Senator Rand Paul is Leading the Charge Against Trump Tariffs

 By Liz Goodwin and Theodoric Meyer, Washington Post, April 7, 2025 - Sen. Rand Paul — a right-wing
firebrand from a deep red state — is in some ways an unlikely figure to articulate a searing case against Donald Trump’s agenda.

But the senator from Kentucky is issuing a stark warning to fellow Republicans that Trump’s tariff policies could lead to a generational political loss for the party. And he’s raking in surprising praise from his Democratic colleagues as he pushes back relentlessly on the airwaves and the Senate floor against what he describes as Trump’s executive overreach and infringement on Congress.

In an impassioned floor speech ahead of his vote to roll back Trump’s Canada tariffs Wednesday, the senator said members of Congress had “abdicated their power” over decades, and he placed the blame on both parties.

“I am a Republican. I am a supporter of Donald Trump. But this is a bipartisan problem,” Paul said. “I don’t care if the president is a Republican or a Democrat. I don’t want to live under emergency rule. I don’t want to live where my representatives cannot speak for me and have a check and balance on power.”

.... Paul joined GOP Senators Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) in voting with Democrats to scrap the national emergency that Trump declared to levy tariffs on Canada. ... Paul’s decision to buck tariffs has triggered Trump’s anger. Trump blasted Paul and the other Republican senators who voted to nullify his tariffs on Canada this week as “unbelievably disloyal.” (read more)

Top Stories

Trying to be Self-sufficient in Agricultural Products is a Dumb Idea. It will not Help Our Farmers.

by Rod Williams, April 6, 2025- It is amazing the amount of false information one sees on social media these days. It has always been bad, but it seems to me to be getting worse. 

In addition to the information that is simply false, there is a lot as opinions that are uninformed opinions or based on faulty logic. One is the meme to the right, that has been in my Facebook feed a lot recently.

First of all, the U.S. exports a wide range of agricultural products, with soybeans, corn, beef, pork, poultry, and dairy products being among the top exports. We also export a significant amount of wheat, fruits, tree nuts, cotton, and various processed food items. Does the poster of this meme, also want foreign nations to stop buying U. S. exports?

If the U. S. prohibits the sale of food grown in other countries; other counties will prohibit the sale of American products in their countries. This would be a big deal. The U.S exports a lot of agricultural products. If each nations tries to be self-sufficient our farmers will be worse off, not better.

Secondly, I will miss bananas of avocadoes and a lot of other foods. I will miss fresh vegetables in winter. I guess the posters of this meme enjoys a bland diet.

Thirdly, I wonder if the poster of such meme's has ever heard of the law of comparative advantage. In simply terms, the law of comparative advantage says even if we can produce something cheaper than another country, it would still be in our best interest to specialize in the things we are best at and not try to do everything. 

 

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

House Reps and Dems Join in Opposing Rep. Andy Ogles' Hanging a ‘Wanted Poster’ For Judges Outside His Office

Link

 

Top Stories

After Further Consideration, I Will Attend the 'Hands Off Our Democracy' Rally this Saturday.

by Rod Williams, April 3, 2025- A few days ago I posted about the big anti-Trump rally planned for this Saturday here in Nashville and said that I would skip it. I have reconsidered. I plan to attend. 

Here was my reasoning explained in my initial post as to why I would not take part:

The protest is organized by a group called Indivisible. Their mission statement says: "We’re a grassroots movement of thousands of local Indivisible groups with a mission to elect progressive leaders, rebuild our democracy, and defeat the Trump agenda." 

If you go to Indivisible's website, you learn, "Indivisible was founded in response to Trump’s election - but we know that Trump is a symptom of a sick democracy, not its cause. We face two fundamental problems: first, our democracy was rigged from the start in favor of the white and wealthy. Second, in the last few decades, an alliance of white nationalists and the ultra-rich have been actively working to further undermine democracy and cement their hold on power permanently. That’s how we ended up with Trump. " They also speak of, "Defeating a multi-decade right-wing takeover of American government."

I don't buy that. That does not reflect by view. I do not believe our democracy is rigged to favor the White and the wealthy. I support our democracy; I don't want to overthrow it.  I do not want to march under a progressive banner. I do not want to elect progressive politicians. 

Since then, I have had a change of heart. I still agree with all I said above. However, Trump is a threat to world peace, is talking about staying in office past the end of this term, has started a trade war that may lead to a global depression, is trampling the Constitution and the rule of law, is talking about taking Greenland by force, and is destroying NATO and the collective security arrangement that maintained the peace, defeated Communism and ended the cold war.  And he is acting as if a Russian asset. 

In my view Trump is a dangerous man and desires to turn America into his dictatorship. In times like these one may have to ally with people with whom you disagree in order to advance the greater good. Sometimes compromise is necessary. 

I did vote for Kamala Harris in the last election. It was not easy.  I had to hold my nose to do so, but I voted for the lesser of two evils.  Others, who are friends of mine and who share my values, chose to write in a name, skip voting for president or voted for a third party. I don't fault them for doing so. If like me, you are a life-long Republican and an ideological conservative, it is hard to know how to respond when the Party to which you have been welded morphs into an authoritarian nationalist-populist party and abandon the things for which it as always stood. Different people will respond differently, and I respect that. I see attending rallies led by progressives much the same way.

My friend Bill Bernstein commending on my previous post helped me clarify my thinking and change my mind. He wrote on Facebook:

Rod, I've given this one some thought. Yeah, I would probably hate about 70% of the people involved this thing, and disagree with about 95% of whatever they stand for (we might agree Scotch needs a little cold water and nothing else). But strength comes from building coalitions, and coalitions mean joining with people you otherwise would oppose. The Civil Rights coalition brought together Blacks, labor organizers, Northern liberals, intellectuals, Jews, and probably others. The coalition did not outlast the 1960s. But the tremendous urgency of the task called for a united front. So too here. I would probably go.

So, I am attending. I don't want to save the Department of Education. I want a smaller government. I don't want to elect progressives.  I oppose abortion on demand. I don't want Medicare for all. On a whole bunch of issue, I will disagree with the people organizing this rally. However, the biggest threat to a free and stable world and democracy and freedom at home is Donald Trump. 

I'm going!

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