I'm starting to think that maybe treating juvenile mental illness with powerful exogenous hormones and telling kids they were "born in the wrong body" isn't as medically effective as our "experts" believe. Nashville police have released their final report on...

 

President Trump has now unveiled his outline of the higher tariffs he proposes. They are much higher and, therefore, much more destructive of people’s wealth, than I or, apparently, many others had expected.

Trump claims to be doing this in the interest of reciprocity. In his Rose Garden speech, he noted, correctly, that you should judge countries’ openness to trade not just based on their explicit tariff rates but also based on their other barriers to trade. On that basis, he produced fantastic numbers showing what combining non-tariff barriers, including “currency manipulation,” with explicit tariff rates would imply for a tariff equivalent. When I saw on his graph that that leads to an equivalent tariff rate for China of 67%, I smelled a rat.

Of course, I will withhold final judgment about the authenticity of Trump’s number until his Council of Economic Advisers publishes a high-quality economic study backing these numbers. I’m skeptical that it will. It might publish such a study. I suspect that it will be full of exaggerations, much like the thinking of the president.

Why am I so skeptical about Trump’s claims? Because we have good data from the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom.

In “Trade Freedom and the Myth of Tariff Reciprocity,” April 1, 2025, the Independent Institute’s Phillip Magness writes:

The United States is currently one of the worst offenders among developed nations in placing discriminatory tariffs and NTBs on our trading partners. This ignominious position may be seen in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, which compiles an annual “trade freedom” score for nearly 200 countries and political jurisdictions. According to the 2025 report, the United States ranks in 69th place, putting us lower than New Zealand (2nd), Australia (3rd), the United Kingdom (17th), Canada (18th), France (38th), and Germany (39th).

The Heritage 100-point scale combines the country’s trade-weighted average tariff rate with a scoring of its NTBs—an assortment of quotas, export restrictions, subsidies, regulations, and similar policies that discriminate against foreign goods or unfairly prop up domestic products. A score closer to 100 represents lower tariff rates and fewer discriminatory trade policies.

The United States scores a mediocre 75.6, which puts it only slightly better than China’s 74 and much worse than Canada’s 83.2.

This means that true reciprocity would mean the United States cutting trade restrictions on imports from many countries.

Although it would be an exaggeration, I’m tempted to say of everything that follows Trump’s correct point that you need to consider non-tariff barriers, something similar to what author Mary McCarthy said of Communist writer Lillian Hellman: Every word she writes is a lie, including “and” and “the.”

The post What Would True Reciprocity Mean? appeared first on Econlib.

HOLLY MATHNERD: Systemic Misogyny: A Theorem Disproved. What my feminist professors lied about. “Turns out, the oppressors were just guys. And the cage I thought they built? Feminism handed me the blueprints — and I helped weld the bars.”

Just hours after President Donald Trump announced massive new tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States, a bipartisan group of senators made the first push to stop the most nonsensical part of Trump's global trade war.

With a 51-48 vote, the Senate approved a resolution to block Trump's tariffs on imports from Canada, which he imposed by declaring an economic emergency in early February. The measure to cancel that emergency declaration, sponsored by Sens. Tim Kaine (D–Va.) and Rand Paul (R–Ky), faces an uncertain future in the Republican-controlled House and a near-certain veto if it reaches Trump's desk—but it also represents a small glimmer of hope, as it is the the first serious attempt by Congress at limiting the president's ability to smash free trade.

Paul was joined by three other Republicans—former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), as well as Sens. Susan Collins (R–Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska)—and nearly all Democrats in voting to end the economic emergency.

In remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon, Paul outlined the many reasons for America to avoid a trade war with Canada. Perhaps the most important is also the most straightforward.

"We're not at war with Canada," Paul said. "They're an ally that buys more of our stuff than almost any other country in the world."

Indeed, it is quite insane to believe that the $400 billion in goods that crossed into America last year from its northern neighbor are some sort of threat. It is simply untrue that those imports constitute an emergency of some sort that demands dramatic executive action. And it's just silly to think that higher taxes on those imports will improve life on either side of the border.

Even so, the resolution divided Republicans and passed despite some strong criticism that Trump delivered on social media in advance of the vote. In a post on Tuesday night, Trump accused Kaine of trying to block "our critical Tariffs on deadly Fentanyl."

In remarks on the Senate floor, Paul mocked the idea that drug dealers would pay tariffs in the first place. He also stressed the economic damage that tariffs are likely to cause for American families, businesses, farmers, and more. He pointed to the fact that the Trump administration bailed out farmers in the wake of the 2018 tariffs and called that "an acknowledgement" that tariffs create costs for Americans. He pointed to estimates showing that tariffs will increase the cost of homes, cars, and many consumer goods.

"Are we going to have to bail out the car companies too? Are we going to have to bail out everybody who's going to be hurt by these tariffs? It's not a good idea," he said. "Despite arguments to the contrary, Americans know tariffs are a tax they are going to have to pay."

Getting the resolution through the House will be a challenge, thanks to some changes that House Republicans pushed through last month. A bill to undo a presidentially declared national emergency is supposed to be able to be brought directly to the House floor, but new rules adopted last month will force the Senate-passed resolution to take the scenic route through the House's committee process—a journey it is highly unlikely to complete anytime soon.

McConnell's decision to vote for the resolution was key to it's passage. As Politico noted when it broke the news that McConnell would vote for the resolution, his defection from Trump's tariff orthodoxy is not necessarily a surprise. He authored a recent op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal warning that Kentucky "can't afford the high cost of Trump's tariffs." Even so, the former majority leader's willingness to openly defy the president is a significant move—and one that may offer some political cover to other Republicans to do the same.

It's unlikely that will be enough to undo Trump's chaotic and self-destructive trade war. Still, it's something.

The post The Senate Just Passed Rand Paul's Bill To Block Trump's Tariffs on Canada appeared first on Reason.com.