As someone who is most definitely on the more conservative side of things, I find the new “Liberation Day” tariffs deeply troubling—not only because of their economic repercussions but also due to the flawed reasoning behind them. I am not the only conservative who has these thoughts about these new tariffs; however, Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro expressed similar concerns with President Trump’s new tariffs. Regarding the Madagascar section of the chart, he said, ”It’s Madagascar. Our trade deficit with Madagascar is a few million dollars. Is the idea we have to chisel out of the people of Madagascar extra dollars from American products or we are getting screwed by the great and powerful people of Madagascar?.. It makes zero sense.” These tariffs, which include a universal 10% import tax and steeper rates for certain nations, disrupt global trade, increase consumer costs, and place undue strain on businesses that rely on international supply chains. Retaliatory measures, such as China’s 34% tariff on U.S. goods, exacerbate these issues, compounding the negative effects on American exporters.
The calculation behind these tariffs reveals significant flaws. The administration claims they are “reciprocal,” but the formula used to determine the rates is overly simplistic. It focuses primarily on the trade deficit, dividing it by the value of imports and then applying arbitrary adjustments. This approach overlooks critical factors like currency fluctuations, consumer demand, and the broader complexities of global trade. Additionally, non-tariff barriers—such as regulatory standards and environmental policies—are treated as if they are direct tariffs, which inflates the calculated rates and misrepresents actual trade imbalances. These weaknesses cast doubt on the legitimacy of the tariffs and distract from addressing the structural causes of trade deficits.
Beyond these technical issues, the tariffs contradict core free-market principles by expanding government intervention in the economy. They effectively enable the administration to decide which industries deserve protection, a practice that undermines the natural competitiveness of the market. For companies dependent on global trade, these measures reduce competitiveness, limit innovation, and could lead to job losses across affected sectors.
While some argue that these tariffs protect domestic industries and address trade imbalances, the long-term risks outweigh the short-term gains. Protectionism often stifles economic growth by distorting markets and eroding trust in international trade relationships. I believe a better strategy would involve pursuing comprehensive trade agreements that lower barriers for all parties and foster mutual economic benefits.
For those of us who believe in free trade, these tariffs represent a step away from the vision of unrestricted commerce that drives prosperity. With their flawed foundation and harmful consequences, the “Liberation Day” tariffs place unnecessary burdens on businesses and consumers while steering the economy toward higher costs and diminished freedom.
