Tariffs aren’t just taxes — they’re national defense
It’s easy to mock Europe for relying on the United States for its defense, but we face the same predicament: outsourcing critical components of our military arsenal overseas — and often not to friendly allies. Trump’s tariffs could help bring them back home.
Tariffs are not merely a way to repatriate and rebuild America’s industrial strength; they are also a tool to rebuild America’s military self-sufficiency. A harrowing amount of our critical military components aren’t produced domestically, making the United States dangerously reliant on foreign countries, including adversaries like China. It’s almost comical how some war hawks would go to war with the Chinese to defend Taiwan, while we still rely on them for the material that fuels our war machine.
Let’s bring home America’s military supply chain and let’s use tariffs to help get it done.
“Principled free traders” argue that “tariffs are a tax on consumers,” favoring offshore manufacturing because it lowers consumer costs. But the cracks in their “free trade” argument become evident as American taxpayers foot a higher bill from their hawkish policies than from Trump’s tariffs.
Here are some other “taxes on consumers.”
Defense spending
Every cent that goes toward America’s national defense is part of the taxpayer’s burden. The U.S. annual defense budget is about $850 billion, which costs each U.S. resident about $2,500 — although this number is, in practice, much higher, given that not all residents pay taxes. Eliminating defense spending would provide consumers with a huge tax break.
If “free traders” are consistent in their argument, shouldn’t they advocate eliminating defense spending? Though extreme, this example demonstrates the inconsistency in the “no taxes without qualification” argument against tariffs.
If tariffs are a tax on consumers, they are a tax that also supports our national defense and self-reliance. Opposing tariffs necessary for America to have the industrial self-sufficiency to source our war machine domestically is akin to opposing a permanent standing army.
Funding foreign wars
Every cent spent sending munitions to Ukraine is a tax on U.S. consumers. Ask the typical American whether he’d rather see more of his money go toward rebuilding American manufacturing via tariffs or have it go to the Ukrainian war effort that is killing off a generation of men. The typical American would prefer the former, yet we engage in the latter.
Deficit spending
Consumers pay for the massive federal budget deficit through inflation — a cruel and direct tax on consumers. Whether it be foreign aid, domestic waste, or any other gratuitous government project, every penny of deficit spending is a tax paid for consumers in the form of inflation. Most Americans would likely prefer tariffs that produce American manufacturing jobs over wasteful, ideologically charged deficit spending, such as funding transgender operas in Colombia.
Foreign sanctions
Sanctions that block a country from exporting to the U.S. serve the same purpose as high tariffs. Ironically, free traders don’t get worked up over sanctions like they do with tariffs. Current sanctions imposed on Russia are technically a “tax on consumers,” driving up prices on goods that Russia would otherwise export.
If China is just as much — if not more — of a threat to U.S. national security as Russia, why aren’t “free traders” in favor of blocking Chinese exports in the same manner?
A recent report on military spending revealed that the Army and Navy are reducing their reliance on China for critical technology. At the same time, the Air Force has increased its use of Chinese suppliers.
While the Army and Navy’s efforts to distance themselves from China are a positive step, any reliance on a foreign adversary for critical military infrastructure poses a serious risk. The U.S. must prioritize returning military supply chains to American soil to ensure national security and self-sufficiency.
Even the most passionate “free traders” will sometimes acknowledge that some products critical to national defense should be manufactured stateside. But rather than giving so-called “experts” and “technocrats” the power to determine which components of the military-industrial supply chain are “most essential,” we shouldn’t leave any part of our national security apparatus on foreign soil — and certainly not that of foreign adversaries like China.
Vice President JD Vance understands the issue, recently posting on X that “the bitter irony of America’s present predicament is that the very people who cheer for permanent arms shipments to Ukraine also supported the de-industrialization of America. The very things you want us to send are things we don’t make enough of.”
The vice president is correct. Let’s bring home America’s military supply chain, and let’s use tariffs to help get it done.
The U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) reportedly issued a “threat advisory” on Thursday warning of “possible threats” from radical left-wing activists against the command’s Tesla owners. In screenshots of the alert obtained by Federalist contributor and retired Army ranger John A. Lucas, the USASOC informed service members of increased “concerns” regarding recent attacks against […]
The Trump administration’s bold executive actions will not be permanent unless Congress codifies them in law.
The Pentagon doesn’t appear to have a battle plan to turn around seven straight years of audit failures.
Signaling another prospective win for the new Trump administration, the U.S. Marine Corps is on pace to hit its fiscal year 2025 recruiting goals, The Federalist has learned. Speaking with The Federalist, Marine Corps Recruiting Command spokesman Jim Edwards revealed that the branch is “on track” to meet its total force accession mission for this […]
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com