A Solid Majority are Against Trump Tariffs

 From Foundation for Economic Education, April 19, 2025: 

A new national poll just dropped, and the results are striking. AtlasIntel—now considered America’s most precise pollster—asked people what they think of the new tariffs announced by the Trump administration. The response? A solid majority, 52%, are completely against them. Only 23% are completely in favor. In an age of polarization, that amounts to a national consensus. Among young people, opposition is even stronger: 64% of Americans aged 18–29 are completely against the tariffs, and another 5% are mostly against them. That’s more than two-thirds of the next generation rejecting protectionism! That might be because of a general distrust in the current government, sure. But more importantly, it suggests something deeper: a generation that leans instinctively toward free trade. That instinct is gold. But instinct alone won’t last.   Atlas National Poll — Conducted April 10–14, 2025 If we want this moment to matter, if we want to build lasting, principled support for open markets, we need to turn intuition into understanding. That’s where economic education comes in. Right now, many Americans can sense that tariffs are bad. Prices haven’t surged at the checkout line just yet, but people are paying attention. They see markets dipping. Treasury yields climbing. The dollar weakening. They’re connecting the dots. In fact, in the same poll: 64% of all Americans and 79% of young Americans believe the tariffs will increase price inflation. That’s a good start. But people need to understand why this happens.   Atlas National Poll — Conducted April 10–14, 2025 Tariffs are taxes. That’s the first lesson we teach our students. When you tax imports, you raise the cost of doing business. Not just for consumers at the checkout line, but for manufacturers trying to source materials. Prices go up. Options go down. But there’s a second, deeper layer. And it comes down to something we teach all the time at FEE: opportunity cost. Alex Tabarrok put it brilliantly in a piece recently published at FEE.org. Here’s a version of his example: Let’s say we slap tariffs on imported wine. Suddenly, demand for California wine spikes. Local producers scramble to meet it. But to grow more grapes, they need more land. They’re already using the best land. So they expand to less productive land, which increases costs. Plus, that land could’ve been used for something else: almonds, cattle, solar panels, even homes. So now we’re not just paying more for wine; we’re paying more for everything else, too. That’s the real cost: inefficiency, lower productivity. Not all popular instincts are pointed in the right direction. Proponents argue that tariffs will strengthen American manufacturing, and 41% of respondents agree. Only 37% recognize that tariffs actually weaken it. Younger Americans show a better grasp of the issue, with 45% identifying the harm tariffs pose to manufacturing.   Atlas National Poll — Conducted April 10–14, 2025 More people should look at the evidence. Manufacturing jobs as a share of employment in the U.S. have kept on declining. But manufacturing employment in China is declining, too. Why? Because China isn’t frozen in time. They’ve automated. “Dark factories” run on machines, not manpower. If the U.S. wants to compete, it needs to move forward, not clinging to a nostalgic past.   Yes, that is China, not America. Almost 75 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2011. (Source: Financial Times) Modern manufacturing is global, complex, and high-tech. Tariffs don’t help it. They hobble it. As Ryan Petersen from Flexport points out, many small American businesses are getting crushed, unable to shift suppliers or absorb higher costs:   Yes, tariffs could bankrupt thousands of U.S. small businesses that rely on Chinese manufacturing due to limited alternatives. In fact, data from Flexport shows a 50% drop in ocean freight bookings from China since tariffs hit, threatening $1 trillion in U.S. economic activity. In fact, Chinese factories may acquire failing U.S. brands, capturing the high-value customer-facing segment and vertically integrating supply chains. In other words, the policy meant to protect American enterprise will be its undoing. That’s why this moment matters. The polling is encouraging. Americans are skeptical. Young people are leading the charge. That’s a signal. But signals fade. It’s our job to turn that signal into signal strength. Because instincts, left alone, drift. They need grounding. They need explanation. They need to stick. We need to teach, clearly, repeatedly, how protectionism: Raises prices by taxing inputs and distorting resource use, Hurts U.S. manufacturers by making their supply chains more expensive, Can’t revive yesterday’s jobs in today’s global economy, and Punishes innovation by forcing inefficient production. That’s what economic education is for. That’s why FEE exists. Let’s keep teaching.

In Liberty, Diogo Costa President, FEE

Top Stories

The Hollow Men.

 It takes a special talent to betray an entire worldview without missing a beat.

by George Packer, The Atlantic, March 25, 2025- In George Orwell’s 1984, at the climax of Hate Week, Oceania is suddenly no longer at war with Eurasia, but instead is at war with Eastasia, and always has been. The pivot comes with no explanation or even announcement. During a public harangue, a Party orator is handed a scrap of paper and redirects his vitriol “mid-sentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax.”

Republican politicians in Donald Trump’s Inner Party faced a similar verbal challenge when the president changed sides in Russia’s war against Ukraine. One morning in late February, Republicans in Washington greeted Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky as a hero for continuing to resist Russian aggression. By afternoon, following Zelensky’s meeting in the Oval Office with Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance, the Ukrainian leader was an ungrateful, troublesome, and badly dressed warmonger who, if he hadn’t actually started the conflict with Russia, was the only obstacle to ending it.

After this new line was communicated to party leaders, a pro-Zelensky social-media post was taken down as swiftly as the banners denouncing Eurasia. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Senator Lindsey Graham—all supporters of Ukraine—were sent out in front of the cameras like the Hate Week orator, not to explain a new policy but to pretend that nothing had changed while America switched sides. Using nearly identical language, Rubio, Johnson, and Graham declared that Zelensky must do Trump’s bidding, which is also Vladimir Putin’s bidding, and capitulate to Russia; otherwise, Johnson and Graham added, Zelensky should resign. America’s enemy isn’t Russia. America’s enemy is Ukraine.

Graham’s mechanical style is to flit almost gleefully from one position to its opposite while remaining a party insider, which is his only consistent position and the justification for all his others. Johnson stares through his glasses and gropes for the appropriate words with the unease of a simple man trying not to screw up his lines: “I can tell you that we are—we are re-exerting peace through strength. President Trump has brought back strength to the White House. We knew that this moment would come, we worked hard for it to come, and now it’s here.” Rubio is a more complex case. He sat mute throughout the Oval Office blowup while his principles almost visibly escaped his body, causing it to sink deeper into the yellow sofa. Having made his name in the Senate as a passionate defender of democracy and adversary of authoritarianism, he must have suffered more than others from the inner contortions demanded by the new party line—they were written on his unhappy face.

But Rubio had already begun the process of mechanizing himself weeks before, when he shut down foreign-aid programs that he had always supported. Reappearing in public after the meeting with Zelensky, he denounced the Ukrainian president with the overzealous exasperation of a successfully hollowed policy maker. ... Ritualized humiliation is essential to an authoritarian regime. ... (read more)

Rod's Comment: 

This is an excellent article. One thing that has amazed me is the way Republicans have been able to betray formerly held positions without batting an eye. Ukraine is the most obvious example and the focus of this article, but we also see it in other long term foundational believes of the modern Republican Party. Beyond Ukraine we see it in Republican's abandonment of collective security and America's leadership role in the world. We see it in tariff policy when for decades Republicans had been the party of free trade. We see in acceptance of violating the Constitution when the Republican Party had been the party of constitutional fidelity, strict construction and originalism. And we see in in abandonment of conservative sensibilities such as civic virtue, a preference of order over chaos, and respect for tradition and institutions and norms. 

The above article is hidden behind a pay wall. You may want to consider subscribing to the Atlantic. While there may not be much an average citizen can do to push back against the Trump onslaught against democracy, one thing I think it is important to do is to support those media outlets and think tanks and institutions that are pushing back against our slide into authoritarianism. Atlantic is one of those publications providing thoughtful insight and analysis in these unusual times. 

I have for a long time been planning to right a blog post on the ten or 12 or 15 books that has influenced by thinking or maybe something like, "twenty books every conservative should read."  I keep putting it off. When I do get around to it, 1984 will be one of the books that make the cut. If you have never read it or read it long ago and forgot it, I suggest it. 

Top Stories

Appeals Court Shoots Down Part of Nashville Transit Plan on Housing, Parks but Upholds Most

by Evan Mealins, The Tennessean, April 15, 2025- The Tennessee Court of Appeals on April 15 nixed a small part of Nashville's transit improvement plan while upholding the vast majority of it.

A three-judge panel ruled Metro Nashville cannot acquire land for affordable housing and parks with funds raised through the transit plan's tax surcharge. ...

Nashville's transit plan has to comply with a 2017 state law called the IMPROVE Act that allows cities to levy a sales tax increase to directly fund a "transit improvement program." The judges said they "fail to see how the purchase of property for housing development and parks is consistent" with the law's definition of a transit improvement program. (read it all)

Top Stories

Tennessee Ranks 2nd in Analysis of State Finances

By Kim Jarrett, The Center Square, April 15, 2025- Tennessee ranks second for its economic outlook in an annual analysis of the fiscal health of the 50 states.

The 18th annual Rich States, Poor States from the American Legislative Exchange Council shows Tennessee moved to the second spot after ranking 6th in 2024 and 13th in 2023.

The Volunteer State received its highest marks for its tax policies. The state has no income tax or estate/inheritance tax. Tennessee also received the top mark for its minimum wage, which is at the federal level of $7.25 an hour.

Tennessee's high sales tax rate placed it at 44th, its worst rating. The sales tax rate is 7%.

The state's economic performance ranking was 12th among the 50 states, according to the report.

An analysis of Tennessee's gross domestic product for 2013 to 2023 showed it was 76.25%, 10th in the country.

The state welcomed 405,833 new residents between 2021 and 2023, ranking it seventh among the states, according to the report.

“As Washington attempts to tackle debt and dysfunction, the states remain America’s last line of defense for fiscal responsibility and economic growth,” said ALEC President and Chief Economist Jonathan Williams. “Rich States, Poor States once again illustrates that Americans vote with their feet – leaving high-tax, high-regulation states in favor of those embracing low taxes, balanced budgets, and worker freedom. The states leading our rankings thrive because they put the people first.”

Utah took the top spot in the report, with Indiana, North Carolina and North Dakota rounding out the top five. The bottom five states are Illinois, California, New Jersey, Vermont and New York.

The report was co-authored by Reagan economist Dr. Arthur B. Laffer, policy expert Stephen Moore, and ALEC president and chief economist Jonathan Williams.

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

It’s Tax Day—Here’s How Washington Spent Your Money

By Dominik Lett, CATO Institute, April 15, 2025- It’s officially Tax Day. Time to take stock.

The federal government spent $7.1 trillion in 2024. Tax dollars paid for $5.3 trillion, or 74 percent. The rest (26 percent) was borrowed. This $1.8 trillion in deficit spending is deferred taxation. Inevitably, borrowing will be paid for by new taxes or inflation, meaning our children and grandchildren will pay the price for higher spending today.

Where did all that money go?

The federal government spends the most on transfer programs. That is when the government redistributes money from one group to another rather than supplying governmental services like national defense.

As the chart below shows:

• Major entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—devoured nearly half of the 2024 budget. ($3.1 trillion)
• Other non-defense discretionary and mandatory programs, primarily benefits and subsidies, consumed another 32 percent. This includes a vast range of programs, such as welfare for food and housing, federal employee retirement, disability benefits, veterans’ benefits, and unemployment benefits. ($2.3 trillion)
• Overall, two-thirds of government spending went to pay some sort of benefit to someone.
• Interest on the US federal debt consumed another 12 percent of the budget. ($881 billion)
• Slightly less, $850 billion, or 12 percent, went toward national defense, meaning we spent more this year financing past fiscal irresponsibility than on the military.

The federal government’s budget outlook is quite dismal as well. Federal health care programs and Social Security make up more than half of projected spending growth over the next 30 years. Interest costs from servicing the federal debt account for another quarter of 30-year spending growth. Together, $8 in $10 of spending growth is traceable to major entitlement programs and interest costs on the national debt.

Meanwhile, most Americans seem more focused on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its efforts to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. Eliminating waste and improving efficiency are laudable objectives, but our fiscal trajectory will remain largely unchanged without reforming major entitlement programs.

If legislators continue to refuse to take health care and old-age entitlement reform seriously, there isn’t much they’ll be able to do to avoid massive (unpopular) middle-class tax increases. Medicare and Social Security are responsible for 100 percent of long-term unfunded obligations. The benefit growth for these programs is simply unsustainable, and the alternative of doing nothing risks a future fiscal crisis. Taxing the rich isn’t a catch-all solution either, given there’s not enough money to take from higher-income earners to make the math work.

And there is no way to “grow” our way out of this fiscal situation either. Social Security is indexed to grow with average wages, and Medicare spending is growing faster than economic growth. Both face similar demographic problems due to declining birth rates and improvements in longevity. No amount of new debt financing or political promises of a booming economy will make these fundamental realities go away. More likely, our worsening fiscal situation will accelerate our current financing problems, with the federal government’s massive debt burden slowing growth, boosting inflation, and raising interest costs. Delaying reform contributes directly to this problem.

Sadly, Washington’s most recent budget-related action was to approve a Senate fiscal framework that hides more than $5 trillion in deficit-increasing tax cuts. Extending the 2017 tax cuts is a great opportunity to lower tax rates and eliminate loopholes, but it must be done alongside shrinking the size of government in a fiscally responsible manner. That means demanding that legislators have the courage to cut spending, which is the real tax rate. While the final tax package has yet to be crafted, history would caution that Washington will likely continue rampant spending. Perhaps this time will be different.

Deficits today represent tax increases tomorrow. So, if you thought your taxes were too high and burdensome this year, here’s some more bad news: without reducing the growth in Medicare and Social Security benefits, Congress will have no choice but to raise taxes on most Americans at some point in the future.

Top Stories

FACT CHECK: Is Ford Moving Four of Its Factories Back to the US As a Result of Trump Tariffs?

 

by Rod Williams, April 4, 2025- The image to the right has shown up on my Facebook page a lot recently. As you can see, it claims that Ford is moving four factories back to the US, along with 25,000 high paying jobs apparently due to Trump Tariffs.

There is no basis in fact to this claim. Check Your Facts says the claim is false. They go on to say:

The claim is false and originally stems from a March 26 post shared by “America’s Last Line of Defense,” which is a satirical Facebook page. The Facebook page describes itself as “the flagship of the ALLOD network of trollery and propaganda for cash” before reiterating “nothing on this page is real.”

Likewise, Check Your Fact did not find a press release on Ford’s website or a statement shared on its verified social media accounts repeating the claim. Trump also does not appear to have publicly commented on the claim via his personal or government X accounts, his TRUTH Social account, or his verified social media accounts. (RELATED: Viral X Image Does Not Show Authentic Truth Social Post From Trump About ‘Ending Tariffs’)

In addition, Check Your Fact did not find any credible news reports to support the claim. If Ford had truly decided to move four of its factories back to the U.S. as the Threads post claims, multiple media outlets would’ve covered it, yet none have.

Actually, the opposite is true. On March 31, Snopes debunked the claim, tracing its origin to the same satirical Facebook page.

I know this will not influence the diehard super MAGA crowd. If Trump told them, it was midnight in the noon of the day, they would find a way to believe him. Faith can be hard to shake. Remember all the people who drank the Jim Jones Kool-Aid. What we are seeing with the Trump phenomena is not much different. However, not everyone who voted for Trump parked their brain at the door and we need to continue to counter falsehood with the truth. 

Top Stories

Art of the Deal

 

Top Stories

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s underwhelming stop in Nashville was a missed opportunity

 The event felt like a pep rally for the faithful but didn’t address the issues plaguing the Democratic Party

by Bruce Barry, Tennessee Lookout, April 8, 2025 - Joining the ranks of prominent national Democrats parachuting into red parts of the country for town-hall-style pep rallies, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren popped into town last weekend to headline a buck-up-the-blue gig at Nashville’s Pearl-Cohn High School gym.  A crowd of 1,500 or so despairing Democrats were on hand to receive a collective transfusion of progressive gusto delivered by a skilled celebrity political phlebotomist. 

Actually, the despair was already in temporary remission even before Warren took the stage, given the timing — many ventured on over to Pearl-Cohn already jazzed by the anti-everything-Trump “Hands Off” rally in Centennial Park earlier that afternoon. ...

I didn’t come away sharing that optimism. ... Here are the things that troubled me about Warren’s appearance. ... the slapdash DOGEcropping of federal bureaucracy may be feckless and pernicious, the motivation behind it is politically popular ... troubled by all the things that Warren didn’t talk about. No discussion of immigration and culture-war issues ... No mention of party leadership’s complicity in propping up Biden and preempting a nomination contest. ...  I faulted Warren above for lacking depth, but beyond that I found aspects of her remarks to border on infantilizing. ...It’s as if in deciding to fly down she thought to herself “OK, I’m heading to ignoramus-laden Tennessee so I’ll need to dial down the rhetoric to hayseed.” ... The Warren appearance was explicitly billed as a town hall, but a town hall is an audience-question-driven conversation, not stump-speech bloviation followed by a quick handful of softball questions and cue the selfie line. ... a political celebrity pop-in that elevates shopworn talking-point speechifying over an actual thoughtful conversation about the real problems the party faces is an occasion quickly forgotten, and rightly so. (read it all)

Top Stories

Harwood Salons present steve Johnson, Restoring the Balance of Power, April 16

 

Join us in Nashville for an event with Steve Johnson, SPN’s Center for Practical Federalism Fellow.

For the last few decades, the federal government has expanded in size and influence, dramatically shifting the balance of power between the states and Washington, DC. Join former Michigan House of Representative, Steve Johnson, as he shares why a return to the Founders’ vision of federalism is crucial to put decision-making power back into the hands of the American people. Steve will delve into the practical implications of decentralizing power from the federal government back to the states and how the Center for Practical Federalism is working to empower state and local governments to advance policy solutions that benefit the people in their states.

Registration Required

Agenda 

6:00 PM – 6:30 PM – Networking

6:30 PM – 7:15 PM – Presentation by Steve Johnson

7:15 PM – 7:30 PM – Q&A

Top Stories

ICE Decides who's "Linked to" Gangs, Border Czar Says

by Brittany Gibson, Axios, April 9, 2025- Immigration agents are the "principal" deciders on whether a detainee is linked to a gang and should be deported immediately, border czar Tom Homan told Axios in an exclusive interview.

If agents determine the answer is yes, Homan said, the Trump administration believes that detainee's rights to due process are limited.

Not so fast, the Supreme Court said late Monday. The court signaled that detainees designated as "enemies" of the U.S. could be deported, but should have some way to challenge their removal.

... "ICE is the principal arbiter" in weighing whether such factors warrant deportation, Homan said. "There's a Homeland Security task force and a lot of agents involved. ... But it starts with ICE."

The administration claims Garcia is a member of MS-13, a transnational gang that U.S. officials have designated as a terrorist organization.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinia in Maryland said Trump's team made a "grievous error" deporting Garcia, and that evidence indicating he's a gang member "consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie." (link)

Comments from W. H. Bernstein

 Early on I nominated Tom Homan for the role of "Goering" in this administration.  Another win for me.

Again, I have written about this numerous times: when you see something is "linked to" something else, you are being played.  What does "linked to" mean?  I am "linked to" a convicted sex offender (our kids went to the same school and we had him and his wife over for dinner once).  I am not a convicted sex offender (or even an unconvicted or accused one).

But to be "linked to" a gang might mean your childhood friend is in one.  Your cousin is part of one.  You live in the same building as one. It is a meaninglfess term.

Which is why in the U.S. we rightly have a judicial process for sorting that, with an adversarial system between accused and accuser and a judge to adjudicate merits.

Homan doesn't want that.  As all authoritarians do, he believes he and his agents create reality.  No adjudication allowed.

Top Stories

Trade Freedom and The Myth of Tariff Reciprocity. Trump is Simply Lying. The World is Not Treating Us Unfairly.

by Phillip Magness, Independent Institute, April 1, 2025- President Trump is imposing steep and expansive tariffs on the world economy as part of what he calls his tariff “Liberation Day” agenda.

It is not clear how these massive tax hikes, reaching as high as $600 billion according to the White House’s own estimates, will “liberate” anything other than money from the wallets of American consumers. Nonetheless, Trump has justified his new tariff policy around the claim that the United States is being taken advantage of by the discriminatory trade policies of other nations.

In the White House’s telling, these new tariffs “will bring back fairness and prosperity to the distorted international trade system and stop Americans from being taken advantage of.” Trump describes his measures as “reciprocal” and claims they are only necessary because other countries apply even more egregious tariff and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to American goods on the international market. As Trump himself recently put it when justifying his tariffs on Canada, “We’ve been ripped off for years and we won’t be ripped off anymore.”

There’s a problem with the White House’s tariff justification, though: it’s a complete myth.

The United States is currently one of the worst offenders among developed nations in placing discriminatory tariffs and NTBs on our trading partners. This ignominious position may be seen in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, which compiles an annual “trade freedom” score for nearly 200 countries and political jurisdictions. According to the 2025 report, the United States ranks in 69th place, putting us lower than New Zealand (2nd), Australia (3rd), the United Kingdom (17th), Canada (18th), France (38th), and Germany (39th).

The Heritage 100-point scale combines the country’s trade-weighted average tariff rate with a scoring of its NTBs—an assortment of quotas, export restrictions, subsidies, regulations, and similar policies that discriminate against foreign goods or unfairly prop up domestic products. A score closer to 100 represents lower tariff rates and fewer discriminatory trade policies.

The United States’ score of 75.6 places it well below most of the European Union countries, as well as all of the aforementioned major trading partners. In fact, our discriminatory trade policies place us in closer proximity to China’s score (74) than one of the main targets of Trump’s current trade war, Canada (83.2).

     “Trade Freedom” Score for Top 100 Countries, (Heritage Foundation 2025)

Country	Index Year	Trade Freedom
Singapore	2025	95
New Zealand	2025	90.4
Australia	2025	90
Mauritius	2025	87.4
Bahrain	2025	86.6
Liechtenstein	2025	86.6
Switzerland	2025	86.6
Taiwan	2025	86.6
Georgia	2025	86.2
Seychelles	2025	85.2
Norway	2025	85
Brunei Darussalam	2025	84.8
Spain	2025	84.6
Kosovo	2025	84.2
Albania	2025	83.4
Malaysia	2025	83.4
United Kingdom	2025	83.4
Canada	2025	83.2
Israel	2025	82.8
Jordan	2025	82.4
Peru	2025	81.6
Qatar	2025	81.6
Uzbekistan	2025	80.6
Iceland	2025	80.4
Kiribati	2025	80
Timor-Leste	2025	80
Papua New Guinea	2025	79.8
Vietnam	2025	79.8
Austria	2025	79.6
Belgium	2025	79.6
Bulgaria	2025	79.6
Croatia	2025	79.6
Cyprus	2025	79.6
Czech Republic	2025	79.6
Denmark	2025	79.6
Estonia	2025	79.6
Finland	2025	79.6
France	2025	79.6
Germany	2025	79.6
Greece	2025	79.6
Hungary	2025	79.6
Ireland	2025	79.6
Italy	2025	79.6
Latvia	2025	79.6
Lithuania	2025	79.6
Luxembourg	2025	79.6
Malta	2025	79.6
Montenegro	2025	79.6
Netherlands	2025	79.6
Poland	2025	79.6
Portugal	2025	79.6
Romania	2025	79.6
Slovakia	2025	79.6
Slovenia	2025	79.6
Sweden	2025	79.6
Indonesia	2025	79.4
The Philippines	2025	79.2
Botswana	2025	78.8
Panama	2025	78.6
United Arab Emirates	2025	78.4
Oman	2025	78.2
Paraguay	2025	78.2
Chile	2025	78
North Macedonia	2025	77.8
Moldova	2025	77.2
Serbia	2025	77.2
Japan	2025	76.2
Kuwait	2025	75.6
United States	2025	75.6
Costa Rica	2025	75.4
Tonga	2025	75.4
Micronesia	2025	75
Mongolia	2025	74.4
Turkmenistan	2025	74.2
China	2025	74
Mozambique	2025	74
Eswatini	2025	73.6
Kyrgyz Republic	2025	73.6
Kazakhstan	2025	73.2
South Korea	2025	73.2
Ukraine	2025	73.2
Uruguay	2025	73
Cuba	2025	72.8
Saudi Arabia	2025	72.8
Turkey	2025	72.8
Thailand	2025	72.4
Colombia	2025	72.2
Guatemala	2025	72.2
Mexico	2025	72.2
Tajikistan	2025	72.2
Armenia	2025	72
Jamaica	2025	71.8
Brazil	2025	71.6
Angola	2025	70.4
El Salvador	2025	70.4
Bosnia and Herzegovina	2025	70
Côte d’Ivoire	2025	70
Namibia	2025	70
Azerbaijan	2025	69.8
Pakistan	2025	69.8

The Heritage index should not be dismissed as a product of a right-leaning think tank. Its data are consistent with (and indeed draw upon) other indexes of tariff barriers. The World Bank maintains an index of each country’s weighted mean tariff rate in the most recent year with available data, with 2022 being the current measure. This index does not include NTBs, which are more difficult to quantify. It is nonetheless a reputable source of the tariff component of current trade barriers.

According to the World Bank’s series, the United States’ weighted mean tariff rate sits at 1.49%, placing it 47th overall among countries. For comparison, Australia (0.99%), the United Kingdom (1%), all of the European Union countries (1.33%), and Canada (1.37%) have lower tariff rates than the United States.

In fact, according to estimates from the Tax Foundation, Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff policies are currently estimated to raise the United States’ average tariff rate to 8.4% by the end of 2025. Further tariff hikes on “liberation day” could raise this even higher, with some inside the administration calling for a “benchmark” overall tariff of 20%. For reference, an 8.4% average tariff would place the United States just behind Uganda (7.86%) in the World Bank’s rankings. A 20% benchmark tariff would give us the third-highest tariff rate in the world, just behind Equatorial Guinea (18.2%) and significantly higher than the tariff rates imposed by the Marxist governments of Cuba (9.16%) and Venezuela (12.8%).

Trump's Average Tariff Rate - Tax Foundation

These data conclusively belie the White House’s claim that the United States is the victim of unfair and discriminatory tariff and NTB policies from abroad. In reality, we impose higher tariffs and more severe NTBs on average than most developed nations.

If Trump truly wanted tariff “fairness,” he would abandon the rhetoric of victimization that he has adopted. The data above show that it has little basis in empirical reality. Genuine trade reciprocity would entail the United States lowering our current tariff rates and removing NTBs to put us at closer parity with our major trading partners.

Phillip W. Magness is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and the David J. Theroux Chair in Political Economy. He has served as Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, and as Academic Program Director at the Institute for Humane Studies and Adjunct Professor of Public Policy in the School of Public Policy and Government at George Mason University. He received his Ph.D. from George Mason University’s School of Public Policy.

Catalyst articles by Phillip Magness | Full Biography and Publications

Top Stories