East Asia’s Political Turmoil Could Hamper Trump’s Bid To Counter Red China
The Trump admin's efforts to get America's East Asian partners to increase defense spending may prove more difficult than anticipated.The Trump admin's efforts to get America's East Asian partners to increase defense spending may prove more difficult than anticipated.The God-given idea that helped make America great — and can save us again
Well before America’s founders drafted the Constitution, they understood that they had a national security problem rooted in economic and technological gaps.
Colonial America supplied Britain with raw materials, and the motherland traded us finished goods. That was tolerable then, despite its one-sided nature.
The intellectual property framework the founders designed democratized invention and creativity — and rewarded merit.
Then, Great Britain crossed the Rubicon. It unilaterally levied taxes on the colonies with the Sugar Act, which colonial resistance caused to be repealed. The Stamp Act of 1765 also imposed taxes without colonial consent. Then the taxes and regulations of the Townshend Acts further stirred colonial anger.
Revolutionary sentiments brewed, with public protests resulting in the Boston Massacre of 1770 and the “tea parties” in 1773 and 1774. Finally, combat broke out at Lexington and Concord in 1775.
Britain had the economic and military advantage over the largely agricultural colonies, which suffered chronic shortages of guns, gunpowder, blankets, and shoes.
Flourish by design
For America to survive as an independent nation, the model had to change. It needed to promote rapid economic and technological advancement. It needed a policy that coupled economic liberty with property rights.
The founders set a course for achieving what Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution calls “the progress of science and useful arts.” This was done “by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
The intellectual property framework the founders designed democratized invention and creativity — and rewarded merit. The Constitution was crafted to secure and enable an individual’s rights, including patent rights to the property someone created.
The founders understood that the ownership right would help unleash human flourishing. They had learned this from the Bible, the legacy of the Reformation, and great minds such as Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and John Locke.
Biblical basis
Property rights incentivized creative endeavors, which is precisely what the framers sought to do.
The biblical framework for invention and creativity flows from foundational truths. He who created the universe (e.g., Genesis 1:1, Job 38, Psalm 8:1-5) also claims ownership of His creation (e.g., Deuteronomy 10:14, Psalm 24:1, Isaiah 64:8).
RELATED: The American principle: There can be no blessings without God in our lives
Moreover, God not only creates and owns, but He communicates those attributes to human beings, the creature who bears His image and is charged with stewardship of the lower creation (e.g., Genesis 1:26-30, Psalm 8:6-8, Micah 4:4). The founders applied this combination of creativity and ownership as the formula for maximizing human flourishing.
This resulted in America growing from a vulnerable agrarian society to the world’s premier industrial economy. By the 20th century, the United States led the world in economic and technological strength.
Our golden age
The golden age of American patenting started in 1836, when Congress established a dedicated U.S. Patent Office.
When someone produced a novel invention, he was awarded a patent. Applicants could appeal patent denials to impartial chief examiners — and they could obtain review in a federal court. A patent had a 14-year term from the date it was issued. Economic historian Zorina Khan notes in "The Democratization of Invention" that a seven-year extension could be provided to ensure “reasonable remuneration for the time, ingenuity, and expense bestowed” in developing and bringing an invention to market.
This system embodied the founders’ vision, implementing the biblical model of human creativity incentivized by secure ownership. This creativity-ownership combination has clearly stimulated mass flourishing in America, where we have experienced wealth creation and prosperity in vast measure.
Today, we approach the 250th anniversary of our independence, knowing what the founders did not: The American experiment turned out quite well.
Yet keen observers are less sanguine about our future.
Creative comeback
In recent years, the federal government has undermined the successful intellectual property model the founders gave us.
For example, a cardinal rule of the patent process was maintaining the confidentiality of inventions for which a patent was sought but not yet granted. But then the Clinton administration and Congress began publishing U.S. patents that were still being examined. Cutting-edge American technology was being transferred to Japan and China before an inventor’s exclusive legal rights had been secured at home.
RELATED: China’s greatest export isn’t steel — it’s industrial theft
The 2011 America Invents Act wiped out several useful elements of the Patent Act. It established the quasi-judicial Patent Trial and Appeal Board, before which anyone can challenge and more easily invalidate issued patents. Today, the PTAB destroys value and wealth in newly created property, the very inventions that promise American leadership in the most cutting-edge technologies.
The United States is now falling behind in global technological leadership — but we must out-innovate foreign competitors, particularly China.
America must relink ownership with creativity to incentivize creativity through reliable, enforceable property rights. Secure IP rights coupled with economic freedom are pro-growth policy, just as much as the right tax policies.
To re-establish America’s technological and economic prowess, we must return to God’s design — that which the founders adopted with world-changing success.
Why tariffs beat treaties in a world that cheats
President Trump’s tariffs are set to snap back to the “reciprocal” rates on Wednesday — unless foreign countries can cut deals. So far, the only major players to reach agreements in principle are the United Kingdom and, ironically, China.
Others aren’t so lucky. The European Union, Japan, and India all risk facing a sharp increase in tariffs. Each claims to support free trade. India has even offered a so-called zero-for-zero deal. Vietnam offered similar terms.
Free trade is a myth. Tariffs are reality. The Trump administration should raise them proudly and without apology.
The Trump administration should be skeptical. These deals sound good in theory, but so does communism. In practice, “true” free trade — like true communism — has never existed. It’s impossible. The world’s legal systems, business norms, and levels of development differ too much.
Economists may still chase unicorns. But the Trump administration should focus on tilting the board in our favor — because someone else always will.
Free trade is a mirage
Start with the basics: Different countries are different. Their economies aren’t equal, their wages aren’t comparable, and their regulations certainly aren’t aligned.
Wages may be the most obvious example. In 2024, the median annual income for Americans was around $44,000. In India, the median annual income was just $2,400. That means American labor costs nearly 20 times more. And since labor accounts for roughly a third of all production costs, the math practically begs U.S. companies to offshore work to India.
RELATED: Trump’s tariffs take a flamethrower to the free trade lie
It’s China in 2001 all over again.
Back then, the average U.S. wage was about $30,000. China’s? Just $1,100. When China joined the World Trade Organization, American manufacturers fled en masse. Since 2001, more than 60,000 factories have disappeared — and with them, 5 million jobs.
The result: decimated towns, stagnant wages, and hollowed-out industrial capacity. And don’t blame robots or automation. This was policy-driven — an elite obsession with free trade that delivered real pain to working Americans.
We’ve run trade deficits every single year since 1974. The inflation-adjusted total? Roughly $25 trillion. And while U.S. workers produce more value than ever, their wages haven’t kept up. They’ve been undercut by cheap foreign labor for decades.
Equal partners? Think again
What if the other country is rich? Can free trade work between economic peers?
Not necessarily. Even when GDP levels match, hidden differences remain. Take regulation. America enforces labor standards, environmental protections, and workplace safety rules. All of those raise production costs — but for good reason. American-made goods reflect those costs in their price tags.
Meanwhile, competitors like China or Mexico cut corners. They dump waste, abuse workers, and sidestep accountability. The result? Cheaper products — on paper. But those costs don’t vanish. They just get pushed onto others: polluted oceans, exploited laborers, sicker consumers.
This is why the sticker price on a foreign good doesn’t reflect its true cost. The price is a lie. Cheapness is often just corner-cutting with a smile.
National strength means self-reliance
Rather than debating whether free trade is possible, we should ask whether it’s good for America.
Should we outsource core industries to foreign nations with no loyalty to us? Should we depend on countries like China for our pharmaceuticals, our electronics, or even our food?
The founders didn’t think so. The Tariff Act of 1789 wasn’t about boosting exports — it was about building an independent industrial base. A sovereign nation doesn’t beg for favors. It builds.
We aren’t just an economy. We are a people — a nation united by heritage, language, faith, and trust. That matters more than quarterly profits.
Free trade is a myth. Tariffs are reality. The Trump administration should raise them proudly — and make no apologies for putting America first.
Japan considers support for Trump's Golden Dome project as tariffs weigh heavily on nation
Following two phone calls between U.S. President Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, Nikkei Asia has reported that Japan is “exploring support” for the United States’ proposed “Golden Dome” project in the coming years. This potential cooperation comes in light of the global tariffs imposed by President Trump as well as a mutual ongoing commitment to promote a U.S.-Japan “golden age,” according to a White House press briefing.
The White House briefing reported that Japan and the U.S. have been in talks since February in an effort to reaffirm “bilateral security and defense” commitments between the two countries. At the end of last month, Trump and Ishiba discussed their views on the tariffs, “economic security cooperation,” and “diplomatic and security challenges,” per a report from Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Some, including the original Nikkei report, have speculated that Japan may use its involvement in the project as a “bargaining chip” in economic negotiations. Prime Minister Ishiba has since noted in a press conference that Japan has “consistently advocated for an ‘investment rather than tariffs’” approach in cooperation.
The Golden Dome, modeled after Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, is set to cost an estimated $175 billion, with some long-term estimates, according to the Congressional Budget Office, reaching as high as $831 billion.
Trump has tapped U.S. Space Force General Michael Guetlein to oversee this project, which he hopes to complete by the end of his term in 2029. The state-of-the-art Golden Dome will be a “network of satellites, sensors, and interceptors to prevent aerial attacks on the U.S. mainland,” Time magazine reports. Proponents have insisted that the system is intended only as a deterrent.
Critics have expressed concerns that this project may push adversaries and even aligned nations into what Carnegie Politika called a “new arms race” against the U.S. in the space and defense industries. The building of the Golden Dome system may be taken as a threat by nations like China, Russia, and North Korea. Japan’s involvement in the project may raise concerns in the region.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Max Boot’s Ghoulish Pearl Harbor Analogy Reveals What He Really Wants From The Russo-Ukraine War
Boot just wants this war to escalate even further.Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com