America's salvage yards are on fire — and drivers are the ones getting burned



No matter what kind of car we prefer, most American drivers can agree on one thing: We don't need another reason for vehicle ownership to become more expensive.

New vehicle prices remain painfully high. Used cars still cost more than they did just a few years ago. Insurance premiums continue to climb, and repair bills that once seemed unthinkable have become routine. For many families, keeping an older vehicle on the road isn't a preference anymore — it's a financial necessity.

An insurer may choose to repair rather than total a vehicle because recycled components make the economics work.

That's why a little-noticed trend deserves far more attention than it's getting: America's salvage yards are burning.

Junk science

Most drivers never set foot in a salvage yard, but many have unknowingly benefited from one. Salvage yards provide recycled engines, transmissions, body panels, mirrors, wheels, electronic modules, and countless other components that offer affordable alternatives to buying new parts.

Without them, many repairs would cost significantly more.

That matters because modern vehicles have become dramatically more expensive to fix. A headlight is no longer just a bulb and a lens — it may include LED arrays, cameras, and sensors costing thousands of dollars to replace. Bumpers house radar systems. Side mirrors contain blind-spot monitoring equipment. Even relatively minor collisions can generate repair bills that shock vehicle owners.

For decades, the salvage industry has quietly helped offset those costs.

Most people think of a scrapyard as the final resting place for totaled vehicles. In reality, these facilities function as warehouses of reusable inventory. Every wrecked vehicle contains components that can help repair another one, extending the life of cars already on the road and giving consumers lower-cost alternatives to factory-new parts.

When a salvage yard loses thousands of vehicles and reusable components to a fire, the consequences extend far beyond the property itself. Repair shops lose inventory. Insurers lose salvage value. Consumers lose affordable options.

Eventually, those costs work their way through the system.

More expensive repairs contribute to higher insurance claims. Parts shortages can increase repair times and rental-car costs. And families trying to keep an aging vehicle running are left with fewer choices and bigger bills.

That's why these fires deserve more scrutiny than they typically receive.

Batteries included

Industry groups have reported a growing number of fires at recycling facilities in recent years, with lithium-ion batteries frequently cited as a contributing factor. Given the proliferation of batteries in electric vehicles, hybrids, e-bikes, power tools, and consumer electronics, those concerns are understandable. Damaged or improperly handled lithium-ion batteries can ignite and burn intensely.

But determining the actual cause of individual fires matters. Some incidents are quickly linked to batteries, while others remain under investigation or are ultimately attributed to different causes. Before broad conclusions are drawn, it's important that investigators establish the facts.

The larger issue is that automotive recyclers have become an increasingly important part of keeping transportation affordable.

Americans are holding onto their vehicles longer than ever because replacing them has become so expensive. That makes access to quality recycled parts more valuable than ever. A driver with a 12-year-old SUV may not need a brand-new factory transmission if a properly inspected recycled unit is available at a fraction of the cost. Likewise, an insurer may choose to repair rather than total a vehicle because recycled components make the economics work.

Remove enough inventory from the marketplace, and those calculations begin to change.

RELATED: 10 tactics to beat even the pushiest car salesman

Mark Sullivan/Getty Images

Free to fix

This also intersects with the broader right-to-repair movement. Much of that debate centers on software access and diagnostic tools, but those issues address only part of the problem. Consumers also need access to reasonably priced replacement parts. Salvage yards provide competition in the marketplace and help prevent repair costs from becoming even more prohibitive.

Independent repair shops understand this better than anyone. Their ability to source quality recycled components often allows them to save customers thousands of dollars compared with using factory-new parts. If those options disappear, many repairs simply stop making financial sense.

The result is simple: Consumers either pay more or replace vehicles they otherwise could have kept on the road.

Insurance companies face similar challenges. Every totaled vehicle contains recoverable value through parts recycling and salvage sales. When that inventory is destroyed before it can be reused, that value disappears as well.

Where there's fire ...

Viewed in isolation, a scrapyard fire is local news. Viewed as part of a broader pattern, it becomes a warning about the fragile supply chain that keeps older vehicles on the road.

As vehicles become more technologically sophisticated and more expensive to repair, the automotive recycling industry becomes more — not less — important. Yet most people only notice it when dramatic images of smoke and flames appear on the evening news.

The next time headlines report another salvage-yard fire, look beyond the blaze itself. Ask what inventory was lost, how many future repairs depended on those parts, and what replacing them will ultimately cost.

Because in the automotive world, expenses rarely disappear. They get passed along.

And in the end, the people most likely to pay are the ones who can least afford another hit to their household budget: ordinary American drivers just trying to get a few more years out of their vehicles.

Car prices are about to skyrocket — and the reason is in the palm of your hand



If you think car prices are already out of control, brace yourself. The next spike is coming, and it has nothing to do with supply-chain excuses, dealer markups, or government mandates.

In fact, it has nothing to do with the car industry at all.

Automakers have limited options here. They can delay production, strip out features, or pass the cost directly to buyers.

It is being driven by Big Tech’s race to dominate artificial intelligence, and no matter who wins, the American car buyer will pay the price.

Bidding war

Behind the scenes, a quiet bidding war is underway for one of the most critical components in modern vehicles: memory chips. These are not exotic, cutting-edge parts reserved for luxury cars. They are the backbone of everything from your backup camera to center screens to your safety systems. And right now, they are getting sucked up by massive AI data centers at a pace the auto industry simply cannot match.

Companies like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI are spending billions building out AI infrastructure. These operations require enormous volumes of high-performance memory, the same category of chips used throughout today’s vehicles. The difference is they are willing to pay more, lock in longer contracts, and move faster than any automaker.

Chip manufacturers, including Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron, are shifting production toward AI demand because that is where the profits are strongest. That leaves fewer chips available for automakers, and the ones that are available are getting more expensive by the day.

Winter is coming

Automakers are already feeling it. Executives at Ford Motor Company have acknowledged rising costs tied to memory chips, even as they try to reassure investors that supply remains stable for now. But that stability is fragile, and industry analysts are warning that shortages could begin to impact production as soon as late 2026.

Some companies are more exposed than others. EV-focused brands like Tesla and Rivian face added risk because their vehicles rely even more heavily on advanced computing systems. Traditional automakers like General Motors and Ford Motor Company may have slightly more flexibility, but they are still tied to the same supply chain realities.

What does that mean for you?

It means the car you want may cost more, take longer to arrive, or come with fewer features than expected. We’ve seen this before.

RELATED: Why the Pentagon just called Detroit's Big 3 automakers

Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Computers on wheels

Modern vehicles are essentially computers on wheels. A typical car today uses large amounts of memory to manage safety systems, navigation, infotainment, and driver-assistance technology. In higher-end or electric models, that number climbs even further. Remove or limit those chips, and something has to give. Which means fewer features.

Automakers have limited options here. They can delay production, strip out features, or pass the cost directly to buyers. If history is any guide, they will do some combination of all three.

We saw it during the last chip shortage, due to COVID-related supply-chain disruption. Vehicles were shipped without features that customers had already paid for, with vague promises they might be added later. In many cases, those features never came back.

Now imagine that scenario again, only this time driven by a long-term shift in how chips are allocated globally. In other words, no end in sight.

Back to basics?

Some automakers are trying to get ahead of the problem. Toyota Motor Corporation and Honda Motor Company are working more closely with semiconductor suppliers to secure long-term agreements. It is a smart strategy, but it also highlights a bigger issue: The auto industry is no longer in control of its own destiny when it comes to critical technology.

It is competing with Silicon Valley, and Silicon Valley has deeper pockets.

There is also a lesson here that automakers would rather not admit. For years, they pushed more screens, more software, and more complexity into vehicles, selling it as innovation. But that strategy came with a cost, and now that cost is showing up in the form of supply vulnerability.

Many drivers today are asking for less tech and just the basics. But with added technology that collects your data, car brands are going to be forced to cut corners somewhere. And we know they will give up features and still collect data and track your every move. All of this takes chips that are getting more expensive.

The more technology you pack into a car, the more exposed you are when those components become scarce.

New approach

For consumers, this may force a shift in thinking. Simpler vehicles could become more attractive, not just because they are easier to use, but because they are less dependent on volatile supply chains. At the same time, the used car market could see renewed demand as buyers look for alternatives to increasingly expensive new models. This happened during the last chip shortage where used cars ballooned in price. That makes it a good time to sell and a bad time to buy.

The push for AI is not slowing down. If anything, it is accelerating. That means the competition for memory chips is only going to intensify, and the auto industry will continue to be caught in the middle.

So the next time you see a higher price tag on a new vehicle, do not assume it is just inflation or dealer markup. There's a good chance it's tied to a data center somewhere, running thousands of servers, training the next generation of AI models.

There may be a big opportunity here: a growing market for affordable cars not encumbered with expensive, invasive, and bug-prone tech. But first, car makers will have to ditch the endless tech arms race and listen to their customers.

GOP Rep. Beth Van Duyne, Panelists Lay Out Key Race Against China At Daily Caller Event

'China's playing the long game, and we don't get it.'

The potential Union Pacific merger risks upsetting America's rail industry



Rail transportation is the backbone of the American economy, and a proposed $85 billion merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern threatens to overconcentrate market power in an already highly consolidated industry.

The consequences will ripple across the economy, raising transportation costs, weakening service, and squeezing industries that depend on rail, from agriculture to energy.

At a moment like this, regulators shouldn’t take merger parties at their word. They should demand evidence. That’s exactly what we have called for when it comes to evaluating this mega-merger, and we are pleased that the Department of Justice and the Surface Transportation Board have agreed.

This merger could further entrench consolidation in freight rail, reducing competitive options for shippers and ultimately increasing costs for businesses and consumers.

The Justice Department — in a notable recommendation consistent with its review of mergers outside the rail industry — urged the STB to require that Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern produce certain executive-level information regarding their internal assessments of the merger.

The STB took an important step in that direction on March 18, requiring Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern to turn over internal documents assessing how the deal would affect competition, pricing, and market dynamics.

These are the kinds of materials the Justice Department has long relied on to evaluate mergers because they reveal how companies themselves expect a transaction to play out.

Attorneys general across the country have warned that this merger could further entrench consolidation in freight rail, reducing competitive options for shippers and ultimately increasing costs for businesses and consumers.

The merging companies point to a limited “open gateway” commitment as proof that competition will be preserved. But Union Pacific itself dismissed similar promises in the recent Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern rail merger in 2023. Now it asks regulators to accept vague assurances that it will maintain open gateways at “commercially reasonable” terms without enforceable guarantees.

Union Pacific argues that the merger will drive growth, including taking 2 million trucks off the road by shifting their freight to rail. But this is an optimistic forecast that UP would face no repercussions for missing. Indeed, the recent CPKC rail merger has fallen well short of a much more modest target of 65,000 truck-to-railway conversions.

The companies also promise efficiencies and new investments but offer little detail about their pre-merger plans or whether similar gains could be achieved through other means, such as partnerships or joint ventures — much less how any such efficiencies will benefit shippers, rather than shareholders and executives.

RELATED: Digital trade corridors can fix our outdated supply chain

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

In other words, regulators are being asked to accept sweeping claims with limited substantiation.

The STB is right to push back on the “just trust us” approach. Internal company analyses can reveal whether executives expect service disruptions, pricing power, or integration challenges that could undermine supply chains.

They can also test whether the merger’s benefits are actually realistic. This level of scrutiny is basic due diligence, particularly in an industry where reduced competition can have economy-wide consequences, and especially when the merging railroads claim that this transaction will change American railroading for the next hundred years.

At a time when businesses and consumers are still grappling with inflation and the cost of goods, it is hard to overstate the risks of this mega-merger.

As this review proceeds, the STB should ensure that all stakeholders have the information needed to assess the merger’s true impact and the time to be heard, resisting pressure to rubber-stamp a deal this consequential for the rail industry and American consumers. Anything less risks locking in higher costs and fewer choices for years to come.

The American economy runs on rail. The STB should make sure it stays on track.

Trucks destroy roads, but railroads — yes, rail! — can save taxpayers billions



Anyone who drives America’s highways knows the story: potholes, cracked pavement, and endless construction zones. States pour billions of tax dollars into road maintenance every year, yet the pavement always seems to crumble faster than it can be repaired. What most motorists don’t realize is that heavy trucks cause much of the damage — and pay almost nothing to fix it.

Federal estimates show that a single fully loaded 18-wheeler can inflict as much pavement damage as nearly 10,000 passenger cars. Fuel taxes and highway user fees from trucking companies cover only a small fraction of the destruction they cause. Taxpayers pick up the rest, footing the bill for constant repaving, bridge work, and the cycle of crumbling roads.

Every additional ton of freight shifted to rail represents pavement preserved and taxpayer dollars saved.

Trucking keeps the economy moving, and freight rail, shipping, and trucking together form the backbone of America’s supply chain. But shifting more freight to rail makes sense. The rail network is self-maintained by the companies that use it, and trains move goods more safely and efficiently than trucks. The more freight we move by rail, the less damage we’ll have to repair on the nation’s roads.

A merger serving Americans

The recently proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern offers an opportunity to improve both our roads and our supply chains simultaneously. By creating a more efficient coast-to-coast rail network, the merger would allow railroads to capture more freight that currently travels by truck — relieving taxpayers of billions of dollars in hidden subsidies for road repair.

Merging Union Pacific’s vast western network with Norfolk Southern’s eastern lines would create the nation’s first true transcontinental railroad — from the Pacific to the Atlantic. For shippers, that means single-line pricing instead of juggling multiple operators to move goods from point A to point B.

It also means faster delivery, fewer interchanges, and lower costs.

Railroads, unlike trucking companies, build and maintain their own infrastructure. Every mile of track, every bridge, and every switching yard comes from private capital, not public funds.

When freight moves from trucks to trains, taxpayers win twice: less highway damage to repair and more freight handled by a system that pays its own way.

The savings aren’t theoretical. Heavy trucks cause roughly 40% of the wear on America’s roads while accounting for only about 10% of total miles driven.

A North Carolina Department of Transportation study found that trucks with four or more axles underpay for road damage by anywhere from 37% to 92%. State budgets from Texas to Pennsylvania tell the same story: Highway repair costs soar while trucking fees barely make a dent.

Every ton of freight shifted to rail means less pavement destroyed and more tax dollars saved.

False cries of monopoly

Naturally, critics of the merger will cry “monopoly,” as they always do when industries consolidate. But that misses the real competitive landscape. In addition to competing with other railroads, rail competes vigorously with trucks, which dominate American freight today.

Trucks control roughly 70% of domestic freight volume — subsidized in part by taxpayer-funded roads. Allowing railroads to offer a stronger alternative isn’t anti-competitive — on the contrary, it’s pro-market. It creates stronger competition for taxpayer-subsidized trucking.

RELATED: DOT withholds $40M from blue state for flouting English requirements for truckers

Photo by Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

At its heart, this merger is a test of whether the Trump administration trusts the free market to deliver solutions. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are not asking taxpayers to fund their merger. They are not asking for subsidies, grants, or carve-outs. They are investing their own capital to create a system that reduces public costs, strengthens supply chains, and keeps America competitive.

If policymakers are serious about preserving America’s battered roads, as well as strengthening our supply chain infrastructure, the choice is obvious. Let the free market work, and let railroads take more freight off the highways.

Why tariffs are the key to America’s industrial comeback



On April 2, President Trump announced a sweeping policy of reciprocal tariffs aimed at severing America’s economic dependence on China. His goal: to reshore American industry and restore national self-sufficiency.

How can the United States defend its independence while relying on Chinese ships, machinery, and computers? It can’t.

Tariffs aren’t just about economics. They are a matter of national survival.

But time is short. Trump has just four years to prove that tariffs can bring back American manufacturing. The challenge is steep — but not unprecedented. Nations like South Korea and Japan have done it. So has the United States in earlier eras.

We can do it again. Here’s how.

Escaping the altar of globalism

Tariffs were never just about economics. They’re about self-suffiency.

A self-sufficient America doesn’t depend on foreign powers for its prosperity — or its defense. Political independence means nothing without economic independence. America’s founders learned that lesson the hard way: No industry, no nation.

The entire supply chain lives offshore. America doesn’t just import chips — it imports the ability to make them. That’s a massive strategic vulnerability.

During the Revolutionary War, British soldiers weren’t the only threat. British factories were just as dangerous. The colonies relied on British imports for everything from textiles to muskets. Without manufacturing, they had no means to wage war.

Victory only became possible when France began supplying the revolution, sending over 80,000 firearms. That lifeline turned the tide.

After the Revolution, George Washington wrote:

A free people ought not only to be armed, but ... their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

Washington’s first major legislative achievement was the Tariff Act of 1789. Two years later, Alexander Hamilton released his “Report on Manufactures,” a foundational blueprint for American industrial strategy. Hamilton didn’t view tariffs as mere taxes — he saw them as the engine for national development.

For nearly two centuries, America followed Hamilton’s lead. Under high tariffs, the nation prospered and industrialized. In fact, the U.S. maintained the highest average tariff rates in the 19th century. By 1870, America produced one-quarter of the world’s manufactured goods. By 1945, it produced half. The United States wasn’t just an economic powerhouse — it was the world’s factory.

That changed in the 1970s. Washington elites embraced globalism. The result?

America has run trade deficits every year since 1974. The cumulative total now exceeds $25 trillion in today’s dollars.

Meanwhile, American companies have poured $6.7 trillion into building factories, labs, and infrastructure overseas. And as if outsourcing weren’t bad enough, foreign governments and corporations have stolen nearly $10 trillion worth of American intellectual property and technology.

The consequences have been devastating.

Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 factories have moved overseas — to China, Mexico, and Europe. The result? The United States has lost over 5 million well-paying manufacturing jobs.

This industrial exodus didn’t just hollow out factories — it gutted middle-class bargaining power. Once employers gained the ability to offshore production, they no longer had to reward rising productivity with higher wages. That historic link — more output, more pay — was severed.

Today, American workers face a brutal equation: Take the deal on the table, or the job goes to China. The “race to the bottom” isn’t a slogan. It’s an economic policy — and it’s killing the American middle class.

Offshoring has crippled American industry, turning the United States into a nation dependent on foreign suppliers.

Technology offers the clearest example. In 2024, the U.S. imported $763 billion in advanced technology products. That includes a massive trade deficit in semiconductors, which power the brains of everything from fighter jets to toasters. If imports stopped, America would grind to a halt.

Worse, America doesn’t even make the machines needed to produce chips. Photolithography systems — critical to chip fabrication — come from the Netherlands. They’re shipped to Taiwan, where the chips are made and then sold back to the U.S.

The entire supply chain lives offshore. America doesn’t just import chips — it imports the ability to make them. That’s not just dependency. That’s a massive strategic vulnerability.

And the problem extends far beyond tech. The U.S. imports its steel, ball bearings, cars, and oceangoing ships. China now builds far more commercial vessels than the United States — by orders of magnitude.

How can America call itself a global power when it can no longer command the seas?

What happens if China stops shipping silicon chips to the U.S.? Or if it cuts off something as basic as shoes or light bulbs? No foreign power should hold that kind of leverage over the American people. And while China does, America isn’t truly free. No freer than a newborn clinging to a bottle. Dependence breeds servitude.

Make America self-sufficient again

Trump has precious little time to prove that reindustrializing America isn’t just a slogan — it’s possible. But he won’t get there with half-measures. “Reciprocal” tariffs? That’s a distraction. Pausing tariffs for 90 days to sweet-talk foreign leaders? That delays progress. Spooking the stock market with mixed signals? That sabotages momentum.

To succeed, Trump must start with one urgent move: establish high, stable tariffs — now, not later.

Tariffs must be high enough to make reshoring profitable. If it’s still cheaper to build factories in China or Vietnam and just pay a tariff, then the tariff becomes little more than a tax — raising revenue but doing nothing to bring industry home.

What’s the right rate? Time will tell, but Trump doesn’t have time. He should impose immediate overkill tariffs of 100% on day one to force the issue. Better to overshoot than fall short.

That figure may sound extreme, but consider this: Under the American System, the U.S. maintained average tariffs above 30% — without forklifts, without container ships, and without globalized supply chains. In modern terms, we’d need to go higher just to match that level of protection.

South Korea industrialized with average tariffs near 40%. And the Koreans had key advantages — cheap labor and a weak currency. America has neither. Tariffs must bridge the gap.

Just as important: Tariffs must remain stable. No company will invest trillions to reindustrialize the U.S. if rates shift every two weeks. They’ll ride out the storm, often with help from foreign governments eager to keep their access to American consumers.

President Trump must pick a strong, flat tariff — and stick to it.

This is our last chance

Tariffs must also serve their purpose: reindustrialization. If they don’t advance that goal, they’re useless.

Start with raw materials. Industry needs them cheap. That means zero tariffs on inputs like rare earth minerals, iron, and oil. Energy independence doesn’t come from taxing fuel — it comes from unleashing it.

Next, skip tariffs on goods America can’t produce. We don’t grow coffee or bananas. So taxing them does nothing for American workers or factories. It’s a scam — a cash grab disguised as policy.

Tariff revenue should fund America’s comeback. Imports won’t vanish overnight, which means revenue will flow. Use it wisely.

Cut taxes for domestic manufacturers. Offer low-interest loans for large-scale industrial projects. American industry runs on capital — Washington should help supply it.

A more innovative use of tariff revenue? Help cover the down payments for large-scale industrial projects. American businesses often struggle to raise capital for major builds. This plan fixes that.

Secure the loans against the land, then recoup them with interest when the land sells. It’s a smart way to jump-start American reindustrialization and build capital fast.

But let’s be clear: Tariffs alone won’t save us.

Trump must work with Congress to slash taxes and regulations. America needs a business environment that rewards risk and investment, not one that punishes it.

That means rebuilding crumbling infrastructure — railways, ports, power grids, and fiber networks. It means unlocking cheap energy from coal, hydro, and next-gen nuclear.

This is the final chance to reindustrialize. Another decade of globalism will leave American industry too hollowed out to recover. Great Britain was once the workshop of the world. Now it’s a cautionary tale.

Trump must hold the line. Impose high, stable tariffs. Reshore the factories. And bring the American dream roaring back to life.

‘I, Pencil’ defined free trade — Trump’s tariffs are writing the sequel



On Sept. 17, 2024, thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies exploded in the hands and pockets of alleged Hezbollah operatives across Lebanon and Syria. Intelligence sources believe the Israeli government carried out the operation in retaliation for the terrorist attacks committed on Oct. 7, 2023.

Israeli agents reportedly intercepted the devices — manufactured overseas — and modified their batteries to include small amounts of explosives. However one feels about this novel form of retaliation, it serves as an explosive reminder of how critical a country’s supply lines are to national security.

Trump understands that reindustrialization is more than an economic policy. It’s a national imperative.

For decades, the global liberal economic order has operated on the assumption that nations could stretch supply chains across the world to maximize efficiency and profit — with little risk. Leonard Read’s classic essay “I, Pencil” illustrated the idea, celebrating how no single person or country could manufacture a pencil alone. It highlighted how markets, when left to coordinate production across borders, could reach extraordinary levels of efficiency.

If global trade remained stable and secure, national self-sufficiency seemed unnecessary. Countries could rely on the global market to supply even critical goods — so long as the U.S. Navy kept shipping lanes open. Under Pax Americana, the thinking went, every nation could specialize in what it did best and enjoy the shared prosperity of free trade.

The global trade system rested on the assumption that American military dominance would continue indefinitely. That belief led to some baffling choices.

A shocking share of goods essential to U.S. national security are produced almost entirely in China — including antibiotics and components used in American military hardware. The idea that a country would rely on semiconductors from its primary geopolitical rival to launch a missile defies basic strategic logic. Yet that is exactly what the United States has done.

Defense contractors have prioritized profit, operating under the assumption that global trade is both reliable and free from political risk.

While this approach always carried serious risks, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed its full recklessness. Fears of contagion and widespread labor shortages disrupted global trade, causing economic shocks and widespread shortages of consumer goods.

More urgently, the pandemic revealed that critical medical supplies — such as ventilators — were largely manufactured in China, where the virus originated. Despite this wake-up call, the United States has yet to reshore production of many essential medicines. Yet we still rely heavily on China for antibiotics and other critical pharmaceuticals.

The pandemic and Israel’s pager attack made one thing clear: The era of supply chains divorced from security concerns is over — if it ever truly existed.

The global liberal economic order operated on the assumption that American dominance would go unchallenged. Under that model, it seemed economically irrational for any country to sabotage goods it sold to the United States. Nations believed they could depend entirely on foreign production because the reach of American power would keep economic exchanges politically neutral.

But Israel didn’t manufacture the pagers that wound up in the hands of Hezbollah operatives. It simply accessed the supply chain and modified those devices. These weren’t weapons or advanced military systems. By tapping into the logistics of basic consumer electronics, Israel was able to inflict serious damage on its enemy.

This illustrates the core vulnerability of today’s trade model.

Donald Trump has long argued that Americans are getting a raw deal in the current global economic system. While the United States has embraced free trade, many of our allies — including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Israel — have maintained protective tariffs.

Meanwhile, China has benefited from open access to U.S. markets despite its use of centralized planning, currency manipulation, and widespread intellectual property theft.

Trump has made clear that his goal is to reverse this imbalance. For both economic and national security reasons, he intends to use tariffs to secure better trade agreements and bring as much manufacturing as possible back to the United States.

Some disgruntled mainstream conservatives — particularly at publications like National Review — have joined leftist politicians and media voices in sounding the alarm over efforts to build an economic order that prioritizes U.S. interests. For many neoconservatives, free trade has become a kind of orthodoxy. They treat economic predictability — even within a broken system — as more important than restoring national sovereignty.

NeverTrump conservatives often dismiss the president’s trade agenda as outdated or uninformed. They mock his focus on reviving the American middle class. Among the D.C. elite, working- and middle-class Americans from “fly-over” states are often treated as relics of the past — easily replaced by foreign labor in a gig-based, service economy.

But Trump understands that reindustrialization is more than an economic policy. It’s a national imperative.

Tariffs once funded nearly the entire federal government. Now, Trump is attempting something unprecedented: using tariffs strategically within a modern, globalized economy. This may ultimately fail — but it’s clear to anyone paying attention that the current model is collapsing. Staying on the same path leads only to a slower, more orderly decline.

Political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli warned that the boldest reforms bring the fiercest opposition. A leader who proposes a new system will face resistance from all who benefited under the old one and enjoy only lukewarm support from those uncertain about the future.

If Trump succeeds, he will have demonstrated vision and resilience in the face of a system deeply hostile to him. If he fails, history may view him as the man who delivered an already-ailing economy to an early grave.

What remains clear is this: Every nation that hopes to endure must learn how to secure its supply chains. That process will demand serious reindustrialization. The era of security-neutral trade is ending fast — and those guided by short-term indicators instead of long-term national interest may not survive what comes next.

Nicolle Wallace Says Pete Buttigieg Is A ‘Skilled’ Messenger For The White House

'I’ve watched all of your appearances on Fox News'

ALARMING: Why won't American companies build new factories here?



The United States of America was always a country where people came to prosper. But three years have passed since the COVID-19 pandemic began, and the country looks anything but prosperous.

Glenn Beck notes that our government has done exactly the opposite of what it should have done in order to strengthen the people here at home.

“What was the biggest problem with the coronavirus?” he asks. “Who was hurt the most? Seven million people died, yes. Then who was hurt the most?”

“I would say it was the small business, I would say that it was the American way of life. And that is not being told by the federal government what you must and must not do. And I would say the supply chain,” Glenn explains.

When the supply chain was halted because of the pandemic, we were taught something very valuable.

“Go local,” Glenn says.

However, massive corporations and our federal government either don’t recognize the need to localize production, or they don’t want to localize production.

“We’re destroying everything,” Glenn warns. “Degrowth is what’s happening to us right now. That is truly what is happening, and that is intentional.”

Glenn notes that about 80% of all pharmaceuticals come from overseas.

“Why isn’t Pfizer, why aren’t these big American behemoths making new factories here? How come? That would seem logical to me.”

“Why aren’t we talking about a national movement to reopen steel mills when most of our steel comes from overseas? Why? Because they are not planning on any growth,” he adds.

Glenn believes this is an intentional attack by the global elites to keep us reliant on other countries while destroying local communities.

“They’re just making sure that every single community answers to a global government,” he says, adding, “And it’s going to control all of the big financial firms, all of the big corporations, and it will make sure that you cannot do the things that would keep your local community safe.”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Steel, Senators Introduce Bipartisan Legislation To Secure Medical Supply Chains

'National security depends on it'