Where Trump Goes Wrong on Tariffs

Dear Friend,

When we launched the new version of this newsletter in January, we noted our ongoing commitment to building relationships with our readers and improving the City Journal experience. Today we’ve taken another major step with the launch of the new
City Journal Podcast.

Every Monday and Thursday, our panelists will make sense of the news of the day, explore the bigger debates that are keeping City Journal’s contributors busy, and illuminate the people beyond our bylines—all in a way that makes the audience part of the conversation. In our inaugural episode, host and Senior Editor Charles Fain Lehman is joined by Manhattan Institute fellows Judge Glock, Rafael Mangual, and Daniel DiMartino to discuss what’s next for Trump’s tariffs, the latest in the deportation saga of former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, and what people are getting up to with corpses on the New York City subway.

The best way to follow the podcast is to subscribe to the . You can also listen on Apple, Spotify, and other podcast platforms. Wherever you tune in, please be sure to like, comment, and, most important, share.

We hope you’ll enjoy this latest offering and we remain grateful for your support
for City Journal.

Yours,
Brian C. Anderson
Editor

President Trump is right that American exporters often face unfair barriers abroad. While the U.S. maintains an average tariff of just 2.5 percent, many countries impose rates four times higher—or rely on regulatory hurdles and import restrictions that function as de facto tariffs. But as Allison Schrager notes, America’s openness to trade has been a key driver of its economic dynamism. Protectionism, by contrast, leads to stagnation. “Tariffs increase costs for consumers, make inputs more expensive for American businesses, and ultimately hurt domestic jobs,” she writes. Worse, they inject damaging uncertainty into financial markets—undermining the very competitiveness they’re meant to protect.

From the attempted assassinations of President Trump to the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, political violence is no longer a relic of America’s past. It is a present and growing threat—and public support for it is disturbingly high. New data from the Network Contagion Research Institute reveal that nearly 40 percent of respondents—and 55 percent of those left of center—believe assassinating President Trump would be at least somewhat justified. Nearly one-third of respondents, including 48 percent on the left, said the same about Elon Musk.

Zack Dulberg and Max Horder explain the disturbing findings here, and what the rise of “assassination culture” means for democracy in America.

Green-card holder Yunseo Chung moved to the U.S. from South Korea at age seven. A standout student—valedictorian of her high school and currently carrying a 3.99 GPA at Columbia—she hardly fits the profile of a radical agitator. Yet she was recently photographed participating in a violent, pro-Hamas protest. Her story raises a troubling question: How does an elite institution like Columbia shape the political instincts of young, high-achieving students—and what compels someone like Chung to join a movement aligned with extremism and anti-American violence?

“Like many students, she likely wants to fit in—to be accepted by her professors and peers,” Renu Mukherjee writes. “Doing so, in this environment, means rejecting the model minority stereotype.” Mukherjee explains the stereotype, and how it has contributed to the Left’s obsession with racial victimhood.

Richard Kahlenberg is one of the leading critics of racial preferences. His new book, Class Matters, calls for universities to consider students’ socioeconomic backgrounds, and not their race, in admissions. Read Robert VerBruggen’s review.

During his confirmation hearing last week, Jared Isaacman—President Trump’s nominee to lead NASA—outlined an ambitious vision for the agency. He reaffirmed his commitment to sending astronauts to Mars, returning to the moon, and using the Space Launch System rocket to get there. But as James B. Meigs notes, transforming NASA into a more “mission-focused” organization will be no easy feat.

“One of Isaacman’s biggest challenges at NASA,” Meigs maintains, “will be navigating a Congress long accustomed to micromanaging the agency’s programs—even down to dictating technical requirements for space hardware.” Still, with his background in engineering and his entrepreneurial spirit, Isaacman could be the perfect man for the job.

“The Left, for some reason, rejects the last 3,000 years of understanding human behavior. If you make something easier, you get more of it. We can all feel sorry for these addicts, but they’d be better off with some tough love and deprivation of access to drug tools.”

Photo credits: Anna Moneymaker / Staff / Getty Images News via Getty Images