President Donald Trump has announced sweeping and strong tariffs against foreign goods imported into this country. As an immediate consequence, the stock market has tanked. The economy will follow. And the American people will accordingly suffer.
In 2021, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ruler of Turkey, decided, against the advice of economists, that the solution to inflation was to lower, not raise, interest rates. The results were predictable. Inflation surged, the Turkish lira tanked and the economy did not improve.
After years of this experiment, he turned the economy over to professionals and walked away from the mess. I predict that same course of events will occur here. It’s only unfortunate that so many American people will have to suffer in the meantime.
— Frank L. Schneider, Chicago
Manufacturing in US
President Donald Trump said tariffs will bring manufacturing back to the U.S., but no one, including him, is talking about how this can happen. I think that for it to be profitable for businesses to bring manufacturing back here, it will take more than tariffs. There will need to be massive tax deductions available to owners for rebuilding plants or other financial input from the government.
China has invested in manufacturing, but I don’t hear of plans for doing this here on a substantial scale. Other countries that are able to outprice us seem to have the following characteristics: They may be close to the natural resources they use, they may ignore pollution issues and worker salaries are much less.
I don’t know that I have the right answers, but I would like to hear discussion about how manufacturing can be made more profitable here beyond tariffs.
— Lola Himrod, Evanston
Use of emergency powers
The president invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports, declaring an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States arising in substantial part from foreign trade imbalances. While this may sound like bold leadership in the name of national security, the reality is far more troubling: Trade deficits are not a foreign threat. They are the product of U.S. economic choices — and treating them as an emergency distorts law, economics and democratic norms.
A trade deficit means the United States imports more goods and services than it exports. This is not new, nor is it a sign of defeat. U.S. consumers and corporations voluntarily choose to buy foreign-made goods — because they are affordable, efficient or better suited to their needs. Multinational U.S. firms structure supply chains to optimize costs and serve global markets. Beijing or Berlin does not dictate these choices; they are made in boardrooms and households across America.
The IEEPA was passed in 1977 to give the president tools to confront immediate and extraordinary foreign threats: terrorism, hostage crises, cyberattacks and nuclear proliferation. Using it to address persistent trade deficits — a chronic, macroeconomic condition — is calling the fire department for a leaky faucet. Worse, it conflates an outcome of our market behavior with a hostile act from abroad.
Legally, the bar for invoking IEEPA is high. The threat must be “unusual and extraordinary” and originate “in whole or substantial part outside the United States.” However, persistent trade imbalances are neither unusual nor externally imposed. They stem from internal factors such as our low savings rate, a strong dollar and consumer spending patterns. Foreign producers meet that demand — but they do not create it.
Labeling these patterns as a national emergency invites legal and democratic backlash. It risks normalizing the use of emergency powers for routine economic management — sidestepping Congress and eroding checks and balances. It also invites retaliation from trade partners, as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act infamously did in the 1930s, deepening the Great Depression.
Yes, the global trade system is imperfect. Some countries — China foremost among them — employ state-directed practices that distort markets. But the answer lies in multilateral engagement, targeted enforcement and investment in American competitiveness — not broad, unilateral tariffs masquerading as national security measures.
Emergency powers are for emergencies, not trade deficits. Let’s not turn chronic market behavior into a constitutional loophole.
— Dimitri Alex Dimitroyannis, Chicago
Afraid of spending
With all the chaos happening with President Donald Trump’s administration, the tariffs, the Department of Government Efficiency and our plunging economy, I’m afraid to spend money anymore. I’m 68 years old, worked hard my entire life, and now live modestly and comfortably in my retirement. But I’m scared that my lifetime savings are going to dry up, so I’ve stopped all planned spending for 2025 and the foreseeable future.
I began looking for a new car at the end of last year and had planned to buy one in March, but I’m not going to do that now. I had a trip to Europe planned this summer but canceled those plans. I want to get my home painted, but I’m afraid to spend any money on that, so I’ve stopped getting estimates from painters.
I’m one person. How many others are like me? What will consumer uncertainty and fear of spending do to our economy? How are we going to survive four years of the horrible situation Trump has put us in?
— Michael Dunghe, Chicago
We are Guinea pigs
Let’s get this straight. President Donald Trump just downsized much of government and cut numerous agencies that provided services and financial help while leaving many of their employees unemployed. On Wednesday, he shared a list of countries that were assigned immediate tariff increases. If you are in the middle or lower class, you are going to go through a chaotic experience, so expect hard times. You are being forced into his experiment that puts you and your family into financial risk with decreasing buying power and access to government assistance programs that have been drastically cut! You are his Guinea pig for this tariff experiment that history has already shown is a failure (the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930).
— Raymond Hubbard, Sandwich, Illinois
A third term, really?
I have been hearing talk that President Donald Trump is considering running for a third term even though it is unconstitutional. Even If he could skirt that issue, how could he sell even the most dedicated MAGA voter on voting for an 82-year-old candidate? Joe Biden couldn’t do it with his constituency.
— Ruth Rose, Glenview
Stronger Muslim ties
I’m happy to see President Donald Trump strengthening ties with Muslims. As Muslims like me celebrate Eid al-Fitr, I want to thank Trump for his commitment to be there for the Muslim community.
As a proud American who voted for Trump, I am pleased to hear that Trump recently hosted an iftar dinner at the White House during the holy month of Ramadan. And in his remarks during the iftar dinner program, he recognized the support that he received from the Muslim community in the November election.
Trump unites all people, regardless of race, religion or color of their skin. His actions speak louder than his words. I am excited to see that Trump is strengthening his bond with the Muslim community in America.
— Tawsif Anam, Madison, Wisconsin
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.