On Thursday, Breitbart posted an article about the impact of President Trump’s tariffs. Generally speaking, the results of the tariffs is the exact opposite of what the experts predicted. We really don’t know if the predictions were so dire because President Trump was involved or if the experts really believed what they were writing.

The article reports:

In yesterday’s Breitbart Business Digest, we examined a new working paper from Jared Bernstein and Daniel Posthumus that documented the decline of U.S. manufacturing employment, particularly the devastating 2000-2010 “China Shock” period when 5.7 million factory jobs disappeared.

While the authors called this period “destructive” and urged preventing future shocks, they insisted that “sweeping” tariffs were not the right policy. Their reasoning was undermined by a significant contradiction: they claim tariffs would disrupt American manufacturing because we’re too dependent on foreign inputs, yet they simultaneously advocate for subsidies for sectors vulnerable to foreign export controls. They’ve essentially documented that our industrial base is dangerously hollowed out while arguing we’re too dependent to fix it.

As we explained, the real-world evidence further undermines their anti-tariff position. Despite President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs imposed in April 2025, the predicted “tarifflation” never materialized. Prices on tariffed imports haven’t risen as economists predicted. In fact, prices on non-tariffed domestic goods rose more than tariffed imports, while domestic goods competing with tariffed imports are actually down since Liberation Day. There certainly has not been any widespread inflation created by tariffs. The central economic case against tariffs—that they raise consumer prices—has collapsed in the face of actual data.

What we’re actually seeing is something economists have long theorized as “optimal tariff theory.“ A country with a globally dominant consumer market can employ tariffs to force foreign manufacturers to lower prices to maintain their exports. It can also successfully pressure other countries to reduce their own import barriers by threatening even higher tariffs. Finally, the household sector can force a redistribution from the corporate sector by refusing to accept the pass-through of tariff costs.

The article concludes:

Meanwhile, Biden’s subsidy approach—implicitly endorsed by the paper—produced billions in spending, out-of-control inflation, a brief construction boom, and then declining factory employment.

The paper warns that tariffs raise input costs, but we’re currently so dependent on imported inputs that we’re vulnerable to devastating supply cutoffs. The paper warns about retaliation, but sweeping tariffs have proven less provocative than thought, and there’s every reason to believe that targeting other countries’ strategic sectors would ignite backlash. The paper warns about price increases, but the data shows prices on tariffed goods rising less than non-tariffed ones.

At every turn, the real-world evidence contradicts the theoretical objections. An open-minded reader of the paper will come away grateful American’s voted for Trump’s trade policies rather than the industrial policy favored by Bernstein, Postuhumus, and the Biden administration.

I guess the businessman in the White House had a better understanding of economics than the experts.