Here’s a letter to the New York Post
Editor:
John Lott’s attempt to shield Trump’s tariffs from the criticisms of economists misses the mark (“Hey, experts — admit what you got so wrong on Trump’s tariffs,” August 7, 2025). I and other economists oppose these tariffs because, in both intent and effect, they are protectionist. These levies are meant to restructure the U.S. economy and eliminate trade deficits by dramatically reducing imports. It is this protectionist effort that we oppose, and that we predict will inflict economic harm on ordinary Americans.
Mr. Lott, however, inexplicably treats the debate as if it’s not about protectionism but, rather, about the best way to raise revenue, ensure national security, and pry open foreign markets.
Nearly every economist, including me, admits that tariffs might well have a role to play as part of the mix of taxes to raise revenue, as well as to achieve narrowly targeted national-security goals.
As for the claim that these tariffs pried open foreign markets, much of this is exaggerated. Worse, because U.S. tariff rates are now multiple times higher than before Trump took office – a fact consistent with these tariffs’ protectionist intent – we Americans are paying higher prices and the allocation of American resources is distorted, just as economics predicts.
Only by ignoring the main, protectionist purpose of the president’s tariffs is Mr. Lott able to paint economists as clueless ideologues whose objections to these tariffs have allegedly been proven wrong by Mr. Trump.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
