In a striking display of opposition to President Donald Trump's economic policies, Democrat Senator Jeanne Shaheen recently delivered a fervent critique of the administration's tariff strategy.
Her remarks, made outside the Supreme Court, have sparked debate over the role of tariffs in protecting American industries and the broader implications for U.S. economic policy.
According to Gateway Pundit, Shaheen's speech centered on the assertion that Trump's tariffs are "unlawful," unconstitutional, and detrimental to the economy. She argued that these measures should be rescinded, even if it means foreign competitors might gain an advantage.
The senator's comments came as the Supreme Court deliberated on whether Trump's application of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on adversarial nations was legally permissible.
Shaheen's critique highlights a significant ideological shift within the Democrat Party, which now appears to oppose tariffs not on grounds of inefficacy, but because they were employed by Trump to bolster American industry. In her address, Shaheen contended that Trump "never came to Congress" before implementing tariffs under the IEEPA, emphasizing that the statute "doesn't mention tariffs once."
However, it is worth noting that presidents from both parties have historically utilized similar executive powers to impose tariffs, particularly when foreign entities engage in market manipulation or threaten U.S. supply chains.
The senator's stance contrasts sharply with the silence that greeted similar actions by previous administrations. Democrats did not voice objections when President Obama, or even Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Reagan, employed unilateral trade measures. The uproar seems to have emerged only when Trump wielded these powers to challenge China's aggressive trade practices.
Shaheen further claimed that tariffs have resulted in Americans paying "an average of $1,800 more" and cited examples of businesses struggling to secure investment. Yet, these arguments overlook the broader objective of Trump's tariffs: to rejuvenate domestic production, encourage companies to relocate supply chains back to the U.S., and diminish the influence of foreign competitors who have long benefited from unfair practices such as subsidies and currency manipulation.
Many American manufacturers have credited these tariffs with leveling the playing field and reducing reliance on China.
In a particularly contentious moment, Shaheen accused Trump of "attacking Canada," citing the closure of a New Hampshire bakery with Canadian contracts as evidence. However, she omitted any reference to the U.S. industries that have suffered for decades due to foreign trade abuses, or the communities left devastated long before tariffs were introduced. Instead of championing American jobs, Shaheen portrayed foreign trade partners, including China, as victims.
Shaheen concluded her speech by expressing hope that the Supreme Court would "quickly rule that these tariffs are unlawful," suggesting that their removal would "restore stability." Yet, eliminating tariffs could also restore America's precarious dependence on foreign manufacturing, particularly from China.
The Democrat Party, once a staunch advocate for factory workers and industrial towns, now finds itself at odds with policies designed to protect American industries. Shaheen's remarks underscore a broader trend: the modern Democrat Party appears not only indifferent to American manufacturing but openly antagonistic towards it.
Login