✪ The Free Trade Tax On Americans

eee

wo recent news items have spurred the return of the tariff issue to the front burner of American politics.

First (at the time of this writing), President Trump just returned last week from a summit with People’s Republic of China (PRC) President Xi Jinping.

Second, U.S. Steel has announced plans to resume operations at its Gary, Indiana tin mill. And, again, one will hear the Free Traders shrilly bemoaning how Trump’s tariffs are a “tax on consumers.”

If one honestly accepts the Free Traders argument a company passing off its costs of compliance with a Federal statute and/or regulation on to consumers constitutes a “tax,” then one would then be required to declare almost every government decision touching upon the health, safety, and welfare of the nation to be a tax as well. Conversely, corporations and companies are not required to pass on the costs of the tariffs to anyone. It’s strictly a choice they make for themselves based upon market conditions.

Yet, consider the inanity of arguing statutes prohibiting child labor laws are a tax because they will raise the cost of labor mining companies then must pass on to consumers. (I am, admittedly, not a libertarian.)

One may also ponder the fact nations with high tariffs on American goods and services do not make similar protestations that tariffs are a tax on their consumers. Why? Because these nations’ industries and sectors employ workers to produce goods and services which constitute a net benefit to their citizens’ standard of living; a standard of living these governments are bound & determined to preserve; if for no other reason than their own political self-preservation.

However, this has not been the case here at home prior to the election of President Trump. Understanding there is a free trade tax on Americans, President Trump has refused to perpetuate the post-World War II economic policy which have enabled our war-ravaged former allies and enemies to rebuild their nascent industrial bases courtesy of high tariffs against imported US goods; with the corresponding result they were granted lower entry barriers to access the American market & consumers.

While this policy accomplished its goal long ago, the unfortunate and entirely predictable result is the nations which benefit most from high tariffs on US goods; as well as those US corporate interests which also benefited from them, would never seek to see them repealed to allow free and fairer competition with and in the American market.

Worse, rather than fight for a level playing field for American workers, many domestic corporate and financial interests leveraged the “free trade” mantra as an excuse to outsource American jobs to “low-cost” countries; many of which benefit from autocratic regimes and/or lower tariffs on their goods entering the US market. In sum, it was win-win for corporate America and foreign economic interests and a lose-lose for American workers.

It was also lose-lose for American security. As the Iran conflict demonstrates, the ability of our nation’s decimated manufacturing base to produce the necessary armaments is currently inadequate to meet the security challenges our nation faces; and, unconscionably, it is beholden to numerous foreign sources; some of which are openly hostile to the United States for materials and supplies required to make many armaments.

Stipulating for the sake of argument that tariffs are indeed a tax, let us cite but a few examples of what could also be construed as a free trade tax upon Americans caused by outsourcing and unfair foreign tariffs:

• The financial strains of an ever-expanding social safety net for retraining programs for displaced workers.
• The increased cost of health care for these displaced workers, who have lost their coverage and whose health is deteriorating under the strain of unemployment, including increased substance abuse and domestic violence.
• The cost of (almost ineluctably failed) federal, state, and local programs to “reimagine” industrial ghost towns caused by outsourcing.
• The outsourcing of America’s Arsenal of Democracy to Communist China and other less-than-friendly nations.
• The increasing, ominous sentiment among American citizens that their representative institutions work not for the people but for financial and corporate elites.

Of course, this is far from being an exhaustive list, though it helps prove the point: free trade isn’t free. In fact, it does not exist any more than true protectionism does. The reality is that there is only negotiated trade. It is why “free trade” agreements are huge documents hammered out with the large gaggles of diplomats and trade “experts;” and they are not written on a cocktail napkin to the effect of “No tariffs. Let’s trade!”

Understanding this, President Trump is determined to recalibrate our nation’s tariffs and those of other nations to level the playing field for America’s workers. His efforts have faced immense, intense opposition across the political spectrum. Admittedly, his approach has been more akin to using a sledgehammer than a scalpel; however, what matters to American workers is the protection and creation of jobs, not the abstraction of economic theory.

And it is not simply American workers who value leveling the playing field. This is also resonating among those American corporate executives whose industries have been harmed. To wit, U.S. Steel President and Chief Executive Officer David B. Burritt:

Customers are increasingly focused on securing dependable domestic supply they can count on over the long term. Restarting the Gary Tin Mill positions us to serve that demand, support domestic manufacturing, and strengthen critical US supply chains, including those that help support US farmers and food producers, provided trade is fair and enforced.

It’s no coincidence U.S. Steel supports the President’s tariff recalibration to level the international economic playing field. As Manufacturing Digital notes:

On 9th April 2025, US Steel filed antidumping duty petitions against imports of tin and chromium coated sheet steel from Taiwan, China and Turkey. Additionally, it filed a countervailing duty petition against subsidized imports of tin mill products from China. US Steel alleges these countries are selling their products at artificially low prices in order to become main sourcing partners of steel, which it says risks putting US companies out of business.

They are both correct; however, due to the company’s own commitment to American workers and the President’s perseverance in the face of his tariff critics, there will be a required  “restart” investment of $15–20 million and an “anticipated 225 jobs at Gary Works.”

Well, Free Traders? Can supporters of a level tariff playing field also call this a tax cut? ✪