Say Something Real
By Michelle Bryant
Michelle Bryant
The Trump administration’s tariffs were designed to achieve a singular goal: fairness in international trade. But there is something about them that just seems off. While the stated ambition is laudable and arguably has merit, the path taken to achieve it has left a trail of economic turmoil, uncertainty, and global mistrust. I can’t fully put my finger on it, but it feels swampy.
You may recall in 2016, then President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promised to “drain the swamp”, to rid Washington, D.C., of those advancing special interests. It wasn’t a new idea or the first time a politician had used the phrase. According to an article in the Public Affairs Council, “The first use of the swamp metaphor dates back to the early 20th century when the organizer of what became the Socialist Party of America said socialists “are not satisfied with killing a few of the mosquitoes … They want to drain the swamp.” However, under Trump’s leadership, then and now, the swamp is more saturated and filled with slimier folks than ever before. The tariffs are exposing the deepened cesspool. Here’s what I mean.
The financial industry, in particular, has been shaken by the ripple effects of these policies, with middle-class families and lower-income individuals bearing the brunt of the fallout. Though the recent 90-day pause on retaliatory, not reciprocal, tariffs brought a temporary reprieve and led to significant market gains, the damage—over $8 trillion in lost wealth in just one week—has left many questioning whether there was a better way to accomplish these objectives or if fair trade was the objective, at all.
One of the most controversial aspects of the tariff policy has been the influence wielded by some of the wealthiest individuals in the world. Billionaires, corporate executives, and financial elites often have the president’s ear, shaping policies that directly impact global markets. While their expertise may provide valuable insights, the optics of these interactions are troubling. For too many Americans, it appears that decisions about trade and tariffs are being made in ivory towers, far removed from the struggles of everyday citizens. This perception erodes trust in the government’s ability to act in the best interest of the broader population. There is an aspect of this, quite frankly, that seems suspect.
On April 9th, when the US markets opened, everyone was bracing for a doomsday scenario. Words like recession, volatility, and “short-term bottom” were on everyone’s mind heading into the day. Yet at 9:30 am, on social media Trump posted “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT.”
For middle-class and lower-income individuals, reeling from losses, who had the money to buy stocks? The Guardian online outlet reported that Democratic senator Chris Murphy wrote on X that an “insider trading scandal is brewing … Trump’s 9:30 am tweet makes it clear he was eager for his people to make money off the private info only he knew. So, who knew ahead of time and how much money did they make?”
Then Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gets in on the game, posting “I’ve been hearing some interesting chatter on the floor. The disclosure deadline is May 15th. We’re about to learn a few things. It’s time to ban insider trading in Congress.” I share those concerns, and I have questions. In fact, we all should.
One: Was there a better way to achieve fairness in trade without nearly blowing up the system? Two: Is a five-time bankruptcy filer really the best person to be making trade decisions? Three: Who benefited the most from April 9th and who is going to ask the tough questions of this administration?