President Trump, by his own declaration, loves tariffs. In fact, tariff is his “favorite word.” Tariffs purportedly produce funds, “billions and billions, more than anybody has ever seen before,” which can be used for essential spending or to reduce taxes and meanwhile will “bring back jobs.”
The president is all in on his enthusiasms. As matters now stand, he is imposing both universal baseline as well as country-specific tariffs, affecting more than $1 trillion of imports. This compares to the mere $380 billion in tariffs passed in 2018 and 2019 by the first Trump administration but will rise to $1.4 trillion when/if the temporary exemptions for Mexico and Canada expire in April.
There is a logic to tariffs which appeals to those with a protectionist bent. If foreign producers are selling in your country and taking profits which could otherwise be earned by domestic enterprises, why not make the cost of doing business higher for them and keep the profits at home?
Yet the history of tariffs is, to put it kindly, dismal. The 1930 Smoot-Harley tariff is America’s best known and most instructive experience with protectionism. In 1929, the League of Nations passed a resolution declaring that tariffs were destructive and should be ended by all. When Smoot-Hawley was introduced, Franklin Roosevelt campaigned against it. After the bill passed, 1,028 economists and even some business leaders like Henry Ford urged a veto.
President Hoover termed the measure “vicious, extortionate and obnoxious.” He signed it anyway at the urging of his advisors. Americans, especially the agricultural sector, were facing a perceived problem with overproduction, mainly due to electrification and other laborsaving innovations. Republicans generally agreed that prices were too low, and it would help pull us out of our economic slump if American producers were shielded from foreign competition.
Big mistake. Trading partners had warned of retaliation and indeed boycotts and reciprocal trading restrictions soon broke out. Canada, our most loyal trading partner, imposed tariffs on 30% of our products and formed closer economic ties to the British empire. France, Britain, and Germany all formed new trading alliances.
Yet initially, the medicine seemed to be working. Factory payrolls, construction contracts, and industrial production all profited from the reduced market competition.
But the loss of the inherent advantages of trading soon became clear. From 1929 to 1933, U.S. imports fell 66% and exports decreased 61%. World trade nearly ground to a halt, falling by two-thirds from 1929 to 1934.
Unemployment was about 8% when Smoot-Harley was enacted, but the promises to lower it further never panned out. The rate jumped to 16% in 1931 and 25% in 1932-33, falling back to pre-depression levels only during World War II.
Tariffs didn’t cause the Great Depression, but they clearly deepened and prolonged it. Without Smoot-Hawley, it might have just been another temporary recession, not much worse than many other economic downturns in our history.
The take-home message is that free trade is a voluntary interaction that reliably promotes prosperity, both in theory and in practice. It is a classic win-win for participants, in contrast to protectionism which is based on the principle that the stronger party wins by defeating the weaker one.
The 2018-19 tariffs imposed by Trump and expanded by the Biden administration proved the point once again, by reducing long-term GDP by 0.2% and resulting in the loss of 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs.
Still, Trump favors strength and domination, based on negotiations where he “holds the cards.” The lack of success last time has not dissuaded him from unleashing a barrage of tariffs with impositions, pauses, increases, suspensions, and escalations that have left producers around the world desperately scrambling to protect their businesses by anticipating his next move.
Trump is playing with fire here. If he does ignite a trade war that results in another downturn, he may find that the American economy is not as resilient as it once was. Decades of uncontrolled deficit spending have left us deeply in debt and without the reserves necessary to withstand much more fiscal abuse.
The lessons of history and the laws of economics are clear. Tariffs don’t work. Proceed with caution.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
A motion to urge President Donald Trump and the United States Congress to eliminate the “Vision Zero” transportation framework is making its way through the Arizona legislature.
Senate Concurrent Memorial (SCM) 1002, introduced by State Senator Carine Werner, and cosponsored by Sens. Angius, Carroll, Gowan, and Shope, asserts that the “Vision Zero” doctrine “diverts from sound transportation engineering methodologies and instead employs a one-size-fits-all approach that requires the adoption in all circumstances of lower speed limits, fewer and narrower roads and draconian traffic enforcement measures.” It also observes that while major cities within the U.S. have implemented these policies with the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities, experience has proven that they achieve the opposite.
The drafters of the bill note: “New York City experienced the highest traffic fatalities in a decade, Los Angeles sustained a 22-year record high in fatalities in 2023 and Seattle has been subject to a steady increase in fatalities.”
The City of Phoenix approved the implementation of such a plan in September 2022 and has reintroduced and re-approved them since, with the most recent approved of in October 2024. The original plan was unanimously approved by the Phoenix City Council and allocated $10 million in annual funding.
As reported by ABC15, the Phoenix Department of Street Transportation reported in May of last year that although the city saw a decrease in serious traffic accidents, there was also an increase… in deadly crashes. The city plan proposes to reduce traffic deaths to zero by 2050 with Street Transportation Director Joe Brown saying, “It’s ambitious as it should be. Some places we’re hitting the mark and some places we have some work to do.”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the Fountain Hills Town Council rejected the ‘Vision Zero Road Diet Plan’ in January by a 5-2 vote. Councilman Allen Skillicorn, joined by fellow councilors Gayle Earle, Rick Watts, Vice Mayor Hannah Toth, and Mayor Gerry Friedel, voted to reject the Resolution and terminate the plan, citing that it was rife with DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) policies unrelated to traffic safety.
“How is this plan racially equitable? Climate change, how does that relate to streets?” Councilwoman Earle asked.
In the text of the measure, Werner notes that “after adopting Vision Zero, Denver, Colorado’s traffic fatalities increased by 33% in the next five years compared to the previous five years, with motorcyclists, pedestrians and cyclists experiencing the highest fatality rates.” She added, “Portland, Oregon’s 2024 city auditor report attributed a doubling of fatalities to Vision Zero policies, despite reduced speed limits, stricter enforcement, intersection reconfigurations and improved lighting, raising concerns about its real-world safety outcomes.”
Concluding the memorandum to the Federal government, the Senate asked “that the President and Congress of the United States eliminate Vision Zero and the safe systems approach to transportation planning and funding, and instead promote transportation solutions that prioritize sound engineering methods, reliable safety outcomes, flexibility and engineering innovation without compromising individual freedoms or economic efficiency.”
Following a statement from President Donald Trump condemning a series of injunctions from “Radical Left Judges” blocking wide-reaching policy decisions, Arizona Republican Congressman Andy Biggs posted to X to draw attention to his Injunctive Authority Clarification Act. If enacted, the act will significantly curtail the ability of U.S. District Court Judges to impose their decisions nationwide.
My Injunctive Authority Clarification Act would prohibit rogue judges from making sweeping decisions that affect the whole country.
In a post from President Trump on Truth Social, he wrote:
“Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country! These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings. Lawyers endlessly search the United States for these Judges, and file lawsuits as quickly as they find them. It is then the obligation of Law abiding Agencies of Government to have these ‘Orders’ overturned.
“The danger is unparalleled! These Judges want to assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to attain 80 Million Votes. They want all of the advantages with none of the risks. Again, a President has to be allowed to act quickly and decisively about such matters as returning murderers, drug lords, rapists, and other such type criminals back to their Homeland, or to other locations that will allow our Country to be SAFE.
“It is our goal to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, and such a high aspiration can never be done if Radical and Highly Partisan Judges are allowed to stand in the way of JUSTICE. STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!”
Congressman Biggs’ bill, H.R. 97, will forbid any court of the United States to “issue an order that purports to restrain the enforcement against a non-party of any statute, regulation, order, or similar authority, unless the non-party is represented by a party acting in a representative capacity pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia James Boasberg issued an injunction ordering the Department of Homeland Security to cease deportation of criminal members of the foreign terrorist organizations Tren de Aragua and MS-13 to a prison in El Salvador.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, also of the District of Columbia appointed by President Joe Biden, issued an injunction against the Department of Defense implementing a direct order from the Commander-in-Chief barring ‘transgender’ individuals suffering from gender dysphoria from serving in the military and hindering combat effectiveness.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California issued a wide-reaching order, requiring the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Veterans Affairs to reinstate terminated probationary employees in direct contravention of President Trump’s orders firing them.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island also issued an inunction against the Trump administration’s order to freeze payments of federal grants pending the results of a fiscal examination.
According to a press release from Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), the Senator announced that he will introduce his own measure that is also designed to “restrict local district court judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions and therefore stymie President Donald Trump’s agenda.” Writing in a post to X Hawley said, “District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration – a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good.”
District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration – a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good
After 45 years of existence, the Department of Education (ED) is coming to an end.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday dismantling ED: “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” The historic order stops short of total abolition of the agency, since law dictates that Congress must be the one to close it.
The order cited historic lows of reading and math scores among children as proof of ED’s decades-long failures, and contrasted the poor educational outcomes with ED’s high budget and massive staffing.
“While the Department of Education does not educate anyone, it maintains a public relations office that includes over 80 staffers at a cost of more than $10 million per year,” said the order. “Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them.”
The order further accused ED of operating like an inefficient bank with its management of over $1.6 trillion in student loan debt.
Trump directed Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to undertake measures to close ED and return authority to the states, as well as terminate funding to programs and activities engaged in progressive ideologies including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and gender theory.
Reactions among Arizona leadership fell largely along party lines.
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), Tom Horne, praised the executive order, calling the agency an “unnecessary” entity dedicated to heaping more bureaucracy on the states.
“The Federal Department of Education was unnecessary and added bureaucracy for states,” said Horne. “Thank you President Trump for bringing education back to the states where it belongs.”
The Federal Department of Education was unnecessary and added bureaucracy for states. Thank you President @realDonaldTrump for bringing education back to the states where it belongs.
Congressional efforts to codify the executive order are also underway. South Dakota Senator Mike Rounds revealed to Fox News that he’s been in discussions with Trump to do just that.
“I am working on legislation that would return education decisions to states and local school districts while maintaining important programs like special education and Title I,” said Rounds. “We are discussing this legislation with Secretary McMahon, and we believe there is a very good path forward.”
Earlier this month, the Trump administration slashed ED’s workforce by nearly half (over 1,300 staffers). Thursday’s executive order will further reduce the remaining 2,200 employees.
Although Trump’s order does not close ED totally, Mayes claimed the executive order was “illegal.”
“The Department of Education cannot be dismantled via executive order,” said Mayes. “This chaos is not about efficiency — it’s destruction.”
Another day, another illegal action by the Trump administration. The Department of Education cannot be dismantled via executive order. This chaos is not about efficiency — it’s destruction. https://t.co/GRse4zJ096
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) March 20, 2025
Governor Katie Hobbs said Arizona stands to lose $1 billion in federal funds for certain programs, like special education, with the dismantling of ED.
Arizona could lose nearly $1 billion in vital education funding if the U.S. Department of Education is dismantled. This funding supports low-income schools, special education, Tribal and rural communities, and programs like FAFSA & Pell Grants. As Governor, I will do everything…
Senator Mark Kelly rejected Republican predictions of ED’s abolition leading to better schools and student outcomes.
“It will further undermine public schools, making it harder for kids from working families like mine or who need a little extra help to get a good education,” said Kelly.
I’m the proud product of a good public school education.
Getting rid of the Department of Education won’t improve schools or help kids in Arizona get ahead.
It will further undermine public schools, making it harder for kids from working families like mine or who need a little… https://t.co/f69s11Rebo
Senator Ruben Gallego claimed Trump was abolishing ED to enrich “his billionaire friends” and reduce school funding.
“He wants fewer resources for teachers and fewer opportunities for our kids — just so his billionaire friends can get richer,” said Gallego.
Donald Trump just gave the order to dismantle the Department of Education. He wants fewer resources for teachers and fewer opportunities for our kids—just so his billionaire friends can get richer.
— Senator Ruben Gallego (@SenRubenGallego) March 20, 2025
Rep. Eli Crane called the continuance of ED an “insanity,” referencing the decades-long decline of student outcomes.
“Thank you to President Trump for having the courage to do this,” said Crane.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
The Department of Education has failed our nation's students for decades. It's time to chart a new path.
Rep. Andy Biggs also touched on the disparity of high funding and low outcomes. Biggs said Trump was right to be “returning power” to Arizona and its parents.
“Taxpayer funding for public schools is at an all-time high, but test scores are at an all-time low,” said Biggs. “The radical Biden-Harris regime weaponized the Department of Education against their opponents.”
Taxpayer funding for public schools is at an all-time high, but test scores are at an all-time low.
The radical Biden-Harris regime weaponized the Department of Education against their opponents.
President Trump is rightfully returning power to the States and parents. https://t.co/Svw5fLSa9B
Rep. Yassamin Ansari predicted that children would be forced out of schools, teachers would be fired, and special education services would cease.
“This reckless and irrational move will devastate our future — all to give tax breaks to billionaires at the expense of our kids,” said Ansari. “We’re going to fight this illegal EO with every tool we have.”
With the support of Republicans in Congress, Donald Trump just followed through on his plan to gut the Department of Education.
This means kids kicked out of kindergarten, special education slashed, and teachers fired. This reckless and irrational move will devastate our future…
— Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (@RepYassAnsari) March 20, 2025
Rep. Greg Stanton called the order “a direct attack on Arizona kids,” and asserted it was illegal.
Trump's executive order to eliminate the Department of Education is a direct attack on Arizona kids. pic.twitter.com/tONhDthSXr
Senate President Warren Petersen reposted remarks made by Secretary McMahon to Fox News. McMahon echoed Trump’s questioning why federal education spending only continues to increase while outcomes have decreased.
“We have to let teachers teach. I have such respect for teachers. I think it is the most noble profession in the world, and I have seen what can happen when teachers are allowed to teach and be innovative and creative in our classrooms,” said McMahon. “For every dollar that goes into the school system, it’s been reported to me that almost 47 cents of that dollar is spent on regulatory compliance. Teachers they don’t want to stay, they’re leaving the profession, because they’re bogged down by regulation. Let’s lift that burden and let them do what they do best, which is teach.”
Let the states tailor education to local communities—and get results.
Let parents choose the best educational fit for their children.
One of, if not the, highlights of President Donald Trump’s first months in office has been the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by entrepreneur (and the world’s richest man) Elon Musk. Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE has not just exposed wasteful spending— but worked to reduce spending by eliminating entire agencies and even cabinet departments.
For example, DOGE pulled back the curtain on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Before DOGE exposed it, most Americans thought of USAID (if they thought of it at all) as an agency that provided humanitarian aid and development assistance to impoverished people in other countries. DOGE revealed that USAID’s humanitarian work was a cover for their true mission: making political and cultural change overseas. This is why USAID has spent millions on absurd “development” projects like transgender plays in Colombia, DEI schemes in Serbia and electric car subsidies in Vietnam.
Eliminating USAID would not mean the end of overseas development and humanitarian aid. It would mean that the aid would come from private charities. These charities can do a better job of providing aid than a government bureaucracy. As outrageous as USAID’s spending is, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the Pentagon’s over $800 billion (and on track to exceed $2 trillion by 2033) budget.
The “defense” budget is the third largest item in the federal budget, behind Social Security and Medicare. Few politicians will risk the wrath of senior citizens by voting to make any changes to these programs unless the changes are phased in such a way as to not affect those currently on, or close to, relying on the programs. Thus, any serious plan to reduce spending and debt must cut the bloated “defense” budget. Savings from reductions in military spending can be used to help support those dependent on federal programs as Congress unwinds the welfare state. Cutting military spending would be politically popular as most polls show a majority of Americans— including Republicans—support reducing America’s military commitments.
The poster child for wasteful Pentagon spending, which is thankfully already in Elon Musk’s crosshairs, is the F-35 —a $1.7 trillion disaster of delays, breakdowns and runaway costs. The plane, the most expensive military program ever, often sits grounded. The F-35 may be the most obvious example of wasteful Pentagon spending, but it is hardly alone. After all, this is the agency that brought us the $500 toilet seat. Shutting down boondoggles like the F-35 could provide revenue to help pay down the debt and protect those currently dependent on federal programs. It could also help ensure the forthcoming tax bill does not further increase the deficit.
DOGE is not the first effort to identify and eliminate wasteful spending. President Ronald Reagan had the Grace Commission, a sort of DOGE 1.0 that unearthed billions in waste—from the Department of Energy to the IRS. Their findings were buried by entrenched interests and a cowardly Congress. The lesson of the Grace Commission is that reducing even the most obvious wasteful spending requires the courage to stand up to the entrenched interests in both parties that benefit from the current system.
Trump and Musk may have the necessary convictions to make serious changes in the ways Washington works. However, they need to be prepared for the swamp to fight back. Democrats and their allies are already waging war against DOGE. To them, trying to identify and eliminate wasteful spending or even asking federal employees what they actually do is an assault on democracy. Most Democrats will join hawkish Republicans in seeking to protect the Pentagon’s budget. It would not be surprising if Congress’s bipartisan military-industrial complex caucus smeared those advocating cuts in the bloated military budget as “Putin’s puppets.”
The federal debt is growing by approximately $1 trillion every three months. To put that in perspective, consider that the federal debt did not reach the $1 trillion mark until 1981. Unless action is taken soon to reduce spending, pay down the federal debt and roll back the welfare-warfare state—America will face a serious economic crisis. Therefore, it is important that everyone who understands the stakes do what they can to support Trump and Musk’s efforts.
