“The United States has generated $46.6 billion this year from tariffs as of May 8, the latest data available — 46.3% more than the same time last year. Federal income taxes, meanwhile, brought in $2.4 trillion in 2024.
And the $14.7 billion difference in tariff revenue year-on-year is just part of the story. High levies can cause huge surges in revenue that later level off as trade patterns shift and businesses seek to lower costs along their supply chains.”
“The U.S. tax code is broken. That’s mainly because it collects revenue in an arbitrary, distortionary, and unfair manner. At the heart of the problem are “tax expenditures”: credits, deductions, and loopholes that benefit the government’s favorite groups and behaviors.
…
It’s a patchwork of exceptions and preferences designed more by lobbyists than by public servants. Policymakers claim they are encouraging savings, promoting fairness, or aiding the poor. In reality, many tax expenditures—also known as tax breaks—serve no purpose beyond enriching powerful interest groups.
The solution is to return to first principles. We must begin by defining the tax base in a principled way. What should count as income? What should be taxed, and when? Only then can we properly distinguish between legitimate exemptions and unjustifiable giveaways.”
“As a legal matter, President Donald Trump’s trade war rests on the claim that imports to the United States constitute an “unusual and extraordinary” threat requiring urgent executive action.
That’s an absurd argument, of course. The fact that Americans choose to buy or sell goods across international borders is not an emergency—it’s not even a minor worry—and certainly should not justify a massive expansion of executive power.
But Trump is going to do whatever he wants until someone stops him. On Wednesday, the Senate had a chance to do that. Instead, Republicans voted overwhelmingly to keep the “emergency” going, and thus to keep the trade war going too.
The Senate voted 49–49 on Wednesday evening to block Sen. Rand Paul’s (R–Ky.) resolution that sought to end the emergency declaration Trump signed on April 2 to impose his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States.”
“Tariffs on movies produced overseas might drive Hollywood to film more intensively in the United States, but it also makes it more difficult and expensive for American audiences to see movies made by foreign companies. Films from South Korea, India, Europe, and elsewhere compete with the U.S. film industry in terms of culture, ideas, and sometimes politics. Tariffs on overseas productions could effectively trap us with the products of Hollywood and reduce its need to adjust to the tastes of the viewing public.”
“Americans produce a lot and consume a lot. We have among the highest average incomes and we buy a lot of stuff. We derive pleasure from acquiring and using material things, whether they’re toys, clothes, video games, or cars. If 37 dolls make you happy, and you have the means, then go out and buy 37 dolls. It is not a question of whether we need them or not.
Trump’s comments are an explicit rejection of materialism, abundance, and capitalism itself. I much prefer the Trump who was obsessively tweeting about stocks going up in his first term. Not only is Trump not tweeting about stocks, but he seems entirely indifferent to the prospect of a recession.
In other comments, Trump has said that prosperity can be achieved through tariffs—which is obviously untrue—so it seems likely that he’s willing to trade off some short-term economic pain for potential long-term gain. But as any student of economics will tell you, the tariffs are all pain, and even if the president doesn’t expect a recession, we are probably going to get one.”
…
“There doesn’t seem to be as much visceral outrage at Trump’s assertion that American girls can make do with less. Yet, if there is a greater good here, Trump has been unable to articulate it. If the tariffs are in place simply because Trump romanticizes the late 1800s and thinks we can finance government spending with tariff revenue, then we are doomed.
This rhetoric from Trump has a great deal in common with Bernie Sanders’ anti-capitalist worldview. Between the tariffs, the increasingly progressive income taxes, the incompetent attempt to cut government spending, and the explicit anti-materialism, Trump is off to a bad start with capitalists.
In the past, those with a desire for free-ish markets would generally vote Republican. At least in the past, the Republicans were pro-growth. What does it mean when both major political parties are anti-growth and anti-materialism? What does it mean when the political apparatus of a country is wholly aligned for it to fail?”
Republicans and Democrats are hurtling the U.S. toward a debt crisis. The trade deficit cannot be fixed by bullying foreign countries. To fix the country’s economic woes, the U.S. needs to lower spending to reduce or eliminate the budget deficit. The U.S. depends on the world to buy U.S. debt. If they buy less, interest rates will destroy the U.S. economy. The U.S. needs to fix the budget deficit to prevent this.
“Lobbying expenditures on trade issues were a staggering 277 percent higher in the first quarter of 2025 than in the first quarter of 2024, according to data reported to the clerk of the House of Representatives and compiled by Advancing American Freedom Foundation, a conservative nonprofit. In raw dollars, lobbying firms reported spending $4.9 million on trade-related issues in the first three months of this year, up from $1.3 million during the same three months in 2024.
There’s also been a huge expansion in the number of lobbying firms working on the tariff issue. According to the House data, 212 different entities registered some spending on tariff lobbying in the first quarter of this year, up from just 89 that worked on tariff issues in the first three months of last year.
And the average cost to businesses is increasing too. Compared to last year, the average tariff lobbying contract is now 21 percent higher, according to AAFF’s analysis.”
…
“”Although President Donald Trump popularized calls to ‘drain the swamp,’ his favorite policy tool, tariffs, has actually enlarged it and generated a massive financial windfall for K Street lobbyists while hardworking American families pick up the tab,” writes Joel Griffith, policy adviser at AAFF, in the Washington Examiner.
In practice, that means some businesses have sought relief from tariffs for themselves while pushing for higher tariffs on competitors.”
…
“This is also exactly what happened during the first Trump trade war. A Lehigh University study published last year found that politically connected firms—specifically, those that donated to Republican candidates, including Trump—were more likely to succeed when asking the government for an exemption on imports that would normally be subject to tariffs.”