By launching a full-frontal assault on the sugar industry and President Trump’s America First trade policies, the Wall Street Journal has once again revealed its contempt for working-class Americans and its unflinching loyalty to the gods of globalism. In its recent editorial attacking both Trump and Coca-Cola’s decision to use American-grown cane sugar in a new soda, the WSJ didn’t just miss the point—it torched it, poured imported corn syrup on the ashes, and toasted it with a glass of anti-American elitism.

Let’s be clear: the Journal didn’t just critique a policy. It smeared thousands of American farmers as a “cartel,” an insult as economically illiterate as it is morally repugnant. The target of their scorn? A U.S. loan program that supports our domestic sugar industry without costing taxpayers a dime. That’s right: no subsidies, no welfare handouts, just loans repaid with interest by hardworking American farmers. That’s not a cartel—it’s a model of responsible, incentive-based economic support.

Trump’s recently approved One Big Beautiful Bill reinforces that model by extending the sugar loan program and applying tariffs to help American producers compete in a grotesquely distorted global market. And, distorted it is: India subsidizes its sugar sector to the tune of $17.6 billion annually, Brazil throws in $2.5 billion, and Thailand adds another $1.3 billion. Meanwhile, about 100 countries pump subsidies into their own sugar industries while dumping artificially cheap product into the global market.

This isn’t free trade. It’s economic warfare. And the Journal is demanding that America unilaterally disarm.

At the center of the Journal’s fit is Coca-Cola’s decision to roll out a Trump-preferred soda made with U.S. cane sugar. This isn’t just about flavor; it’s about American jobs, American supply chains, and American pride. For decades, Coca-Cola has relied on Mexican imports for its sugar needs. Now, thanks to Trump’s policy, they’ll source from the U.S., which, according to the WSJ, is a scandal.

No, the real scandal is the WSJ’s naked disdain for any policy that challenges its beloved neoliberal orthodoxy. The America First agenda terrifies them because it upends a comfortable status quo that favored multinational conglomerates over domestic producers and white-collar elites over blue-collar labor.

Let’s put this in perspective. The U.S. sugar industry sustains 142,000 jobs across 22 states. It supports 11,000 family-owned farms working more than 2 million acres. The economic output from this sector is staggering: $4.2 billion injected annually into local communities and $23 billion into the broader American economy. That’s not protectionism—it’s patriotism.

And yet, the Journal would have us abandon it all on the altar of theoretical efficiency. Their editorial reads like a love letter to the World Trade Organization and a break-up note to every rural American who dares to want a shot at economic survival. It champions foreign subsidies while castigating an American policy that is self-funding, job-preserving, and future-facing.

The WSJ’s crusade is also blind to consumer demand. American consumers want choices, and many want products made with ingredients grown at home, not subsidized by foreign governments. The Trump-backed sugar policy, and Coca-Cola’s response to it, give Americans just that. The Trump-preferred Coke isn’t just fizzy and sweet—it’s a symbol of economic sovereignty.

By demonizing this shift, the Journal reveals its true allegiance. This isn’t about free markets—it’s about preserving a system where American businesses are beholden to foreign suppliers and American workers are an afterthought. The Journal wants you to believe that America First means America Alone. In reality, it means America is first in line to benefit from its own economy.

The so-called sugar “cartel” is nothing of the sort. It’s a group of family farms and small businesses struggling to compete against massive government-funded competitors overseas. And unlike other major agricultural sectors like corn or soy, they do it without government handouts. They simply ask for a fair playing field and a fighting chance.

Critics of this policy claim it’s about protectionism, but that’s a lazy take. This is about resilience. It’s about refusing to let America become dependent on the whims of global markets rigged by state-backed dumping. It’s about ensuring our food supply remains domestic, reliable, and secure.

The One Big Beautiful Bill does just that. It guarantees that 70% of the sugar consumed in the U.S. comes from American soil, while the other 30% can still be sourced globally. That’s a pragmatic, flexible model—one that balances international trade with national security.

And let’s not ignore the cultural shift underway. For decades, Americans have watched their manufacturing jobs outsourced, their local economies hollowed out, and their sovereignty sold off one free trade agreement at a time. Trump’s policy is a course correction. It’s an acknowledgment that the American worker matters more than a theoretical GDP boost won by sacrificing entire industries.

So, when the Wall Street Journal scolds the Trump administration for promoting U.S. sugar, they’re not defending the consumer. They’re defending the boardrooms. They’re defending the globalists. They’re defending a vision of America where patriotism is passé and profit knows no borders.

The Journal likes to pretend it represents the free market. But in reality, it represents a rigged market—one where foreign governments fund cheap labor, subsidized exports, and environmental shortcuts, while American workers are told to “innovate” or get out of the way.

President Trump is saying something different. He’s saying American workers deserve a government that fights for them. He’s saying American farmers should be able to compete without one hand tied behind their backs. He’s saying that Coca-Cola and every other iconic brand should be able to build their supply chains around American excellence.

And for that, the Wall Street Journal calls him a protectionist.

Good. If standing up for American workers, restoring balance to global trade, and bringing back economic dignity is protectionism, then maybe it’s time we protected a little more.

Because for too long, elites like those at the Journal have protected everything but the people who make this country run. And the American people are done drinking that Kool-Aid.

They want a Coke. Made in America. Sweetened by freedom, not foreign subsidies.

Julio Rivera is a business and political strategist, cybersecurity researcher, founder of ItFunk.Org, and a political commentator and columnist. His writing, which is focused on cybersecurity and politics, is regularly published by many of the largest news organizations in the world.