President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, announced on April 2, 2025—Liberation Day—have ignited market turmoil. Stock markets are plummeting, investors are scrambling for clarity, and many well-regarded conservatives are struggling to rationalize a confounding policy supporting tariffs.
Three common fallacies are emerging in defense of tariffs:
Exports Good, Imports Bad
Many conservative commentators argue that the United States has long been the victim of an unfair double standard in global trade. They claim America has received the short end of the stick, importing far more than it exports and accumulating unsustainable trade deficits. The belief that trade deficits are paramount to tariffs is so entrenched within the Trump administration that it influenced the pseudo-tariff calculations displayed on his signature big-beautiful board. The figures were based on trade deficits divided by U.S. imports—not actual tariffs, creating an arbitrary justification for tariff rates.
Conservatives can remain optimistic without defending bad policy.
Trade deficits do not signify economic victimhood. Historically, trade surpluses and deficits have coincided with economic expansion and contraction periods. A trade deficit simply means a country buys more than it sells, indicating strong consumer demand. Conversely, trade surpluses have accompanied economic slowdowns and indicate nothing about the financial stability of a nation. The notion that the U.S. must “even the score” through protectionism ignores the broader benefits of global trade and the dangers of implementing tariffs.
Retaliatory Tariffs are Justified
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.” The logic behind retaliatory tariffs is flawed: if other nations levy tariffs on American goods, the U.S. must reciprocate. This approach assumes that economic punishment will lead to fairness, but tariffs always burden consumers. Whether imposed as an initial measure or in retaliation, tariffs increase costs for businesses and households.
Free trade, by contrast, expands consumer choice, encourages foreign participation in American markets, and reduces the risk of trade wars. Trade wars are economic headbutts—nobody wins. There are more effective ways to hold other nations accountable for unfair practices, such as incentivizing other countries to trade with the U.S. over China – free trade is a great start.
Some argue that free trade is inherently unfair because other countries engage in market manipulation and unethical practices, giving their domestic industries a competitive edge. However, restricting trade in response only exacerbates the problem. Tariffs incentivize producers to cut costs through lower quality and unethical labor practices rather than encouraging fair competition. The best antidote to unfair practices is not retaliation but fostering a competitive environment where quality and innovation prevail over artificially inflated prices.
Protecting American Jobs
Tariffs are, at their core, a tax on American consumers. They directly impact investors and businesses, increasing prices and limiting purchasing power. While tariffs may shield niche industries—one reason labor unions love tariffs—they ultimately harm the broader economy.
Economist Thomas Sowell illustrates this with the example of steel tariffs: while they benefit steelworkers, they simultaneously harm industries reliant on steel, such as construction and manufacturing. Artificially propping up one sector at the expense of others distorts market forces and stifles innovation. The consequence is no different from government interventions in industries like electric vehicles, where subsidies create artificial demand rather than allowing the market to dictate production and pricing.
Some point to past economic booms coinciding with high tariffs as proof of their effectiveness. This argument, however, commits a post hoc fallacy. Many other factors contributed to these periods of growth, particularly in the 19th century, such as abundant natural resources and the explosive fiscal gain of the Industrial Revolution. Correlation does not imply causation, and a prosperous economy, despite tariffs, is not the same as an economy thriving because of them.
The fallacies above should not be used to defend Trump’s tariff policy. Yet, elements or forms of these arguments are ubiquitous.
There are other oddities about the specifics of Trump’s Liberation Day announcements that these fallacies fail to address. For example, why are there tariffs on Israel and South Korea – countries with which we have free trade agreements? The arguments above fail to provide a rational explanation as to why they’d be targeted by these policies. These countries commit none of the atrocities mentioned. Trump’s tariff on Australia goes entirely against any logic regarding export-import defenses. As sources have pointed out, the U.S. has a trade surplus with Australia. Also, exemptions from the tariffs are made for things like semiconductors and, possibly, vehicle parts. This may leave many scratching their heads about Trump’s approach.
Yet amid the scramble to defend Trump’s tariffs, conservatives should consider an alternative perspective: Trump may not be serious about tariffs as a long-term policy. Having overseen a robust economy in his first term, he likely aims to replicate that success.
Let’s explore two other possibilities that are not mutually exclusive:
Tariffs as a Negotiation Tactic
Some of Trump’s most loyal supporters argue that his tariffs are not an economic policy but a bargaining chip. Despite calling Trump’s tariffs “ruinous,” Thomas Sowell acknowledged that Trump might use them to pressure foreign governments into better trade deals. This tactic has already manifested in Mexico, and reports suggest companies are rushing to negotiate with the U.S. to ameliorate further tariff enforcement.
Tariffs to Unite Republicans
This is a bold and speculative theory—but it is worth considering. Long-term tariff policy could weaken the economy and jeopardize Republican election prospects. With the expiration of tax cuts looming – and if expired would further devastate the market, Trump has a “Big Beautiful Bill” to pass and little margin for error in Congress. Could he be using the mere threat of tariffs and expiring tax cuts as a strategic maneuver to leverage support for broader economic legislation? Sure, it’s a little ambitious, but not beyond the realm of possibility.
Conservatives can remain optimistic without defending bad policy. Free trade remains the best path forward, fostering competition, innovation, and economic growth. The challenge for conservatives is to support sound economic principles without succumbing to partisan justifications for flawed policies.
Matthew Williams is an investigator for pharma and a freelance writer focusing on health, healthcare, pharma reform, and free market solutions. Follow him on X @Back2TheCenter.
READ MORE:
RFK Jr. Debunks Critics and Confirms Open-Mindedness on Vaccines