Trump’s tariffs take a flamethrower to the free trade lie



The globalist fairy tale is finally unraveling — and not a moment too soon.

For decades, Americans were sold the shiny promise of globalization: open markets, booming trade, cheaper goods, and peace through economic integration. But behind the glittering sales pitch was a brutal reality — the slow, deliberate hollowing out of the American middle class.

Trump’s tariffs are not just about trade. They’re about rebuilding what our elites sold off piece by piece.

Enough of this.

President Donald Trump’s recent announcement on tariffs sent the elites — those who profited most from this decades-long experiment — into full panic mode, and for good reason. Their gravy train may finally be running out of track.

This isn’t about economic theory. This is about the lives, livelihoods, and dignity of the American people — especially those in towns and cities that once hummed with the sound of industry.

How it started

The North American Free Trade Agreement was the appetizer in a global feast that served American manufacturing to foreign competitors on a silver platter. Even President Bill Clinton, at the NAFTA signing ceremony in 1993, seemed eager to get past the domestic details and embrace the coming wave of globalization.

By the early 2000s, the United States was importing at unprecedented rates. Today, the trade deficit with the European Union alone is $235 billion. That’s not trade — that’s surrender. Our deficit with Europe hasn’t fallen below $100 billion since 2011.

None of this happened by accident.

It began with a handshake in 1972, when President Richard Nixon traveled to Mao Zedong’s China. At the time, China was riding bicycles and rationing rice. No one imagined that opening the door to trade would lead to the economic superpower we face today.

But by 2001, that door had been blasted open. China joined the World Trade Organization, committing to lower tariffs and removing trade barriers. American markets were flooded with cheap Chinese goods — and American workers were left holding an empty lunch pail.

The result was a trade deficit with China that ballooned to $295 billion last year. That’s the largest deficit we have with any country. Our total trade deficit in 2024 was a record $1.2 trillion — the fourth consecutive year topping $1 trillion.

The human toll

The fallout from this one-sided relationship with China is staggering. A 2016 MIT study found that, in the decade following China’s World Trade Organization entry, the U.S. lost 2.4 million jobs — nearly a million in manufacturing alone. The researchers concluded that international trade makes low-skilled workers in America “worse off — not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis.”

You’d think a quote like that would be plastered across every office in Congress. But no. The political class — especially on the left — chose to ignore it.

Instead, they wring their hands in confusion when working-class Americans turn to a leader like Donald Trump. “Why are they so angry?” they ask, while standing atop the wreckage of towns they helped dismantle.

About that wreckage

In Galesburg, Illinois, Maytag once employed 5,000 workers. The last refrigerator rolled off the line in 2004. The site is now rubble and weeds.

Youngstown, Ohio — once a titan of American steel — has lost 60% of its population since the 1970s. Gary, Indiana, once home to U.S. Steel’s largest mill, has over 10,000 abandoned buildings. In Flint, Michigan, over 80,000 GM jobs vanished. By 2016, over half of men ages 25 to 54 in Flint were unemployed. Buick City, once a symbol of industrial might, was demolished in 2002.

Detroit, once richer than Boston, is now 40% poorer. The U.S. auto parts industry lost 419,000 jobs in the decade after China joined the WTO.

Even NPR admitted that “the China Shock created what looked like miniature Great Depressions” in these areas.

From dream to despair

Between 2000 and 2014, America lost 5 million manufacturing jobs — the steepest decline in American history.

Meanwhile, in the same time period, corporate profits soared 600%. CEO pay has ballooned to 290 times that of the average worker. In 1965, it was 21 times. Since 1978, CEO compensation has grown by over 1,000%. Regular worker pay? Just 24%.

They told us the rising tide would lift all boats. Turns out, it mostly lifted yachts. And the rest of the boats? Capsized.

This economic assault came with a steep psychological toll.

A 2017 Princeton study found a link between rising deaths of despair — suicide, alcoholism, drug overdoses — and job losses in trade-exposed areas.

Since 1999, overdose deaths in America have increased sixfold. In Ohio, they rose 1,000% between 2001 and 2017. The hardest-hit areas? Deindustrialized, working-class communities.

The American middle class is vanishing. In 1971, 61% of households were middle class. By 2023, it was just 51%. In 1950, manufacturing jobs made up 30% of total U.S. employment. Today, they make up just 8%.

RELATED: Why tariffs are the key to America’s industrial comeback

  Bet_Noire via iStock/Getty Images

There are fewer Americans working in manufacturing today than there were in 1941 — before we entered World War II — despite our population more than doubling.

This collapse hit black workers especially hard. Between 1998 and 2020, more than 646,000 manufacturing jobs held by black Americans disappeared — a 30% loss in that sector.

A reckoning long overdue

Trump’s tariff push is a long-overdue confrontation with the failed consensus of globalization. For 25 years, the arrangement has been spectacular — for China and for U.S. corporations chasing cheap labor. But for America’s workers and towns, it has been catastrophic.

Yes, the corporate press is scoffing. CBS News recently “fact-checked” Trump and Vice President JD Vance’s claim that America has lost 90,000 factories since NAFTA. The correct number, they said, was actually 70,500.

Oh? Only 70,500? As if that’s supposed to be reassuring.

These aren’t merely statistics. These are livelihoods — entire communities turned into ghost towns. Every shuttered factory was once a promise of stability, dignity, and upward mobility. And with each closure, that promise was betrayed.

We’ve allowed globalization to crush the backbone of this country — the working men and women who don’t show up on CNBC but who built the very foundation we all stand on.

Trump’s tariffs are not just about trade. They’re about sovereignty. They’re about self-respect. They’re about rebuilding what our elites sold off piece by piece.

This is not a perfect plan. But it’s the first real attempt in decades to confront the human cost of globalization. It’s a wager that America can still choose dignity over dependence, self-sufficiency over servitude.

Let’s hope we’re not too late.

Kennedy has Big Pharma ads in his sights — and he's not the only one mulling a crackdown



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted in an op-ed last year that one of the ways President Donald Trump can make America healthy again is by reviewing direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ad guidelines.

"The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public," wrote Kennedy. "News channels are filled with drug commercials, and reasonable viewers may question whether their dependence on these ads influences their coverage of health issues."

The administration is now poised to tackle this issue with policies that might make it costlier and/or more difficult for pharmaceutical giants to push their products directly to patients.

Health and Human Services press secretary Emily Hilliard told Blaze News that "Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising must prioritize accuracy, patient safety, and the public interest — not profit margins."

"Consistent with Secretary Kennedy's public health commitments, we are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers, who deserve nothing less than radical transparency," added Hilliard.

RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it

 Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Bloomberg reported that the administration is considering two policies in particular.

The first would require drugmakers to to be more forthright in their ads about the side effects of their products.

Given that pharma products often have myriad side effects, this would likely increase the run time of TV ads, thereby making them far more costly. Since a total ban on pharma direct-to-customer ads would expose the administration to litigation, this potential disincentive could have a similar effect without the consequence.

Individuals said to be familiar with the plans told Bloomberg that the second policy would entail denying pharmaceutical companies the ability to write off DTC advertising as a business expense for tax purposes.

Recent analysis from the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing indicated that the average annual global spending on advertising and promotions in 2023 among the drugmakers AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer was $1.4 billion, with Pfizer spending the most.

The advertising data firm MediaRadar reportedly found that companies spent $10.8 billion last year on direct-to-consumer pharma advertising.

Drugmakers spent a combined $729.4 million to run TV commercials for the top 10 brands in just the first three months of 2025, reported Fierce Pharma.

'The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television.'

Bloomberg suggested that these potential policies could impact a key source of revenue for advertising, media, and pharmaceutical companies.

AbbVie chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart reportedly told analysts in May that if there were a crackdown on pharma ads, the company "would have to pivot," potentially focusing its advertising online rather than on mass media.

RELATED: MAHA scores major victory as Kraft Heinz vows to stop using artificial food dyes

 Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

Alex Siciliano, a spokesperson for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Bloomberg, "Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns."

Those concerned about HHS purging the airwaves of Big Pharma propaganda need not only fear initiatives from the Trump administration.

Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) introduced legislation last week that would ban drugmakers from using direct-to-consumer advertising outright, not only on TV and radio, but on social media, digital platforms, and in print as well.

"The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs," Sanders said in a statement.

"The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads."

An Axios-Ipsos poll conducted last year found that 59% of Americans support banning TV pharma ads.

Unlike the Trump administration's potential policies, the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act might not survive a constitutional challenge, given that Congress is barred from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.

The independent lawmakers noted in their joint statement that HHS Secretary Kennedy is not the only relevant party who has expressed an interest in clearing the airwaves; the American Medical Association has similarly endorsed a ban.

"The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn’t necessarily make patients healthier," said King.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The White House Can Lower Drug Prices By Fixing The Market, Not Price Controls

President Trump shouldn’t adopt socialist-style price controls.

Judge Says Tariffs Are Authorized By Emergency Powers Act In Win For Trump

The case arose from a challenge to tariffs that Trump imposed in an effort to stem the flow of drugs coming into the U.S.

Why President Trump’s Prescription Drugs Order Promotes A Freer Market

Those bemoaning Trump’s tariffs should celebrate this opening of international markets to free trade and the flow of goods across borders.

Trump takes aim again at prescription drug prices — could drop '30% to 80%'



President Donald Trump announced Sunday that he would be signing an executive order to cut prescription prices "almost immediately, by 30% to 80%."

The vehicle for these price reductions will be a new "MOST FAVORED NATION'S POLICY" mandating that the U.S. pays the same price for drugs as whichever country pays the lowest price globally.

Trump has long discussed using an index of international drug prices — in countries such as Canada, Britain, and Japan — to set the price that Medicare would ultimately pay for drugs administered stateside by doctors. The plan, and related legislative initiatives, faced significant opposition by the pharmaceutical industry and its bipartisan allies in Congress.

After signing a slew of executive orders in 2020 aimed at controlling and lowering drug prices, Trump issued an order on Sept. 13, 2020, seeking to establish most favored nation pricing for Medicare drug payments and to ensure that "Americans [do] not bear extra burdens to compensate for the shortfalls that result from the nationalized public healthcare systems of wealthy countries abroad."

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services subsequently issued an interim final rule implementing the executive order, which multiple pharmaceutical industry trade groups sued to kill.

Not long after courts blocked the most favored nation rule, the Biden administration rescinded it.

Trump evidently figures he has a better shot this time around, even though many of the price reduction plan's opponents are still in office.

'We are going to do the right thing, something that the Democrats have fought for many years.'

"For many years the World has wondered why Prescription Drugs and Pharmaceuticals in the United States of America were SO MUCH HIGHER IN PRICE THAN THEY WERE IN ANY OTHER NATION, SOMETIMES BEING FIVE TO TEN TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE SAME DRUG, MANUFACTURED IN THE EXACT SAME LABORATORY OR PLANT, BY THE SAME COMPANY?" the president wrote on Truth Social. "It was always difficult to explain and very embarrassing because, in fact, there was no correct or rightful answer."

According to recent analysis conducted by RAND Health Care on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. drug prices for both brands and generics were nearly 2.78 times as high as prices in comparison countries. Even after adjustments for American rebates, U.S. prices for brand drugs were apparently at least 3.22 times as high as in other countries.

"The Pharmaceutical/Drug Companies would say, for years, that it was Research and Development Costs, and that all of these costs were, and would be, for no reason whatsoever, borne by the 'suckers' of America, ALONE," continued Trump. "Campaign Contributions can do wonders, but not with me, and not with the Republican Party. We are going to do the right thing, something that the Democrats have fought for many years."

'It jeopardizes the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America.'

Trump noted that while relative costs will come down for American buyers, they will "rise throughout the World in order to equalize and, for the first time in many years, bring FAIRNESS TO AMERICA!"

Big Pharma lobbyists began complaining in advance of Trump signing the executive order, which the president indicated last week would be "one of the most important announcements that have been made in many years about a certain subject."

"This Foreign First Pricing scheme is a bad deal for American patients. Importing foreign prices will cut billions of dollars from Medicare with no guarantee that it helps patients or improves their access to medicines," Stephen Ubl, the CEO of the lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement obtained by The Hill.

"It jeopardizes the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America, making us more reliant on China for innovative medicines," added Ubl.

Trump has already taken action on the drug pricing front this year, directing his administration in February to increase enforcement of drug price transparency requirements and to promote "universal access to clear and accurate healthcare prices."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Just Say Yes?

“We’re here! We’re high! Get used to it!” This was what Garth Mullins’s girlfriend was yelling at a protest in the late 1990s in Vancouver, British Columbia. Mullins—who was, at the time, trying to “keep a low profile,” which “isn’t easy for a six-foot-four albino with a hollering girlfriend”—describes this moment as a turning point. He went from someone who saw “heroin as a medication, not an entire identity,” to someone who wanted to lead a movement for the decriminalization of drugs. The chant, Mullins writes in his book, Crackdown: Surviving and Resisting the War on Drugs, “had broken the tension, and people laughed. One by one, then en masse, we took the street. It felt amazing—a legion of drug users—not embarrassed or ashamed, but proudly marching and chanting slogans.”

The post Just Say Yes? appeared first on .

Cartel Member On CNN Is More Honest About Trump’s Immigration Policies Than Propaganda Press

On Friday CNN aired an interview between a Sinaloa cartel member and reporter Isobel Yeung, who asked the masked cartel member what he “make[s]” of the Trump administration labeling him a “terrorist.” The cartel member called the situation “ugly” before Yeung followed up by asking what message he had for Trump. “My respect,” the cartel […]

Decline Of Christianity Sparks Rise In Claims For Religious Protections Of Psychedelics

Well-funded and led by scholars, lawyers, religious leaders, and entrepreneurs, the goal is to obtain U.S. legalization of psychedelics.

UFC's Israel Adesanya said he did psychedelics in the shower before last championship victory: 'Hone in, bro'



Former UFC middleweight champion Israel Adesanya revealed he had several "macro" ingestions of psychedelic drugs before his most recent victory.

Adesanya, who is now seemingly retired, said he had a lot of mental and emotional work to do leading up to his April 8, 2023, fight against Alex Pereira at UFC 287.

At that point, Adesanya had just lost his championship to Pereira the previous November at UFC 281 in New York City. To make matters worse, Pereira had also beaten Adesanya in kickboxing in both 2017 in Brazil and 2016 in China.

After about seven years of losing to Pereira around the world, Adesanya knew that if he was to beat his rival in Miami, he would need to do some internal work on himself.

'I don't know if it's your ancestors or whatever, but I could feel myself on a level I've never felt before.'

"The work I've done on myself internally — I can't stress that enough. The work that I've done through therapy, as well, and just life experience," Adesanya said on "Pound 4 Pound with Kamaru and Henry."

The 35-year-old then revealed that he attributed a lot of his emotional work to having had several large psychedelic trips leading up to the fight.

"The Pereira fight in Miami, I did three — not micro, macro — shroom trips in the shower where it was, like, I was able to just f**king hone in, bro."

While Adesanya explained that he does not "go too deep" intellectually or spiritually with the drugs, he also said he got to a point where he could "feel" his ancestors.

"I don't go too deep. It's more, I can feel myself, I can feel myself deeper. I don't know if it's your ancestors or whatever, but I could feel myself on a level I've never felt before."

The New Zealand resident said that he enjoyed altering his state of mind from time to time in an attempt to off-load any inner demons or feelings that he has been harboring. During this process, he recalled writing messages to himself on his mirror about having the greatest comeback in UFC history.

All the psychedelic talk inspired former UFC champion and host Henry Cejudo to ask Adesanya if he had taken up toad licking or if he would be willing to. The host asked because he noticed that Adesanya had been a guest on Mike Tyson's former podcast, and Tyson has championed toad licking many times.

Licking toads is typically in reference to the psychotropic compounds secreted by toads from the Colorado River area, which have hallucinogenic effects. According to the Banyan Treatment Center, licking toads can lead to vivid visual hallucinations, changed time and space awareness, and spiritual experiences.

Adesanya said he was open to the experience.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!