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

  Photo by JOHANNES EISELE/AFP via Getty Images

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.

'51st state': Trump teases annexation again after Canada quickly caves on major tax



President Donald Trump threatened U.S.-Canada trade talks on Friday over the northern nation's digital services tax, which required foreign and domestic large businesses such as Netflix, Amazon.com's Prime Video, and Spotify to pay a levy of 3% on revenue earned from offering online services to users in Canada.

"We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country," Trump noted in a Truth Social post.

"They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also," continued the president. "Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately."

'Canada is a very tough country to deal with.'

Canada — the top buyer of American goods, importing $349.4 billion last year, and 75.9% of whose total exports went to the U.S. — made abundantly clear that it wasn't too attached to the tax, which the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated would increase federal government revenues by over $5.2 billion over five years.

Within hours of Trump's post, the Department of Finance Canada announced that it was rescinding the digital services tax to advance broader trade negotiations with the United States.

Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne noted that "rescinding the DST will allow the negotiations to make vital progress and reinforce our work to create jobs and build prosperity for all Canadians."

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick thanked Canada on Monday for removing the tax, noting that it was "intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America."

RELATED: Canada's solution to reliance on US? Increasing commitments in Europe

 Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

"In our negotiations on a new economic and security relationship between Canada and the United States, Canada's new government will always be guided by the overall contribution of any possible agreement to the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses," said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. "Today’s announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month’s G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis."

The Canadian Liberal Party under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first promised the tax ahead of the 2019 federal election, saying it would "make sure that multinational tech giants pay corporate tax on the revenue they generate in Canada," even though critics indicated that Canadian consumers would end up paying the taxes.

The Digital Services Tax Act went into force on June 28, 2024, prompting condemnation stateside as well as an official complaint under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement from former U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai.

John Dickerman, vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based Business Council of Canada, suggested to Canadian state media days after Trump's re-election that the tax was likely doomed.

"The first Trump administration ... was very clear on digital services taxes. They believed that digital services taxes were a very clear indication that a country was specifically targeting the U.S. and targeting U.S. companies. It will be a 'with us and against us' scenario," said Dickerman. "I think there will be very little room for negotiation on DST."

Trump leaned on Canada to axe the tax just in the nick of time. The first payments were due on Monday and retroactive to 2022, meaning a number of American corporations were on the hook for billions of dollars.

The Canadian government indicated that Carney and Trump have agreed to resume negotiations "with a view towards agreeing on a deal by July 21, 2025."

"Canada is a very tough country to deal with, I will say that," Trump told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures." "Hopefully we'll be fine with Canada. I love Canada. Frankly, Canada should be the 51st state."

Blaze News has reached out to the White House for comment.

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

China’s greatest export isn’t steel — it’s industrial theft



President Trump last week announced a deal in principle with China: The U.S. will impose 55% tariffs on Chinese goods, while China will respond with a 10% tariff on American goods. In return, China will continue supplying rare earth minerals and magnets, and Chinese students will keep attending American universities. The deal’s finer details remain in flux.

  

Noticeably absent from the agreement? Any commitment from China to protect American intellectual property. That’s no accident. China denies stealing American IP altogether, chalking up clear examples of theft to normal “market behavior.”

Trump is the first president in half a century to take trade seriously. But tariffs alone won’t fix this.

And in a way, they’re right. IP theft is normal in China. Some of the country’s most successful firms, like Huawei, were built on stolen American technology. For the Chinese Communist Party, theft isn’t an embarrassment. It’s a strategy.

The great Chinese rip-off

In 1983, much of China was still preindustrial. No engines, no tractors, no cars. Labor happened by hand or with the help of animals. Rural China looked a lot like colonial America.

But in just a few decades, China transformed into an industrial superpower. It now produces three times more industrial output than the U.S., including 24 times more steel and far more oceangoing ships. It has the world’s largest economy by purchasing power.

How did they do it? Theft.

RELATED: Without tariffs, the US is defenseless in an economic war

  Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

A 2024 House Homeland Security Committee report estimates that China steals between $300 billion and $600 billion in American IP annually. A 2017 report from the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property drew similar conclusions. If we use a midpoint estimate and track the losses back to 2001 — when China joined the World Trade Organization — America has lost nearly $10 trillion in intellectual property to China.

China gets this technology in several ways. First, through direct espionage. Only 29% of these operations target military secrets. The rest focus on industrial and commercial tech: manufacturing methods, chemical formulas, blueprints. Espionage alone accounts for roughly $180 billion in losses each year.

Second, through counterfeiting. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 60% of all counterfeit goods sold worldwide come from China. In the U.S., that number rises to 87%. Counterfeiting costs U.S. businesses up to $291 billion per year.

Third, through piracy on Chinese e-commerce platforms. The United States Trade Representative reports that American rights-holders lose billions thanks to widespread digital theft of films, music, software, books, and branded products. Of the $2.16 trillion in Chinese e-commerce sales in 2024, roughly 40% were pirated or counterfeit. That’s $864 billion in lost profits — just last year.

Americans deserve to benefit from their own labor and ingenuity. But China continues to loot our IP with impunity, and our leaders let it happen.

The golden goose gets gutted

Beyond outright theft, China siphons off American technology through strategic corporate acquisitions and forced technology transfers.

The U.S. runs a trade deficit with China of more than $300 billion annually. To cover it, we sell assets — ownership stakes in American companies. Chinese investors target U.S. tech and industrial firms, acquire shares, then funnel proprietary information back to China. Once the intellectual property is transferred, they sell off their holdings.

Technically legal. Strategically disastrous.

China also compels U.S. companies to “partner” with Chinese firms when setting up operations inside the country. The Chinese side runs daily operations and learns the ropes. In exchange, Americans share their tech. Eventually, the Chinese copy the technology, replicate the products, and compete directly with the very companies that taught them.

That’s how Huawei rose to prominence. The company reverse-engineered American products, then used its home-field advantage to grow into the world’s third-largest smartphone maker.

China’s strategy works. And American businesses, addicted to short-term profits, keep falling for it. The consequences aren’t just economic — they’re geopolitical. This is how the CCP turned a rural backwater into a peer competitor.

Trump is the first president in half a century to take trade seriously. But tariffs alone won’t fix this. As I argue in my book “Reshore,” the only way to win this fight is to bring America’s factories home. Reshoring means economic independence. It also cuts off China’s access to the technology they’ve been stealing for decades.

Until then, we’re funding our own decline.

Trump touches down in Canada for G7 summit. Here's what's on the menu.



The Group of Seven is an informal bloc of first-world nations consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. that has met since the 1970s to coordinate on matters of international security, human rights, economic governance, and technological matters.

Amid rising military tensions between Israel and Iran, unresolved tensions between Ukraine and Russia, and ongoing extranational vexation over his tariff strategy, President Donald Trump touched down in Canada on Sunday for this year's summit in Kananaskis, an unincorporated Alberta community in the Rocky Mountains.

Leaders from various non-G7 member nations will also be present at the summit, including leaders from Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico, and Ukraine.

A senior U.S. official told Blaze News that Canada "worked with G7 colleagues to craft short, action-oriented leaders' statements on key issues of common interest. Working discussions will, but not limited to, cover trade and the global economy, critical minerals, migrant and drug smuggling, wildfires, international security, artificial intelligence, and energy security."

These topics correspond to the priorities for the summit identified by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's office earlier this month. The prime minister's office noted that other discussions will include a "just and lasting peace for Ukraine and other areas of conflict around the world."

"The president is eager to continue to pursue his goals in all of these areas, including making America's trade relationships fair and reciprocal, unlocking new markets for American energy exports, and positioning the U.S. to be the world leader and international partner of choice on AI technologies," the senior American official told Blaze News.

The official added, "We appreciate Canada’s cooperation in the planning of this summit and their choice of a gorgeous location in Kananaskis for these important conversations."

RELATED: Listen up, America: Everything you've been told about Canada is a lie

 Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

Officials from the host country, which Trump has slapped with numerous tariffs in recent months and repeatedly suggested should become the 51st state in the union, appear keen to ensure that the president has a good time to avoid a repeat of the kind of breakdown of goodwill that followed the 2018 G7 summit in Quebec.

Trump left that summit early after reportedly suggesting to the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that an injection of 25 million Mexicans into Japan would lose Abe his next election and telling French President Emmanuel Macron during a conversation on Iran and terrorism that Macron had a special familiarity because "all the terrorists are in Paris." Trump then remotely torpedoed a joint G7 statement on account of what he claimed were "false statements" from former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who he emphasized was "weak."

'Press reports stress that the participating countries are trying to bend over backward to avoid antagonizing President Trump.'

"The backdrop to this G7 are the tensions between the U.S. and the other G7 members," Christopher Layne, professor of international affairs at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, told Blaze News. "The leading causes of division are Ukraine, President Trump's tariffs, and the administration's apparent break from the institutions and norms upon which the post-1945 liberal rules-based international order rested."

Layne noted that the G7s Trump attended in his first term were "openly acrimonious."

"In an attempt to avert a rupture this time, Canada, the host country, determined that there will be no joint communique issued when the meeting ends," continued Layne. "Press reports stress that the participating countries are trying to bend over backward to avoid antagonizing President Trump. In this atmosphere, it is unlikely that the meeting will produce any major breakthroughs, though the U.S. will seek progress on several issues, including trade/tariffs, drug smuggling, and migration flows."

Carney — the self-identified "European" World Economic Forum regular who all but guaranteed British economic decline while governor of the Bank of England, then replaced Justin Trudeau to become Canadian prime minister in March — met Sunday with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Ottawa and agreed to establish an economic and trade working group and to strengthen military cooperation both bilaterally and through NATO.

RELATED: The Great Reset just got a North American enforcer in Ottawa

  Trump at the G7 in Charlevoix, Canada, in 2018. Photo by Jesco Denzel /Bundesregierung via Getty Images

Carney then headed west for his one-on-one meeting Monday morning with Trump ahead of the official start of the summit.

A day after Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Anita Anand, the Canadian minister of foreign affairs, affirmed the "important relationship" between their respective nations, Carney welcomed Trump to the summit, wishing both the president and the U.S. Army happy belated birthdays and emphasizing the importance of American leadership at the G7, which is apparently celebrating its 50th birthday.

'I'm sure we can work something out.'

Trump once again bemoaned the removal of Russia from the G8 following its invasion of Crimea, noting that talks about Russia would be easier with it representatives at the table.

"The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in," said Trump. "And I would say that that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in, and you wouldn't have a war right now if Trump were president four years ago."

— (@)  
 

Concerning the immediate talks ahead, Trump told reporters, "Our primary focus will be trade, and trade with Canada."

"I'm sure we can work something out," said the president, emphasizing that he's a "tariff person," while Carney "has a more complex idea but also very good."

Carney's office did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

Professor Layne suggested to Blaze News that "even though this is not formally a NATO conference, President Trump is certain to push for increased defense spending from U.S. allies in East Asia and Europe."

"President Trump approaches multilateral fora with extreme skepticism," Rachel Rizzo, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Europe Center, told CNN. "He does not view these organizations as ways to deepen and expand American power and influence. He sees these fora as constraining America, and I think that’s something to remember as he goes into this. He is skeptical towards the G7’s consensus-driven approach."

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.

Trump’s Trade Negotiations Should Include A Push For Free Speech

There should be more to economic and trade policy than merely the price of goods.

Trump’s tariffs are working — now comes the ‘marshmallow test’



The Congressional Budget Office released a report Wednesday detailing the budgetary and economic impact of President Trump’s tariffs. The top-line result: Even the Democrat-controlled CBO concedes that tariffs will reduce the deficit over the next decade.

  

Trump has every reason to celebrate. Tariffs shrink the deficit in one of two ways. They either raise revenue directly — as tariffs are a form of tax — or they do so indirectly, by reshoring industry and expanding GDP.

History suggests both outcomes are likely. But if Trump stays the course and keeps tariffs high and stable, the United States could seize the opportunity of a generation: reindustrialize the economy, grow GDP, and restore prosperity for our grandkids.

The marshmallow test goes national

In the 1960s, Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel ran an experiment on self-control. Children were given a choice: Eat one marshmallow now or wait and receive two later. Those who delayed gratification generally fared better in life. Intelligence and future success correlated with restraint.

The implications extended beyond childhood. Researchers found similar behavior in animals, with more intelligent species — like crows — choosing delayed rewards.

Delayed gratification builds successful investors, entrepreneurs, and nations.

No one pretends tariffs deliver instant gratification. They don’t. They aren’t supposed to.

Tariffs function much the same way. They impose short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. Like the marshmallow test, this moment asks whether Americans will accept some present discomfort to secure a far more prosperous future.

Fortunately, patience pays. Economic logic and historical evidence both show that tariffs expand the gross domestic product and create jobs over time.

What the trade deficit reveals

In 2024, America posted a net trade deficit of $918 billion. That figure represents more than a statistic. It reflects real, physical production now taking place elsewhere — mostly in China.

  

The math is simple: If Americans didn’t buy those goods from abroad, they would need to produce them at home.

Reshoring that production would raise GDP accordingly. When demand remains steady and supply shifts from overseas to domestic producers, GDP rises.

Demand drives supply. That’s basic economics.

This principle played out throughout American history. For over a century, high tariffs protected domestic industry. America’s economy grew faster than the global average. Consumption increased. Industrial output soared. Not until the 1970s, when the country embraced so-called “free trade” and abandoned the gold standard, did growth begin to stagnate.

  

Industrial production also benefits from increasing returns to scale. The more you produce, the cheaper each unit becomes. Part of the reason Chinese goods seem inexpensive lies in our own underproduction. As American firms ramp up supply, the cost gap narrows.

Financing habits support this trend. Americans fund trade deficits by selling assets or issuing debt. Those mechanisms would remain available in a closed trade system. True, consumers might get less “bang for their buck” in the short term, but the willingness to spend wouldn’t change.

Most Americans will continue to consume, no matter where production occurs. That behavior ensures demand will remain steady — providing the economic incentive for supply to shift back home.

Unused capacity, untapped opportunity

America’s industrial potential remains far from exhausted. Millions of citizens remain unemployed or underemployed. Hundreds of billions of dollars in productive capital sit idle.

The infrastructure exists. The labor pool exists. The only thing missing has been the incentive to build again. Or more accurately, the disincentive to rely on foreign labor.

The United States thrived for generations as a self-sufficient manufacturing power. It can do so again.

RELATED: Without tariffs, the US is defenseless in an economic war

  Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

Production follows consumption. That truism holds in both individual and national economies. No one works because they love harvesting wheat or running a forge. People work because they want to eat, live, and flourish.

In a globalized economy, countries can consume without producing. But once that system breaks — or gets reshaped by political will — production must rise to meet domestic demand. It cannot work the other way around.

This logic exposes a hard truth: America’s trade deficit reflects lost potential. We haven’t stopped consuming. We’ve just stopped building.

Trump’s tariffs aim to reverse that trend. By shrinking the trade deficit, the policy raises GDP. With production comes employment. With employment comes prosperity.

The patience to win

No one pretends tariffs deliver instant gratification. They don’t. They aren’t supposed to.

Tariffs offer a national test of will. Do Americans want long-term sovereignty, security, and wealth badly enough to endure a temporary adjustment? Or will they flinch the moment cheap consumer goods rise in price?

This question lies at the heart of the national debate. And the outcome will shape whether America reclaims its manufacturing base — or continues hemorrhaging power to rival nations.

The evidence favors success. But only if we stay the course.

Conservatives and nationalists should recognize what’s at stake. Tariffs don’t just serve economic goals. They advance a moral imperative — to rebuild the country we inherited and preserve it for those who follow.

The marshmallow test may sound childish. But its lessons hold: The future belongs to those who can delay gratification today to build something greater tomorrow.

America stands at that threshold now. As I show in “Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream,” reindustrialization isn’t a fantasy. It’s within reach. But it requires courage, consistency, and sacrifice.

Trump’s tariffs have set the stage. The numbers now support the policy. The question remains: Will the American people pass the test?

Let’s hope so. Because this country doesn’t belong only to us. It belongs to our children, our grandchildren, and every generation still to come.

‘Rest Assured’: Tariffs ‘Not Going Away’ Despite Court Rulings, Trump Commerce Sec Says

'You can’t listen to silly people making silly comments'

Trump’s US Steel play exposes America’s industrial decline



President Trump has approved Nippon Steel’s $14.9 billion investment in U.S. Steel. The president travels to Western Pennsylvania on Friday to announce the “partnership” that promises billions in new infrastructure, up to 70,000 jobs, and a more competitive, profitable U.S. Steel.

Trump insists the deal keeps U.S. Steel under American control. The company will remain headquartered in Pittsburgh, and the United States will reportedly retain a “golden share,” allowing the government to protect national strategic interests.

President Trump is trying to make the best of a bad situation. But until Congress gets serious about reshoring, deals like this will keep happening.

The arrangement offers clear advantages to both sides. Nippon gains tariff-free access to American markets. The United States gets an influx of capital.

But this is no cause for celebration. The deal exposes the frailty of America’s heavy industry. It’s not a triumph — it’s a warning.

This should be a wake-up call for Washington: America needs a comprehensive industrial policy.

What’s the deal with the deal?

The fine print remains under wraps, but something about this deal doesn’t add up.

Seventeen months ago, Nippon Steel offered $14.1 billion to acquire 100% of U.S. Steel — a price both sides accepted. Shareholders agreed. The Biden administration blocked the sale.

Now, a year and a half later, Nippon has offered $14.9 billion — not for full ownership, but for a “partnership” that allegedly preserves American control. Why would Nippon pay more for less?

Because it’s not getting less.

Nippon will likely control U.S. Steel’s profits through royalties or dual-class shares. The U.S. government’s so-called “golden share” might resemble preferred stock — giving America a voice, not a dividend. Nippon, meanwhile, collects the returns.

That’s fair. Nippon takes the risk. Nippon makes the investment. Nippon should reap the rewards.

RELATED: Revving up America: Trump’s Nippon Steel deal puts the pedal to the metal

 Phynart Studio via iStock/Getty Images

And the investment is real. Nippon has pledged $2.4 billion to modernize U.S. Steel’s aging plants, plus up to $4 billion to build a new electric arc furnace. By 2028, Nippon expects to pour $11 billion into the company.

This isn’t charity. It’s strategy.

Nippon Steel has done this before — and done it well.

In 1986, the company formed a 50-50 joint venture with Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, called Wheeling-Nisshin. Nippon brought capital, technology, and management know-how. By the early 1990s, Wheeling returned to profitability. By 2011, it posted record profits. Since 2012, Nippon has also partnered with U.S.-based Standard Steel without incident.

Nippon’s track record in American industry is solid. Its commitment to modernize outdated facilities with cutting-edge technology should be welcomed.

As I argue in “Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream,” technological innovation is the only durable path to economic growth.

This deal may represent progress. But it stems from America’s industrial weakness — not from strength.

An epic policy failure

Nippon’s promises of capital investment are real — but the deal still reflects the deep dysfunction of America’s heavy industry.

In 1945, the United States produced 60% of the world’s steel. Even after Japan and Europe rebuilt, American steel dominated: In 1969, the U.S. accounted for 40% of global output.

Today, America produces just 4.2% of the world’s steel — roughly equal to Russia. India nearly doubles our output. China produces more than 20 times as much.

What happened?

American steel didn’t lose to cheaper or better alternatives. It lost to foreign governments that treated steel as a national priority. They subsidized it, protected it, and invested in it — not because it was easy, but because it was essential.

RELATED: The real American factory killer? It wasn’t automation

 Peeter Viisimaa via iStock/Getty Images

Japan backed Nippon with subsidies, tariffs, and low-interest financing. Its keiretsu model gave companies the freedom to sell at a loss until they gained control of a market. Once they did, they could hike prices or keep dumping until the competition collapsed.

The decline of American steel wasn’t inevitable. It was policy failure.

This is exactly what happened with Nippon and U.S. Steel.

Foreign steelmakers — from Japan to South Korea to China — flooded the American market with cheap steel for decades. That practice, known as dumping, made steel production unprofitable in the United States. Government-backed producers overseas didn’t mind. But American steelmakers, operating in a for-profit system, couldn’t survive it.

To stay afloat, U.S. firms cut corners. They couldn’t afford the large-scale capital investments needed to modernize. Executives saw the crisis coming — Ross Perot warned about it during his 1992 presidential run — but they couldn’t secure the credit. Why would a private bank finance a company to make an unprofitable product?

America’s steel industry was starved — of both profits and capital.

Now it needs outside help to survive. That help has arrived in the form of Nippon.

Get serious about reshoring

Here’s a better idea: Instead of forcing American companies to sell shares or partner with foreign rivals just to stay alive, the United States should adopt the same industrial strategies that have been used — very effectively — against us.

U.S. Steel struggles not because Americans forgot how to make steel, but because the major capital investments it needs aren’t happening. Banks won’t fund them. The risk is too high. The return is too uncertain.

That’s where Uncle Sam should step in. Federal financing for capital projects — secured by the projects themselves — would protect taxpayers while fueling reindustrialization. Compared with what Washington already spends, the cost would barely register.

Nippon has pledged $2.4 billion to upgrade U.S. Steel’s plants and another $4 billion for a new furnace. That’s real money. But America spent $886 billion on national defense in 2024 — plus another $79 billion for Ukraine.

Protecting our ability to produce high-quality steel isn’t just good economics. It’s national security.

President Trump is trying to make the best of a bad situation. No one wants a Japanese company to own U.S. Steel. But until Congress gets serious about reshoring, deals like this will keep happening.

It’s time to stop outsourcing America’s future.

'Judicial tyranny': Federal court blocks 'Liberation Day' tariffs — but Trump could have last laugh



A New York-based federal court has temporarily handicapped the Trump administration, removing some of its leverage in trade wars with foreign powers.

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday voided and permanently blocked President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" 10% baseline tariff on goods imported from most countries as well as his reciprocal tariffs on scores of individual nations.

The court unanimously held that while the president has authority to respond to national emergencies with tariffs, embargoes, and sanctions, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act he invoked "does not authorize the President to impose unbounded tariffs."

'The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law.'

The court suggested that letting Trump impose unbounded tariffs might run afoul of the Constitution's separation of powers, as the Constitution assigns Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs. Critics have stressed, however, that Congress has over the years delegated much of this authority to the president and the executive branch — authority largely unchallenged until now.

"The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs do not comply with the limitations Congress imposed upon the President's power to respond to balance-of-payments deficits," the court said in its opinion. "The President's assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA. The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law."

RELATED: Trump's reciprocal tariffs — and decades of devastating fees the world pushed on America

  Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The decision halts Trump's existing IEEPA tariffs and prevents him from increasing tariffs, including the paused 145% tariff on imports from China and the recently threatened 50% tariffs on imports from the European Union. It also scraps Trump's orders applying 25% duties on Canadian and Mexican products.

The Trump administration immediately appealed the decision.

'The judicial coup is out of control.'

Since the Court of International Trade had effectively resolved two lawsuits before it in a single opinion — a lawsuit brought by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of several businesses and a lawsuit filed by a gang of blue-state state attorneys general — the government asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to consolidate its appeals.

Jeffrey Schwab, director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement, "This ruling reaffirms that the president must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs."

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, one of the Democrats who fought to axe the tariffs, celebrated the ruling, stating, "President Trump's sweeping tariffs were unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating."

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller noted on X, "The judicial coup is out of control."

Miller added Thursday, "We are living under a judicial tyranny."

RELATED: Why voters are done compromising with the 'America Last' elite

  Photographer: Yuki Iwamura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Regardless of whether the government is successful in its appeal, the Trump administration has other ways of pursuing its desired tariffs, including under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Sections 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, and Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930.

Alec Phillips, managing director at Goldman Sachs, indicated that the president is authorized under Section 122 to tackle a balance-of-deficit, reported MarketWatch. Since that particular law does not demand a formal investigation or process, Trump could use it to immediately impose tariffs of up to 15%. The downside is that Section 122 tariffs are only good for 150 days.

Alternatively, the administration could apply tariffs under Section 301, although doing so would require investigations to set the stage.

"This would take longer, likely several weeks at a minimum and probably a few months to complete several investigations," said Phillips. "There is no limit on the level or duration of tariffs under Sec. 301."

'We already expect additional sectoral tariffs.'

Michelle Schulz, managing partner at Schulz Trade Law PLLC, told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" on Thursday, "We have had section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods even under the previous administration, which were pretty harsh. So I can imagine that the administration will look at these provisions again and see if they can use 232, or 301, or some other mechanism whereby they can enforce the tariffs."

According to Phillips, Section 338 enables Trump to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from nations that discriminate against the United States. While an available tool in the president's kit, it has reportedly never been used before.

Finally, Section 232 tariffs — which Trump has used for steel, aluminum, and automobiles and which were unaffected by the court's ruling — can be expanded to cover other sectors.

"We already expect additional sectoral tariffs — pharmaceuticals, semiconductors/electronics, etc. — and uncertainty regarding the IEEPA-based tariffs could lead the White House to put more emphasis on sectoral tariffs, where there is much less legal uncertainty," said Phillips.

Blaze News reached out to the Department of Commerce for comment but did not receive a response by publication.

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