Guest Post - Two Liberal Responses to Trump's First 100(ish) Days

As President Trump wrapped up his first 100 days, I solicited responses from some readers and received reactions from others unprompted. Today, I’m publishing the first two of them, both from the left side of the aisle; reactions from the right will follow. The reactions from the left are negative; the reactions from the right are positive. I suppose that shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

As a general rule, these and future reader reactions will be published anonymously, although I will tell you the person’s profession and location. There are many people, plenty of them among the readers of this newsletter, who know much, much more than me about politics—who, for any number of very good reasons, don’t want to write about politics full-time, and/or are not in a professional position to publicly hang their hat on particular political beliefs. It is one thing to make your political views known to your family, friends, and neighbors, or even to repost someone else’s work on social media; it is another entirely to enter your personal views, expressed in your own language, into the permanent register of the internet.

But it’s a shame there are so many great thinkers—and good people—whose thoughts remain just their own. My goal when I write is to seriously consider and faithfully represent multiple perspectives on an issue, but that’s not a perfect replacement for engaging with those perspectives directly.

I hope you read the guest posts with which you agree, but I especially hope you read those with which you don’t—that you will think about how you would respond were you having a live discussion. All of the contributions related to the first 100 days come from people I know well—people I think are worth reading, even if you hate what they say. Feel free to post any response in the comments, or to send me a response directly via email or on the Substack app.

Finally, please reach out if you’d like to write a guest post of your own. Everything I’ve received so far has come from a lawyer—I don’t think anyone would oppose a little more professional diversity. If your ideas are particularly original or underdiscussed, all the better, but they don’t need to be—you could write what you think is the most boring, unoriginal essay on the planet and (1) you might be wrong and (2) even if you’re right, it would still give something to readers. Point is, no pressure.

And, with that, enjoy (or, depending on your personal politics, endure)!

*************

“This Is Unpredictable and Corrosive to Our System of Free and Open Market Capitalism”

Lawyer, Utah

Donald Trump has now served 100 days of his second term as US President. He has been moving quickly to implement a plan of reduced immigration, a leaner federal workforce, and, most notably, high tariffs. His tariff policy has hit the stock market hard, as institutional investors assess the effect of his on-again, off-again tariffs on the near future performance of US businesses.

The question is whether Trump’s tariff policy will lead to his stated goal of a resurgence in US-based manufacturing or, as his political opponents argue, is he simply driving the US economy into a ditch? Let’s review his tariff policy thus far, both tactically, that is, its implementation, and strategically, focusing on the long term effects of tariffs.

Focusing first on tactics, Trump has imposed dramatically higher tariffs in dramatic fashion. He has imposed a worldwide 10% tariff on all foreign products, an additional 25% tariff on steel and aluminum products, and at least for now a 145% tariff on products from China. He imposed these tariffs on “Liberation Day,” when those tariffs as announced were actually significantly higher on other countries but then came down in response to concerns in the financial markets. Trump has since announced that the China tariffs will come down “Substantially.” Editor’s note: since this response was originally drafted, the tariff situation has continued to evolve. Tariffs on China were dropped to 30%, there is some question as to whether China is holding up its part of the bargain that led to that drop, and President Trump announced he is raising tariffs on steel imports to 50%. Briefly put, it all remains in flux.

The striking thing about this is that the tariffs were imposed by Trump, not Congress, and that they are significant, with very little time for businesses to adjust before they come into effect. Trump has also shown himself willing to modify these tariffs for individual countries and individual businesses.

The suddenness of the tariff announcement and implementation has been highly damaging to business stability in the US. A tariff is a type of tax, a tax on imports. It is imposed for a reason, to reduce imports to the US. Even assuming such a tax would “work,” that is, that it would result over the long haul in an improvement in the US trade balance and more manufacturing jobs in the US, why impose the tax so suddenly, with little time to adjust? Suppose a Democratic politician wanted to impose a gas tax for the purpose of reducing inflation and greenhouse gases. A gas tax would be the most efficient way of achieving those objectives, but it would be crazy to impose a $2 per gallon tax immediately. Instead, such a tax would most properly be imposed gradually, starting with a very modest increase and ramping up to the full amount over a period of several years. The gradual increase, coupled with ample advance notice, would allow gas purchasers to adjust by buying electric cars, more efficient gas cars, or by shifting to public transportation. Some consumers would even move their residence to live closer to work and thus cut down on the need to use gas. All of that would achieve the reduction in pollution and greenhouse gases without shocking the economy.

Trump could have, and should have, done the same thing with tariffs. He could have, and should have, announced a long term ramp up to more significant tariffs. The first problem, from a tactical standpoint, is the announcement and implementation of sudden, dramatic tariffs, which amounts to sudden, dramatic tax increase.

Second, it is notable that it was Trump, not Congress, who made the decisions to both impose tariffs and the amount of these tariffs. In effect, the Administration has made a decision that is clearly legislative in nature. It furthers an already strong trend toward a strengthened American executive and a weakened Congress, a trend that has troubled political scientists for decades now. There was no public debate on the details of these tariffs, and to a remarkable degree, it appears to be Trump’s own private opinions that have governed this technical economic policy decision. Rather than a decision of 435 members of the House and 100 senators, it is a decision of one man. That is not an American way of doing political business.

Third, Trump has shown himself to be willing to meet personally with business leaders of certain industries, such as the auto industry, and has made changes and exceptions to the policy in response to concerns expressed by those business leaders of particular industries. He seems to think this is good, that he is showing how magnanimous he can be in meeting and responding to specific needs. But this is crony capitalism at its worst. Stroke the ego of the big man, contribute to his political campaign, post a favorable tweet, and guess what? You might get a break from tariffs on imported products you use for your business. These kinds of breaks are not provided to every business, or only given out pursuant to specific general rules laid out in a statute or regulation; they are given out at the President’s pleasure to businesses or individuals of his own choice. This is unpredictable and corrosive to our system of open and free market capitalism.

Now, having addressed the tactical aspects of Trump’s tariff policy, let us take a look at the strategy. Such as it is. Trump has offered multiple goals he says he can achieve with his tariff plan. First, he sees tariffs as a way of protecting US-based industry and industrial jobs. These are jobs he claims pay higher wages, jobs that he alleges have been effectively taken from Americans and given to workers in foreign countries. Second, he claims tariffs will help him close the “trade deficit.” Third, he says tariffs will force other countries to come to the bargaining table with the US and make favorable trade deals. Finally, he says tariffs are a good source of revenue for the federal government.

Of course, it is true that high tariffs can American products of all kinds. A tariff is a tax on imports, and the higher the tariff, the higher the cost to American consumers. At some price point, US-based suppliers will be able to supply products that compete with the foreign products, and those suppliers will need to hire employees to help manufacture all of those products.

But obviously, those American-made products will be more expensive than the foreign products, and in many cases, much more expensive. That means prices, without question, will be higher. Higher prices means inflation, period. It means that essentially all consumer products will be more expensive, from hairbrushes to clothing, to golf clubs, to automobiles. The more expansive the tariffs, the higher the new prices to consumers. Unless wages go up, consumers will have to make do with fewer consumer products. If wages do go up, inflation just gets worse. And if American manufacturers can charge higher prices, they will. They won’t have to work as hard to compete. In general, prices will be higher and products will be of lower quality. That’s the natural effect of artificially limiting competition.

*************

“These Are Not Moral Men”

Lawyer, Texas

Trump2.0 presents a more focused and intentional administration than T1.0. Through the cacophony of sound bites, attacks, and ex-post facto justifications there are notes of purpose and rhythm. It is a malicious melody. This is not an administration struggling to understand the ins and outs of the executive branch and the federal government, this is an administration with a destructive vision. T2.0 may be acting with little thought or feeling, but these are not random or accidental acts.

I am disheartened but unsurprised at the speed with which the administration is working to systematically uproot, dismantle, and gut those institutions which are charged with identifying and countering corruption, conflicts, and illegal actions—the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Government Oversight, the Department of Justice, etc. T2.0 immediately cleaned house at each, with too little public attention. The playbook is obvious: eliminate internal guardrails, roadblocks, and sources of opposition and accountability, then proceed quickly to execute an agenda before external checks and balances can mobilize and act.

I could spill obscene amounts of digital ink venting about everything that is wrong and concerning about T2.0’s policy priorities and how T2.0 is going about implementing them: from DOGE’s thoughtless and wasteful assault on key governmental institutions and agencies; to the overt malice and dehumanization inherent in T2.0’s war on immigrants; to tariffs; to the attempts to silence and eliminate dissenting speech in the media, in academia, and among the citizenry; to efforts to hobble and subjugate the judiciary and the legal profession writ large; to foreign policy generally and especially in Europe and the Middle East; and on, and on, and on. T2.0 is acting rapidly and often in ways that are directly contrary, not only to well-tested best practices, but to the United States’ best interests and those of our allies across the globe.

Yet, there is one event that stands out to me above all else, one moment that tells me everything I need to know about T2.0 and his courtiers: the televised oval-office bullying of President Volodymyr Zelensky. Nothing that has happened so far has been more starkly disappointing than the shabby and shameful way in which our “leaders” treated this man who is fighting daily for his life and the lives of his countrypeople. Nothing more clearly demonstrates to me who T2.0 is and what T2.0 stands for. These are not moral men. They move through the world without obeisance to any greater purpose save only their own pursuit of power, and in that pursuit their only concern is expediency.

While reflecting as part of writing this…this, whatever this is…a heavy sadness buried somewhere near the center of me crystalized into the understanding that I am in mourning. I am in mourning for the America that could be, the America that exists as a possibility, the America that embodies the root ideals upon which the United States of America were established, the America that is nothing more or less than a nation of people who deeply value, foster, and protect human beings’ inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is an America that has never yet been realized, and it is an America for which I still foster hope; but the possibility of that America, if it still exists as a possibility, is further than I ever knew or understood.

Right and wrong matter. We may quibble over policy or tactics. The ethics of navigating an often-hostile world of competitors and adversaries are nuanced and complex. But we can and should be guided by what is right and good, and understanding what is right and good is not so hard, perhaps, as we are often told. Where acts are aimed at creating, fostering, or protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we know those acts are good. When we see a powerful authoritarian force unilaterally attacking a weaker democratic nation, precisely because the adjacent upwelling of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is perceived as a threat to the authoritarian’s existence, do we not know that invasion is bad?

It is apparent to me, in all T2.0 does and says, and especially in how T2.0 publicly shamed, bullied, and dismissed Zelensky, that right and wrong mean nothing to T2.0. We are now guided and led by someone who is guided and led by nothing but the pursuit of power. That is not America and that is not American. It is up to us to remember who and what America is and can be. It is up to us to be that America. And it is up to us to refuse to follow where T2.0 tries to lead us somewhere differently.