Perhaps you—like me and most of my friends—have a grave difficulty discussing politics in our hyper-partisan nation. We often report that civil debates with right-leaning friends are off-limits for fear of destroying valued relationships. When we try, too often the opening response sounds something like, “I agree that Trump is an ogre…but I like his policies!” or “His character stinks, but I love his programs!”

That sounds rationa,l but is actually a cop-out to squash all further conversation. And it is highly irrational.

Why? Because it is extremely difficult to dislike a leader’s character while liking their policies. They are inextricably linked. A leader’s character (like our own) consists of core values and central beliefs that determine how we behave and the key choices we make (like positions and policies).

If a leader is kind, honest, and generous, his policies will be rooted in integrity, care for others, and the common good. A leader who is vengeful, greedy, and dishonest will adopt policies that are vindictive, untruthful, and self-serving. It is impossible to separate the baggage from the bag.

Character drives a leader’s policy and behavior in fundamental ways. To separate the two (as happens in our debates across the aisle) would be like saying, “I don’t care if the coach or teacher of my grandkids is dishonest, mean, and selfish—as long as he wins games and my child gets good grades!” Character determines how we do things. And moral makeup matters.

One of my favorite quotes during my 40-year career in Leadership and Character Development is:

“Character is who you are in the dark.”

It is how we behave when we know nobody’s watching. To be a true leader—or even lead a good life—we have to confront our demons and cover-ups. At least that was once true.

Now we have a President who boasts about his vile character in the light of day. His greed, vengeance, and vanity are broadcast in public to be seen and praised by those who fear him and those who can gain from his bribes and handouts. Or it could be confronted. Given that this President has unprecedented control of all three branches of government—and the recently granted “complete immunity while governing” from the Supreme Court—it needs to be confronted now.

It is clear that serious damage has been done to our democracy by President Trump in just eight months. Americans who care about our sacred Republic must establish some checks and balances soon. The midterm election, roughly one year away, is the best way to do that.

That means not only getting all citizens who are terrified by this self-proclaimed “Dictator” out to vote—it also means getting some of our center-right Republican friends to join us. And that requires reopening the dreaded political debate with friends we know are good and principled people, which is most of them. The ones who dislike the constant bragging, lying, hurting of vulnerable people, abandoning of allies, while amassing huge personal wealth.

We must risk the discomfort of raising the “character question” and tying this President’s moral makeup to his destructive policies. And our ask is not that large: that one of the three branches of government (the House) gain a slight Democratic majority so it can provide a small measure of restraint on this dangerous “King.” All significant power would remain with Republicans.

The wolf is at the door. We must rise up and defend democracy.

Clearly, our resistance should include active protest (like “No Kings”), speaking or writing opinion pieces (like this one), and stumping for honest candidates. But we all have decent friends who do not want our hateful President to go unchecked. It is not too early to reopen a caring, candid exchange with Republican friends one year out from the Midterms.

Trump announces daily how destructive and vindictive he intends to be. The most shocking example occurred recently at the funeral of Charlie Kirk. His grieving widow, Erika, said that she forgave her husband’s killer:

“I forgive him because it is what Christ did and what Charlie would do.”

In reply, Donald Trump declared:

“I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”

What kind of policies and executive orders do we expect from this character?

Johnny O’Brien is a former president of the Milton Hershey School and the institution’s first alumnus to lead it. Orphaned at a young age, he was raised at the school and graduated in 1961 before earning a degree from Princeton University and pursuing graduate studies at Johns Hopkins. O’Brien later founded Renaissance Leadership, a firm that coached executives at major corporations. In 2003, he returned to Hershey as its president. He is also the author of Semisweet: An Orphan’s Journey Through the School the Hersheys Built, and currently lives in Easton.

Last November, voters expressed a strong preference for President Trump’s ability to manage the economy over that of his opponent. However, the first 10 months of the new Administration have prompted strong concerns from both sides of the political aisle. Farmers have been adversely affected more than most by Trump’s decisions. A good example of this is how his policies are affecting the soybean market, which is extremely important to Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

Soybeans are the second most important crop grown in Maryland, exceeded only by corn in value of production. The Maryland Eastern Shore is the stronghold of the state’s soybean production, with the most prominent counties being Queen Anne’s, Caroline, Talbot, Kent, and Somerset.

President Trump has taken action in two separate policy areas that have had a negative impact on the soybean market. First, one of his first steps as President was to allow Elon Musk (in his own words in February) to “spend the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” referencing the roughly 90 percent cuts in contracts for non-military foreign aid that the U.S. offers to needy countries.

The U.S. has long supported American farmers by purchasing and sending soybeans abroad to help nations unable to support themselves because of such factors as droughts and poverty. Soybeans sent as aid are used to address worldwide hunger and malnutrition, as well as to provide feed for livestock. The precise numerical impact on soybean exports for this purpose is not yet known, but soybeans are a major component of the U.S. foreign aid system.

The second source of President Trump having upended the soybean market is through his highly controversial tariff policies. His approach to tariffs has been widely criticized by both liberal and conservative economists as inconsistent and erratic, without any measurable strategy or goal. Trump’s aggressive approach towards China–amounting to more than a 57 percent average tariff on Chinese goods–has created very serious repercussions for U.S. soybean producers. 

China is responsible for purchasing 52 percent of U.S. soybean exports, accounting for $12.6 billion to U.S. farmers last year. In turn, soybean exports represent more than half of US production, so changes to the overseas picture have a profound effect on the total soybean market. Retaliating against Trump’s moves against it, China had been cutting its purchases of U.S. soybeans almost in half since Trump initiated his attacks on the country. Since May, China has totally stopped U.S. soybean purchases, in addition to instituting a 37 percent tariff on U.S. soybean imports. 

It gets worse. Even though Trump has agreed to bail out Argentina’s flagging economy with $20 billion as a means of supporting the country’s far-right President heading into an election, Argentina has turned around and dropped its tax on its own soybean sales, prompting China to make a massive one-million-ton purchase from that nation. This move signals China’s attempt to vastly reduce, if not simply drop, the U.S. as a soybean supplier on a permanent basis. In response, Trump’s Agriculture Secretary, Brooke Rollins, has said American farmers need to stop selling to “a country that isn’t aligned with our values,” promoting a dubious economic plan to place ideological constraints on America’s farmers.

How badly Eastern Shore soybean producers will be hurt by Trump’s aid and trade policies remains to be seen, but the outlook is not positive. Even though Maryland Eastern Shore soybean farmers benefit from high demand from nearby domestic poultry producers, the harm to farmers will likely be significant. Why? Because U.S. soybean exports to China flow from both the East and West coasts of the U.S., Eastern Shore soybean farmers will now likely see greater competition from producers in nearby states. For example, soybeans are Virginia’s top agricultural export, valued at more than $1.4 billion. 

Furthermore, this competition will put downward pressure on already low prices for this commodity, which has fallen from $13/bushel a few years ago to $10 in the current market. Farmers’ profit picture at this moment is somewhere between minimal to non-existent. Further darkening the picture ahead, Trump’s new tariffs on foreign steel and fertilizer are simultaneously raising production costs for soybean farmers. 

Soybean production is at a high level this year, with storage facilities nearly full and there is increasing concern that exporting firms will stop purchases in light of the declining market.

President Trump has said that he wants to help farmers out with funds collected by the U.S. on foreign imports subject to his tariffs. The Trump Administration has said it soon will make an announcement to this effect. Sources also indicate that this plan is still under discussion at this writing. Trump spokespersons claim that it will take several months before any money might be forthcoming.

The bottom line for Maryland Eastern Shore soybean farmers is that even if bailout money materializes, it is not what is needed. American Soybean Association President Caleb Ragland has called the offer a “Band-Aid.”  Besides, it being an insufficient amount to account for losses already incurred, he indicated that American soybean producers need additional markets and higher prices–exactly what the Trump trade and aid policies are closing off. 

As for our own Representative Andy Harris, there is no evidence he has made any attempt to formulate a solution to assist Eastern Shore soybean farmers (or, if he has, there is no evidence he has been effective in doing so).

Both President Trump and Representative Harris frequently claim to support relieving agricultural (and other) markets from government interference. Ironically, in the case of soybeans, the government programs they have initiated are, in fact, the cause of a powerful negative predicament for Eastern Shore farmers and their markets.

Wilson Dean was the Owner/President of a publishing and consulting firm for 34 years, providing economic, energy, and environmental policy and pricing forecasts for global clients.  He lives in Talbot County, enjoying kayaking, wildlife, and spending time with his grandchildren.   

In today’s digital age, entrepreneurs often rely on online tools to make their mark. Amid recent Maryland tax hikes and new foreign tariffs, digital marketing is a critical way for small business owners to survive amidst economic uncertainty, boost their revenue, and maintain a formidable presence in the market.

To be as competitive as possible, Maryland needs policies that support new, innovative businesses looking to call our state home. As part of that, it is crucial to protect the balance between encouraging innovation and reasonable legislation. Small business owners often work long hours and invest their own money in their company. Their restaurants and clothing stores keep you and your families fed and dressed. Similarly, local startups invent technologies that aid not only our community but the world at large. Policies that support their efforts and ensure they can continue their livelihoods without unnecessary friction are critical to keep the small business community afloat.

Unfortunately, some of our elected officials have opted to impose burdensome restrictions on the very businesses that drive our economy. If we want to grow our economy and welcome more businesses to our state, we should instead take a more pro-business position like that of Virginia, which has resulted in a $9 billion investment in innovation and infrastructure in the state. Unfortunately, Maryland’s current restrictions make the landscape less appealing to businesses – both big and small – that are considering a presence in our state, damaging our business ecosystem’s long-term competitiveness.

Due to policy changes set to go into effect this fall, digital marketing strategies may be in jeopardy. In 2024, the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (MODPA) was passed and will soon impose harmful restrictions on small businesses that will particularly affect their ability to access the tools and data they need to market themselves and connect with their customers. Policies like this one could have detrimental effects on our small business ecosystem, creating uncertainty for small businesses, making them more risk-averse, which could stall innovation in the state.

MODPA’s sweeping privacy laws are more stringent than comparable legislation in other states, making Maryland an outlier and creating needless friction for Maryland’s small businesses that are trying to keep up with others in the region. In fact, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce has already noted that surrounding states’ small businesses outperform ours in fields including just plain survival––which, in 2024, dropped from 19% to 12% in Maryland––and growth.

When the legislation goes into effect in October 2025, its restrictions could prevent many businesses from connecting with local consumers in the most effective manner. A 2025 proposed fix offered adjustments to protect small businesses’ ability to utilize online tools like digital marketing technologies while defending consumers’ right to privacy. Unfortunately, lawmakers did not advance this business-friendly proposal, and now Maryland small businesses will pay the price.

Going forward, we need policies that will make Maryland a regional and national business leader. Our elected officials should view the recent investment in Virginia as a shining example of what is possible when states maintain pro-business policies and welcome innovation. For the sake of Marylanders and the success of our state, it is critical that Maryland sits at the forefront of invention. We cannot afford to let overbearing regulations damage our small businesses’ competitiveness. We must enact plans that will support the businesses that support our state.

Jamie McNealey serves as the Owner and National Director of the National College Lacrosse League (NCLL). Based in Severna Park, the NCLL currently includes 90 colleges and universities in 16 states. A graduate of the Severn School and the Johns Hopkins University, where he lettered for four years, McNealey has coached men’s lacrosse at the high school, collegiate and professional levels.

There are multiple significant issues to be addressed regarding Artificial Intelligence. 

Is the term Artificial Intelligence an oxymoron? One normally considers intelligence to be acquired, and (to a certain extent) an inherited attribute of a living entity, not something invented that replaces the cognitive and industrious abilities of mankind.

The impacts vs. the values of AI need to be recognized, evaluated and acknowledged by everybody, including all levels of government, industry, large as well as small businesses, and the public-at-large.  The potential impacts and value of AI are having unprecedented effects upon all elements of society. Some good and some not-so-good.

The value of AI appears to best serve the Titans of industry and government.

• Natural energy companies shovel more coal, pump more oil, and extract more gas: more product sold equals an increase to the bottom-line
• Construction companies build more large-scale power plants, data centers, and iClouds: facilitates skilled employment until a point of saturation.
• Digital firms supporting the application of AI create increased revenues from software sales and services, AI applications, and storage solutions
• Information intensive business (e.g., insurance, banking, contracting, education, and customer services) will benefit from AI by replacing the cost of workers performing routine, standardized functions. Significant bottom-line improvements may be realized.    

The flip-side of the value of AI is the impacts upon Society, Natural Resources, Conservation, and the Environment. It is important that one consider the value of AI to the whole of Society. – This is the point at which one should be asking themselves: to what extend should one embrace AI and/or moderate its potential (or exponential) impact on one’s life? – It is now obvious that AI can accomplish many technical objectives; but should one embrace it unconditionally? – Not just “No”, but “Hell No”!!!

Electricity demands necessitate the increased use of natural resources (and to some extent renewables such as wind and solar).  Electricity generation is highly dependent on coal, oil and natural gas.  Use of these carbon-based fuels contributes to higher levels of carbon monoxide/dioxide.  In turn, these pollutants contribute to environmental issues and to climate warming.  

AI’s electricity consumption is beginning to stress the capacity of the country’s power plants. For example: in Maryland, many home owner’s electric bills are increasing by up to 25 percent. It not so much an increase in homeowner consumption or population growth as it is the need for the capacity to support AI solutions. – Like it or not, using it or not (now or in the future), it seems everyone is funding AI’s rapid growth. 

Another example: in northern Virginia (a D.C. suburban area) there has been an unanticipated growth of humongous data management and processing centers.  The size and locations have resulted in strong objections from the residential communities.  Enough is enough, in fact it is too much. The public is seeking legislation to stop further growth.

And lastly, a third example: In a rural area of the foothills of the Ozark mountains (Kentucky or Tennessee), a large processing ‘farm” for Bitcoin produced a constant humming and annoying sound adversely affecting the local residents as well as live stock. – Some choosing to relocate.

The need for increased electricity is explicitly tied to the use of coal, oil, and gas. All being natural resources, carbon based, and of limited (not infinitesimal) availability. At some point one must consider the conservation of these resources that can be extracted and refined at acceptable expense and without causing secondary damage to the planet or its residents. Consider the impacts of fracking and the pollution of water aquifers. 

Reliance on carbon-based energy sources, while not the advancement of solar and wind, implies the continuation of increasingly severe air pollution with commensurate impacts on Global Warming and Air Quality. – What’s a few degrees temperature rise? What’s a few inches, or feet, in sea-level rise? What difference does it make if the sky is not crystal clear and the air is foul tasting and loaded with particulates? 

As if the cell phone has not had significant impacts on society, the impacts of AI may be exponentially greater and detrimental. The cell phone has changed the way people interact with one another, are entertained, and receive/send information.  Sound-bites dominate and thoughtful discourse has gone by the wayside.

AI will be the cell phone on steroids!  In the future it will not be what one learns and retains, but how good one is at asking questions to get a quality response to an inquiry. Then, one might consider whether or not the answer is acceptable: being correct, adequate, and comprehensive. — Predictably, one will accept the answer and move on to whatever.

A recent article (from a print newspaper!) indicated that society may experience “cognitive decline”.  (Personally, I will bet money on it!).  Dependency on AI will have a dehumanizing effect on a worldwide basis.  

Comprehensive action needs to be taken to manage AI in the interest of society as a whole, not just a few.  If AI continues uncontrolled, it will devastate society – most profoundly in employment on one end of the spectrum and in international politics and peace on the other end.  Between these polar extremes, one may speculate a will. If AI solutions replace employment opportunities, there will be increases in welfare spending and at the other extreme earth-shaking decisions might be taken based on faulty information rather than experience, competence, and knowledge.  — Personally, the first thing I want is the elimination of the AI “Help” with competent English-speaking humans, preferably located in the U.S.

The overall sociological impact on humanity is incalculable. People will no longer engage with one another; they will not learn and retain factual information or do background research; they become mentally and socially lazy or even isolated.

Using AI, when beneficial to mankind, is important, but when applied in lieu of knowledge and intellect, it is detrimental.  AI inherently leads to the acceptance of “forms and functions” while being “content-free”.  If one does not recognize and understand the content, one cannot render sound decisions. 

This opinion piece was written without the benefit of AI by Calvin Yowell. He is retired from IBM and now lives in Easton. 

163 years ago o,n May 27, 1862, the Talbot County courthouse was surrounded by Union troops to support federal Provost Marshals in the arrest of Judge Richard Bennett Carmichael.   Four Provost Marshals barged into the Judge’s courtroom and bloodily bludgeoned him with the butt of a pistol in front of his jury and civilian spectators.  Prosecuting attorney J.C.W. Powell rushed to the judge’s aid, and the crier of the court ran to the window to call for the Sheriff, but both were physically subdued.  All three were sent to Fort McHenry for imprisonment.   

The next day, the federal War Department issued a press release stating that the Judge had been imprisoned for treason.  The press release was published in every major Northern newspaper and in Europe as soon as the news crossed the Atlantic.  Judge Carmichael and attorney Powell were imprisoned for over 9 months under the harshest conditions without trial or charges ever placed against them.  

These men were imprisoned and denied their basic constitutional rights to have legal counsel challenge the validity of their imprisonment, to be presented with charges, to have the government’s charges reviewed by a civilian court, to confront their accusers or to provide a defense in a civilian court of law.  All these constitutional rights were denied because the President had suspended the sacred right of habeas corpus, an act that the Constitution had granted solely to Congress and not the Executive. 

The Judge’s imprisonment for treason, as professed by the federal government, became established history for over 160 years touted by follow-on historians who simply relied upon the statements issued by the government.  This was indicative of how history recorded the imprisonment of so many other Maryland political leaders, newspaper editors and other citizens imprisoned under the suspension of habeas which denied their right to present a defense or to even publicly proclaim their side of the story.  The free press was grossly impacted by the suspension of habeas with numerous newspapers who presented dissenting views shut down or had their editors imprisoned and where the threat of such retaliation caused many others to remain compliant and not question the Executive.  

With today’s technology to digitally search thousands of official records along with historical newspapers across the globe, the actual history of Judge Carmichael’s arrest can now be told – and it had nothing to do with secession or traitorous activity. 

Judge Carmichael got the attention of Secretary William Seward in June of 1861 by sending a petition along with 48 others, to the Maryland Legislature detailing how Union soldiers had entered Queene Anne’s County and had placed themselves as a military police superior to civilian authority and were conducting unlawful searches, arrests and imprisonments and had unilaterally suspended habeas corpus to those they detained.  This document recorded in the Maryland Archives is hugely important in understanding President Lincoln’s early suspension of habeas enacted just weeks prior.  The President’s first suspension was touted as a military necessity to protect a narrow supply corridor between Philadelphia and Washington.  With Carmichael’s communication to the Legislature, we find it was also suspended in places in Maryland far removed from this supply route and for totally different reasons as well.  

Secretary Seward in learning of the Judge’s communication, issued a directive to General John Adams Dix to have the Judge imprisoned in Fort Lafayette for “treason”  and to have the arrest conducted in the Judge’s courtroom to maximize the public impact.  General Dix, however, did not act upon this directive at this time but continued to monitor the Judge.   As a circuit court Judge, Carmichael was also a Judge in Queen Anne’s County and shortly before the state elections in November 1861 the clerk of Queen Anne’s Court, Madison Brown, was arrested and temporarily imprisoned by Union troops.  Brown was running on the “Peace Party” ticket as a candidate for the Maryland Appellate Court during the upcoming state election and was just one of many Maryland political candidates that had been harassed and even imprisoned by the occupying Union troops prior to the election. Judge Carmichael had the offending military officers charged by the grand jury for the unlawful imprisonment of Brown and others, but the Union military simply relocated the charged officers outside of the Judge’s jurisdiction to prevent their trial.

Similar incidents also happened in Talbot County where dissenters were imprisoned by the occupying military command.  In Talbot County however, something very different occurred. Prosecuting attorney J.C.W. Powell learned that a Maryland politician, State Senator Henry Holiday Goldsborough, had embroiled himself in directing the Union troops on the arrest of Talbot civilians.   Goldsborough was the leader of the Maryland Senate and a strong Lincoln ally.  Attorney Powell was successful in having Talbot’s Grand Jury issue indictments against Goldsborough, along with the associated Union officers responsible for the arrests.   

The military officers were removed from Talbot’s legal jurisdiction, but Senator Goldsborough lived in Talbot County and could not avoid prosecution.  Shortly before Goldsborough’s trial General Dix issued a written communication to him stating that he was sending the military officers subpoenaed for his trial but was also sending four Provost Marshals “well armed.”  In this communication, Gen. Dix left it to Goldsborough to authorize the Provost Marshals to arrest Judge Carmichael.  In Dix’s after-action report to Secretary Seward, he noted that the Judge had been arrested in his courtroom for the maximum public impact per the stated desire of Seward.  The imprisonment of Judge Carmichael and prosecuting attorney Powell had nothing to do with treason but was simply to protect a political ally of the President and to display the power of the federal government.  The false report of “treason” was simply cover to make such a drastic measure publicly acceptable.

Some of those who read this will attempt to immediately defend President Lincoln’s actions.  Human nature has not changed in 163 years and there are many who will blindly trust and defend their chosen political leader regardless of evidence.  These events are our history which cannot be changed but which provide us with important insights and lessons that we should apply to the issues of our day.

For more on this important history to include the uncovering of the details regarding the imprisonment of the Maryland Legislature and other important Maryland leaders, please refer to my book “When Democracy Fell, The Subjugation of Maryland During the U.S. Civil War,” available on Amazon or locally at Vintage Books in Easton and Unicorn Books in Trappe.  

Paul Callahan is a native of Talbot County Maryland, a graduate of the Catholic University of America and a former Marine Corps officer. When Democracy Fell is due for release on October 3, at all major retailers to include Amazon. Image of prisoners courtesy of “The Local History Channel.”

Most of us are aware of the damage Donald Trump is doing to government service, freedom of expression, our universities, and democracy. And the moral decay our “national role model” is inflicting upon America with his daily lying, greed, spite, and vindictiveness.

But most of us are less aware of the grave threat Trump and his spineless minions represent to our precious children, just by broadcasting his malignant narcissism every day. It is not too early to sound the alarm.

For starters, just picture our vulnerable teens bombarded by their commander-in-chief, who rules as a greedy, lawless king—where kindness, honesty, humility, and cooperation are for “suckers and losers.” Our kids, with their online tools and savvy, know this. They see and hear it every day. The most powerful leader in the world (their “leader”) is trashing the most sacred values that have defined America since its founding.

And to what effect on our coming-of-age children? At a minimum, confusion about what behavior or character counts. More frequently, they embrace the loss of moral guardrails and behave (as in Golding’s Lord of the Flies) any way they want.

This is not a theory. I first saw it recently at a boarding school for needy children I once led. It has over 2,000 students and prides itself on building character. Just four months into Trump’s leadership model, more students are flouting rules and debasing their school’s Sacred Values.

When challenged, responses include:

• “Why should I be kind to a weak classmate?”

• “Why do I need to tell the truth?”

• “Why should I share credit with a teammate?”

The school’s Sacred Values—like Integrity and Mutual Trust—are being routinely tested.

Note: These behaviors seem to be more manifest in boys, who are more likely to challenge norms and authority (and who already have excessive learning difficulties these days). And, BTW, where were these teens during Trump’s first term? In late elementary and early middle school, where early character formation is founded.

What fate, then, for our children and their character? What is the future for the sacred values of our critical institutions?

Awareness of a real and present danger is always the first step to combating a serious threat. “This too will pass” is not a sufficient response to 8–12 years of socially induced character decay.

Such a grave challenge will fall first to our parents… and then to our teachers and coaches, who influence behavior the most. And then to our community, church, and political leaders—who, when organized, can effectively resist the moral decay.

But also to each of us who care about America’s character and the moral fiber of our children—those of us who still value kindness, honesty, and the greater common good, and do not want our young folks to become the “Greedy Me Generation.”

Johnny O’Brien is a former president of the Milton Hershey School and its first alumnus to lead the institution. Orphaned at a young age, he was raised at the school and graduated in 1961 before earning a degree from Princeton University and pursuing graduate studies at Johns Hopkins. O’Brien later founded Renaissance Leadership, a firm that coached executives at major corporations. In 2003, he returned to Hershey as its president. He is also the author of Semisweet: An Orphan’s Journey Through the School the Hersheys Built, and currently lives in Easton.

Editor’s Note. The Spy is pleased to welcome David Montgomery back as a contributor. When the Talbot Spy launched in 2009, David was one of our first political columnists—widely read, often provocative, and a thoughtful voice for socially conservative views. Well before his move to Talbot County, David was a respected figure in Washington, D.C. as he built his reputation as a lead economist at the Congressional Budget Office and later as a private consultant. His work on federal spending models and his successful advocacy for California’s cap-and-trade policy have impacted national environmental and fiscal policy. In his return to the Spy, David will focus on the economic challenges of our times.

I am now more puzzled than ever by the goals of President Trump’s tariff policies. He is now reducing tariffs on China in exchange for China’s offer to reduce tariffs and open its markets to US businesses.  He has announced ongoing negotiations with some 80 other countries to reduce tariffs on both sides.  China is looking like just another trading partner that has tariffs higher than ours.

There are three textbook objectives that might be pursued through tariff policy. They are strategic, retaliatory, and protectionist.  

Strategic tariffs are directed at specific countries and or industries which are deemed to be critical to national security. Thus, the United States should be reducing its reliance on China for certain rare minerals.  Likewise, any components for warfighting equipment that are now sourced from China should be switched to domestic suppliers.  This objective has always been a legitimate purpose for tariffs, but they should be selective and high—or just a ban on imports.  I thought China was the target of strategic tariffs, and I never questioned that such tariffs were in general needed. When it comes to implementing that policy, the specifics of how rapidly we could disengage our supply chains from Chinese sources needed to be considered before setting tariffs arbitrarily high.

Now it appears that we are treating China just like Europe and other countries on which we set retaliatory tariffs‚ that is, tariffs designed to match the tariffs imposed on us by our trading partners. The goal in imposing such tariffs is not necessarily to shrink trade, rather it is to put US industries on an equal footing with industries protected by tariffs of our trading partners. That is a fine objective and beneficial to both countries. The very high tariffs that Trump imposed initially seemed to have brought many countries to the negotiating table. 

If we can achieve a mutual reduction in tariffs and trade barriers with allies, articularly Europe, Japan and Korea, it will benefit both countries.  There will be more demand for goods from US industries that have been priced out of protected markets, and our trading partners will get goods for their consumers at lower cost than they could produce domestically.  That outcome could also help with our broader goal of improving manufacturing wages and output.

So now I am puzzled.   What is our objective for managing trade with China?  The current dramatic reductions suggest that the President is not pursuing a strategy of reducing trade with China for strategic reasons, he was just threatening them to get them to line up like Europe and other countries to reduce their barriers to trade. That, or this is a purely political move to deal with the stock market carnage that the high tariffs produced.  

I really hope that Walmart has not won again on this one. We do need to disengage from trade with China on goods like strategic minerals and electronics. We might not need 145% tariffs on all Chinese goods but we certainly need even more on some. 

That also lets me touch briefly on the third reason for tariffs, which I characterized as protectionist. These are tariffs designed to protect specific industries and encourage their growth here in the US. Protectionism goes further than reducing barriers to exports, though that helps.

I can enthusiastically support economic policies that are designed to recreate the traditional American family. That is, whose objective is to make it possible again for one man to provide for his wife and multiple children on one income, so that the nuclear family headed by a wife living at home, can once again become the norm. 

The plan articulated by JD Vance is that the manufacturing sector, and with it jobs that do not require expensive college education, must expand to provide that kind of income to families. I doubt that current scattershot tariff policy, or even a combination of policies likely to be implemented in this administration, would be sufficient to achieve this goal. I have a lot more hope that it could all be put together in eight years of a JD Vance administration.

The start toward this goal is protective tariffs, either for the manufacturing sector as a whole or for particular industries, not just large enough to overcome the advantage that countries like China have due to cheap or, in China’s case, forced labor. Tariffs on China probably should be 150% or more to achieve this goal–Robert Lighthizer recommends 200 to 300%–in order to increase both wages and output in US manufacturing.  Unfortunately, the same economic reasoning applies to South Korea and Japan. On top of that, protection would have to be applies to many more carefully chosen sectors to greatly improve the economic status for couples that are struggling to find a way to buy a home, have children and raise them well. Anyway, this beguiling part of the Trump economic plan has not been visible in any of his specific moves on tariffs.

So I am puzzled about what the 40 or 60 or 80 current negotiations on tariffs are intended to accomplish. In the case of China, the only serious antagonist with whom trade, we seem to be abandoning the strategic objective in favor of convincing China to eliminate tariffs and other barriers to exports from the US (a tiny fraction of imports from China) while doing nothing to reduce the flow of goods to the US from China. 

In any event, I doubt that any agreement to open China’s markets is enforceable. China has had thousands of years to figure out how to cheat on any agreement. The opacity of China’s economy means it could find ways to block US investment and exports, even after agreeing to everything that President Trump might demand.  It’s not even “trust but verify” with China. It’s more like “never trust because it’s impossible to verify”.  If we do perceive that US companies remain unable to sell in China, the tit-for-tat response would be to return to the 175% tariffs of a week ago. That at least should gain some strategic benefits, and might be implemented through incremental increases that give supply chains time to adjust.

We may or may not gain any tariff reductions out of current negotiations with China.  Just going into these negotiations to mutually reduce tariffs makes me doubt whether the current round is intended to reduce our strategic vulnerability on China. By reducing tariffs across the board we have given on the effort to shift specific supply chains with national security significance out of China is now being treated as just another trading partner with whom we are working things out. 

I’m also not seeing any efforts toward the goal that appealed to me, which is renewing good jobs that will support the old-fashioned family with all its social and moral benefits.  

Getting back to my introduction, it is not clear what objective President Trump is pursuing in the current trade negotiations.  

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. He currently serves as councilmember for Ward 3 on the Town of Easton Council.