David Bahnsen asks an important question, and it deserves an answer. In the context of debates about the common good, he asks people who would propose intervention in the market to show their limiting principle. This is especially understandable given the political context of our time. Certain advocates like myself have encouraged the use of the tariff power, citing Hamilton’s rationale of securing our political independence “from the combinations, of foreign policy.” Hamilton’s name tends to inspire at least some trust. But Donald Trump is enacting broad tariffs against friend and foe alike and not limiting himself to goods that could even plausibly be connected to our security or geopolitical independence.
It seems to me that Trump’s choices are shaped by whatever existing legal authority he can use to enact tariffs. The ones he has cited tend to allow tariffs aimed broadly at nations rather than categories of goods. Where tariffs most resemble normal tax policy, they obviously belong to Congress, but Congress has tended to send tariff power to the executive when it is more likely to be a tool of foreign policy. Over time, it’s become evident Trump is setting them up in a way that is deliberately indefensible as policy but meant to be used more as leverage to bring other heads of state to negotiation.
Comments