not merely a collection of consumers seeking the lowest possible prices. It is a social order responsible for preserving the conditions under which its citizens can live, work, and remain independent. A country that cannot manufacture critical goods, produce energy, or sustain key industries eventually cannot sustain its political freedom either. Dependence becomes leverage, and leverage becomes control.

This is where my Christian and conservative instincts converge. Charity and fairness are virtues, but stewardship is also a virtue. A household head who allows his family to be systematically taken advantage of in the name of moral purity is not practicing righteousness; he is neglecting responsibility. In the same way, a government that refuses to respond to economic predation is not defending liberty — it is exposing its people to coercion.

Tariffs, then, are not a doctrine. They are a tool. Ideally, trade should be free. In reality, trade is either reciprocal or it is exploitative. When other nations use tariffs and industrial policy as weapons, refusing to answer is not principled consistency; it is unilateral disarmament.

I get that libertarians are defending a true economic principle – but conservatives are confronting a true political reality.

The mistake occurs when we apply rules designed for private exchange to relations between sovereign powers. Free markets require mutual rules; without mutuality, they stop being markets and become strategy. The real question is not tariffs versus free trade, but whether America will act as an economy inside the world or as a civilization inside a competitive international system.

Principles do matter, but survival determines whether principles can endure at all. Sitting back and resting on principle, taking it until it destroys our economy, doesn’t really seem to be a rational or prudent strategy.