Politics
Column: What will Trump's tariffs 'liberate' us from?
I am writing this from the last days of our captivity.
Indeed, by the time some of you read this, we will be free. If all goes according to the White House’s plan, April 2 will go down in history as America’s “Liberation Day.”
Steve Bannon, a prominent unofficial Trump advisor, is so confident about its success, he’s already talking about making Liberation Day a federal holiday next year.
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. From what will we be liberated on Liberation Day?
The Trump administration has been oddly parsimonious about providing one of its patented pithy catchphrases for what we’re being liberated from. You’d think they’d come up with something like “Globalist Tyranny,” “Neoliberal Serfdom,” “Surplus Production Sucker Status.”
But we can infer what they have in mind from context. On March 21, President Trump posted on social media, “April 2nd is Liberation Day in America!!! For DECADES we have been ripped off and abused by every nation in the World, both friend and foe. Now it is finally time for the Good Ol’ USA to get some of that MONEY, and RESPECT, BACK. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!”
To this end, Trump intends to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign cars and reciprocal tariffs on every single American trading partner.
The exact numbers and other details are murky. “No one knows what the f— is going on,” Politico quoted a White House ally close to Trump’s inner circle as saying over the weekend. “What are they going to tariff? Who are they gonna tariff and at what rates? Like, the very basic questions haven’t been answered yet.”
White House trade advisor Peter Navarro expects these tariffs to raise $600 billion annually. Nearly every serious economist across the ideological spectrum understands that American consumers would pay the bulk of that. Thus, if “successful,” Trump would be imposing the largest, most regressive tax increase in history.
It would be regressive because the taxes would hit the poor and middle class much harder than the wealthy, because a larger share of their income goes toward basics like gas, food and clothes.
The challenge of writing about “Liberation Day” is that it is so incandescently stupid it amounts to a conceptual piñata: You can whack at it from any angle and get some reward for your effort.
For starters, many people understand that tariffs on, say, foreign steel make foreign steel more expensive. As a result, the things we make from foreign steel become more expensive, too. What gets overlooked, however, is that taxing foreign steel also makes domestic steel more expensive. When you make something more scarce — steel, eggs, Taylor Swift tickets — prices go up.
Politically, the idea of deliberately making things — like literally all the things — more expensive, when you were elected in large part due to popular exhaustion with inflation, is so irrational it’s like the economic policy equivalent of a Dali painting.
Geopolitically, blowing up our alliances and the global economy in the name of “self-sufficiency” is unfathomably idiotic. The more a country relies on tariffs to “protect” its economy, the poorer it is. The more friendly trading partners a country has, the stronger it is.
The wellspring of this geyser of asininity is the simple fact that Trump doesn’t understand how trade works.
The British economist Charles Goodhart coined “Goodhart’s Law”: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” For Trump, the measure in question is balance of trade. He thinks trade deficits are proof that America is being “ripped off.” That’s not how trade works.
Every time you get a haircut, you have a trade deficit with the barber. Are you being ripped off?
Trump’s obsession with Canada illustrates his confusion. We have a trade deficit with Canada, under a trade agreement he crafted in his first term. Hence, Trump claims we “subsidize” Canada $200 billion a year (a made-up number, but that’s beside the point). The only reason we have a trade deficit with Canada is that they sell us oil at a price below global market rates. If we stopped buying their cheaper oil, we’d be worse off. Gas prices would go up and American jobs dedicated to refining that oil and exporting it would vanish. But the metric Trump cares about would improve.
Hold on here. Stuff we need would have become more scarce and expensive. Americans would be worse off. And that’s a win because … why?
During the years of our supposed economic captivity, the American economy became the “envy of the world.” That’s what Trump seems bent on liberating us from.
@JonahDispatch
Politics
Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.
During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.
“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.
Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)
This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.
According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.
But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.
Politics
California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds
California is suing the Trump administration over its “baseless and cruel” decision to freeze $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance allocated to California and four other Democratic-led states, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Thursday.
The lawsuit was filed jointly by the five states targeted by the freeze — California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Colorado — over the Trump administration’s allegations of widespread fraud within their welfare systems. California alone is facing a loss of about $5 billion in funding, including $1.4 billion for child-care programs.
The lawsuit alleges that the freeze is based on unfounded claims of fraud and infringes on Congress’ spending power as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“This is just the latest example of Trump’s willingness to throw vulnerable children, vulnerable families and seniors under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against California and Democratic-led states,” Bonta said at a Thursday evening news conference.
The $10-billion funding freeze follows the administration’s decision to freeze $185 million in child-care funds to Minnesota, where federal officials allege that as much as half of the roughly $18 billion paid to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been fraudulent. Amid the fallout, Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and announced that he will not seek a third term.
Bonta said that letters sent by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announcing the freeze Tuesday provided no evidence to back up claims of widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars in California. The freeze applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Social Services Block Grant program and the Child Care and Development Fund.
“This is funding that California parents count on to get the safe and reliable child care they need so that they can go to work and provide for their families,” he said. “It’s funding that helps families on the brink of homelessness keep roofs over their heads.”
Bonta also raised concerns regarding Health and Human Services’ request that California turn over all documents associated with the state’s implementation of the three programs. This requires the state to share personally identifiable information about program participants, a move Bonta called “deeply concerning and also deeply questionable.”
“The administration doesn’t have the authority to override the established, lawful process our states have already gone through to submit plans and receive approval for these funds,” Bonta said. “It doesn’t have the authority to override the U.S. Constitution and trample Congress’ power of the purse.”
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan and marked the 53rd suit California had filed against the Trump administration since the president’s inauguration last January. It asks the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s sweeping demands for documents and data.
Politics
Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
transcript
transcript
Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.
-
“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”
January 8, 2026
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology3 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health5 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Iowa2 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska2 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment2 days agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios