Mike Pence’s Dollar Store Dream Is Killing The American Middle Class

A few weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent rightly pointed out that “Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream. The American dream is rooted in the concept that any citizen can achieve prosperity, upward mobility, and economic security. For too long, the designers of multilateral trade deals have lost sight […]

Making Canada The 51st State Would Guarantee Democrat Dominance Forever

Carney's win is precisely why the United States cannot afford to integrate far-left Canadians into the homeland.

Trump's tariffs unleash chaos in China with workers' revolt over unpaid wages, layoffs: Report



President Donald Trump's tariffs have reportedly unleashed chaos in China, with workers protesting over unpaid wages and layoffs.

A Radio Free Asia report claims that workers' protests are spreading across China, prompted by Trump's 145% tariff on the nation's imports. It states that hundreds of employees have taken to the streets to demand back pay and challenge layoffs following the abrupt shutdown of some Chinese factories.

'Their economy is collapsing.'

Workers from one electronic factory reportedly contend that the company has not paid their wages since the beginning of 2025 and that they have not received social security benefits since June 2023.

Those previously employed at other Chinese factories have reported similar issues regarding abrupt layoffs, as well as unpaid wages and benefits.

Shan Hui, chief China economist at Goldman Sachs, estimated that 16 million jobs are involved in producing goods sold in the U.S.

"Prices will need to fall for domestic and other foreign buyers to help absorb the excess supply left behind by U.S. importers," Shan stated.

Before Trump's tariffs took effect, China saw strong economic gains in the first few months of the year.

Sheng Laiyun, deputy director of the National Bureau of Statistics, stated, "The national economy had a steady and good start, continuing the upward trend."

"However, we must also see that the current external environment is becoming more complex and severe, and the effective domestic demand growth momentum is insufficient," Sheng added.

Goldman Sachs predicted that Trump's tariffs would "significantly weigh" on China's economy.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) recently praised Trump for his actions against China to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.

Mullin told Fox News this week, "President Trump is the first president that we've had that actually has a backbone strong enough to stand up and say we've got to right this wrong, start manufacturing goods here."

"China has got rich off our country," he continued. "Forty percent of all their goods they manufacture are sold back here in the United States. And they rip us off all the time."

In an NBC News interview released over the weekend, Trump confirmed his plans to keep the steep tariffs against China in place — for now.

When asked whether he would drop the tariffs, Trump responded, "Why would I do that?"

"Would you lower them?" he was asked.

"At some point, I'm going to lower them because otherwise, you could never do business with them — and they want to do business very much," Trump said. "Their economy is really doing badly. Their economy is collapsing."

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

White House torches Amazon's alleged tariff labels as 'hostile and political' — then company partly denies plans



A Tuesday report from Punchbowl News claimed that Amazon is planning to make an update to its shopping site that would inform consumers about how tariffs have impacted the total cost of items.

The outlet wrote, "Amazon doesn't want to shoulder the blame for the cost of President Donald Trump's trade war."

'I was getting so excited about the Amazon tariff tracker so I could avoid buying anything from China!!'

"So the e-commerce giant will soon show how much Trump's tariffs are adding to the price of each product, according to a person familiar with the plan," it added. "The shopping site will display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs — right next to the product's total listed price."

The recent report sparked backlash from President Donald Trump's administration.

During a Tuesday press briefing, a reporter asked press secretary Karoline Leavitt about Amazon's alleged tariff label plan.

"I just got off the phone with the president about Amazon's announcement," Leavitt stated. "This is a hostile and political act by Amazon."

"Why didn't Amazon do this when the Biden administration hiked inflation to the highest level in 40 years?" she questioned. "I would also add that it's not a surprise because, as Reuters recently wrote, Amazon has partnered with a Chinese propaganda arm."

Leavitt's comment referenced a December 2021 report from Reuters that claimed Amazon had marketed "a collection of President Xi Jinping's speeches and writings on its Chinese website."

"This is another reason why Americans should buy American," she added.

The reporter asked Leavitt whether Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is "still a Trump supporter."

"Look, I will not speak to the president's relationship with Jeff Bezos, but I will tell you that this is certainly a hostile and political action by Amazon," Leavitt responded.

However, an Amazon spokesperson rejected Punchbowl News' reporting.

The representative told ABC News, "The team that runs our ultra low-cost Amazon Haul store has considered the idea of listing import charges on certain products."

"Teams discuss ideas all the time. This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site, and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties," the spokesperson stated.

According to the company's website, Amazon Haul items include "unbelievable finds from $2.99." It explains that to keep prices low, Haul consumers are listed as the item's "importer for customs purposes."

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) responded to Amazon's denial of the report.

"Ahhh come on Amazon!!" Greene wrote in a post on X. "I was getting so excited about the Amazon tariff tracker so I could avoid buying anything from China!!"

"Americans want to buy American and you were finally going to give us a way to know which products and companies were selling slave labor made goods from China undercutting our great American made goods," she remarked.

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

Trump’s trade tactics echo founding-era common sense



Prominent voices on the left and within movement conservatism have argued that President Trump’s approach to foreign trade is strange, unorthodox, and even un-American. This is not surprising. After all, doctrinaire commitment to free trade — and doctrinaire distaste for protecting American industry — has been the dominant view among elites of both major political parties for at least a generation.

Against this backdrop, it is no wonder that Trump’s actions on trade appear as a wholly irrational disruption of a system that, according to our political elites, does not need to be discarded.

Hamilton would find it perfectly sensible of Trump to hold that other nations should give America something of value in exchange for access to our vast market.

This view of the matter, however, is based on an incomplete understanding of the American political tradition. Trump’s approach to trade policy has deep roots in American history, as we can see if we cast our gaze further back than we are accustomed to doing. It does not go too far to say that America’s founders would find Trump’s approach to international commerce perfectly intelligible and respectable.

The most obvious way to link President Trump to the founders is to invoke the justly celebrated name of Alexander Hamilton. The “Report on Manufactures,” Hamilton’s most famous state paper during his tenure as George Washington’s treasury secretary, laid out policy objectives that are essentially the same as those being defended by Trump and the members of his Cabinet who are responsible for trade policy.

It was necessary, Hamilton contended, to exert the government’s authority to promote American manufacturing to counteract the “artificial policy” of other nations that sought to exclude or disadvantage American goods. The ultimate aim of such a policy, he explained, was not the “vain project of selling everything and buying nothing” — it was instead to secure America’s vital national interests.

Hamilton argued that national “independence and security” are the “great objects” of all governments, thus requiring each country to “possess within itself all the essentials of national supply,” especially “the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing, and defense.” Having such goods available within one’s own country, he continued, “is necessary to the perfection of the body politic, to the safety as well as the welfare of the society.”

No strange departure

It is hard to see much daylight between Hamiltonian trade principles and President Trump’s desire to have the products necessary to American security and prosperity built in the United States.

The nationalist character of Hamilton’s thinking about trade policy, moreover, did not emerge after the founding as some strange departure from its essential principles. Rather, such nationalism was evident earlier, especially in the prominent part Hamilton played in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution.

Writing in "The Federalist Papers," Hamilton observed that one of the great advantages of a union of states under one government was the power it would confer on the nation to “oblige foreign countries to bid against each other for the privileges of our markets.” Elsewhere in “The Federalist Papers,” Hamilton suggested that the restrictive trade policies nations sometimes pursue are not properly viewed as “injuries” but simply as “justifiable acts of independent sovereignties consulting a distinct interest.”

Hamilton, then, would find it perfectly sensible of President Trump to hold that other nations should be willing to give America something of value in exchange for access to our vast market. His arguments similarly anticipated Trump’s frequent remarks that while other nations will inevitably act in their own interest, they likewise must understand that we intend to act in our own interest as well.

The preceding argument is enough to show that Trump’s thinking about trade policy has venerable roots in the American political tradition. After all, who is more American than Alexander Hamilton?

We can go further, however. Trump’s approach broadly represents not just the Hamiltonian strain of American economic nationalism but the common sense of the founding-era generation itself. Indeed (and as I have observed elsewhere at greater length) the authority to regulate trade with foreign nations was included in the Constitution precisely for the purposes for which the Trump administration is now wielding it.

Regulating commerce was uncontroversial

In his massive and highly regarded "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” Joseph Story — John Marshall’s great colleague on the early Supreme Court — observed that the power to regulate foreign commerce was so obviously necessary in a complete and effective government that it was hardly even a matter of controversy at the Constitutional Convention.

Commerce, Story suggested, is important to “the prosperity of nations.” Nevertheless, the prosperity of American commerce had been thwarted by the restrictive policies of other nations during the time America was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which conferred on the government no authority to regulate America’s foreign trade.

On Story’s telling, before the Constitution was adopted, American commerce “was regulated by foreign nations with a single view to their own interests; and our disunited efforts to counteract their restrictions were rendered impotent by a want of combination.” Under the Constitution, however, the government of the United States has the power to control access to the entire American market and hence has the ability to retaliate against the excessively self-regarding trade policies of other nations.

The Trump administration is simply using this constitutional power in an attempt to secure an arrangement that is more mutually beneficial for the United States and our trading partners.

Just as the founders anticipated

Story’s understanding of these matters was by no means idiosyncratic or partisan. On the contrary, essentially the same views were expressed by James Madison, the “father of the Constitution.”

Writing to James Monroe in 1785, Madison expressed his personal wish that “no regulations of trade, that is to say, no restrictions or imposts whatever, were necessary.” “A perfect freedom” of trade, he continued, “is the system which would be my choice.” Nevertheless, he immediately added, for such a system to be “attainable, all other nations must concur in it.” And if any other nation imposed restrictions on American trade, Madison continued, it would be appropriate for America to “retort the distinction” — in other words, to impose retaliatory restrictions of its own. Indeed, Madison held that to question the propriety of such economic retaliation would be “an affront to every citizen who loves his country.”

Similarly, in the preface to his notes on the Constitutional Convention, Madison observed that the lack of a commerce power under the Articles of Confederation had “produced in foreign nations ... a monopolizing policy injurious to the trade of the U.S.” and further suggested that the appropriate response would be a “countervailing policy on the part of the U. States.” Such a policy became possible because the new Constitution included a power to regulate trade with foreign nations — the power the Trump administration is wielding to secure more advantageous trade relations for America, just as the founders anticipated.

None of this is to say that the founders would have approved of the specific steps the Trump administration has taken in the last several weeks. No one can pretend to know how they would apply their principles to the changed circumstances of the present. Nor is it to say that the founders would approve the extent to which the Congress has delegated its foreign commerce power to the president. It is to say, however, that Trump’s aims, and the kind of tools he is using to achieve them, would be unobjectionable to those who founded our nation and established our form of government.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Trump tells Glenn Beck the cold reality about tariff talks: 'I don't have to negotiate'



Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck sat down Wednesday with President Donald Trump to discuss the first 100 days of his second term. They broached a variety of topics in the interview, including artificial intelligence, American energy, cost-saving deregulation, potential military action in Mexico, and Democrats' efforts to protect a foreign MS-13 associate with human trafficking ties.

While forthcoming on these and other issues, Trump certainly minced no words on the matter of tariffs and trade, telling Beck that he negotiates with other countries out of respect, not necessity — that at the end of the day, the U.S. is still calling the shots and will not suffer abuse at the hands of lesser nations.

Trump declared April 2 "Liberation Day," indicating in advance that sweeping reciprocal tariffs were inbound. Sure enough, when the day came, the president held a ceremony at the White House where he displayed the new rates of tariffs for the European Union and for numerous countries including China, Japan, and Ukraine.

'People don't talk about that. Even I don't mention it enough.'

After announcing a baseline 10% tariff against nearly 90 countries and higher reciprocal tariffs for the European Union and other regions, Trump told the audience at the Rose Garden, "From this day on, we're not going to let anyone tell us American workers and families cannot have the future that they deserve."

Beck suggested to the president Wednesday that while his "Liberation Day" evoked the end of World War II, it was perhaps less a historical appeal and more a historic repeal.

"I'm wondering, because of all of the moves you've made — NATO, the endless wars, everything else that goes along with this — are you signaling to the world that this is not just tariffs — this is an end to the order that we built after World War II?" said Beck. "Because it might have been good after World War II for everybody, but we're not the suckers any more. That's long past. It's time to transform."

The president was receptive to the idea that April 2 marked an end to the postwar consensus.

"You've said it so well, because people don't talk about that. Even I don't mention it enough. We helped countries after World War II. We helped them rebuild," responded Trump. "... And we never stopped. And they became very successful. And they stole our businesses."

Trump emphasized that the U.S. — thanks to the complicity of his predecessors and the opportunism of friends abroad — has been "ripped off by every country" on trade as well as in terms of nonreciprocal military relationships such as NATO.

The president noted, for instance, that after the U.S. long guaranteed Europe's safety, continentals were prickled by his suggestion that they might have to front more of the cost of their security.

'They all want to come in and they want to take our product.'

The U.S. has been the leading payer of NATO's bills. As of December, its cost share of the alliance's civil budget, military budget, and NATO Security Investment Program was nearly 16%. In addition to pouring cash into the alliance, the U.S. also has over 100,000 troops deployed across Europe and routinely sinks cash into related defense initiatives.

"And they said, 'Well, does he really mean that?'" Trump told Beck. "And they said, 'You mean, if we don't pay the bill, you're not going to be here?' 'Nope, I'll be gone.'"

"We were defending them, and they were killing us with the European Union, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States," said Trump. "And I said, 'This isn't going to go on.'"

The conversation turned back to the matter of tariffs, which Trump evidently figures are a means to settle scores where perceived trading imbalances are concerned.

"How do you negotiate with a group of elites who were for the World Economic Forum's 'Great Reset'?" asked Beck.

Trump responded with a dose of cold reality: "I don't have to negotiate. I don't have to negotiate. I'm talking to people out of respect, but I don't have to."

"We're this giant store that people want to come in and buy from. We're the United States. We have the richest consumers, etc., right?" said Trump.

While acknowledging that the financial health of this "giant store" is far from guaranteed, Trump indicated that for the time being, "they all want to come in and they want to take our product."

"To take our product, they're going to have to pay, and we'll either make a deal with them or we'll just set a price," continued Trump. "We're negotiating with 70 different countries. We're negotiating; we're showing great respect. But in the end, we may make deals — but either that or I just set a price. I said, 'Here's what you're going to pay for the privilege of servicing the United States of America.'"

"They don't have to shop at this big store, or they can shop. But in any event, they're going to have to pay," added the president.

— (@)

Scores of countries have approached the U.S. to rectify trade imbalances. Citing this interest to make a deal and select countries' lack of retaliation, Trump announced a 90-day delay on reciprocal tariffs on April 9. He raised the tariff charged to China, one of the customers apparently contemplating their patronage of the American store.

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

Tariff Critics Have No Answer To Trump’s National Security Arguments About Chinese Manufacturing

The onus is on those whose favored policies have left us imperiled to present a better plan than Trump’s to defend America’s interests.

3 Lessons Trump Can Learn From His Last Trade War With China To Win This One

In Trump’s second term, he aims to leave a lasting legacy. To do this, he should draw from the lessons learned during the previous trade war.