blueteens blog
blueteens blog
U.S. Government Shutdown:
Explained For Gen Z
10/2/2025 0 Comments
By: Leah Matheson
On October 1, 2025, the United States federal government
officially entered a shutdown after Congress failed to reach
an agreement on a funding bill before the deadline. Due to
this, many federal agencies were forced to stop working, and
countless government workers were either immediately sent
home, or asked to work without pay. While some parts of the
government are still open, such as social security and the
military, areas including national parks, public health services,
and food programs are now closed down or in delay. This
situation has left many citizens of the United States worried
and wondering when things will go back to normal.
Government Shutdown Explained
A government shutdown in the United States occurs when
Congress does not pass a law to fund the federal government
for the new fiscal year, which begins on October 1st. A fiscal
year is defined as a 12-month period that businesses or the
government use for financial or accounting purposes.
Without this funding, federal agencies are unable to spend
money, excluding fields such as emergency services or social
securities.
Although government shutdowns have happened in the past,
many fear that this current shutdown will come with
additional risks in regard to global instability, rising debt
concerns, or a more polarized political climate.
Programs Affected by This Shutdown
In the matter of just 24 hours, this shutdown has already
heavily affected the daily lives of workers all across the
nation. Federal work employees are now not being paid,
regardless of if they are still working or not. Travel flights are
still in service, but many delays are expected considering that
the support staff are not being paid. Public health agencies
are now taking a pause on research tasks and safety
inspections. Many college student aid loans are now also
being delayed.
And even with all of this chaos, this situation is still affecting a
larger majority of people. Some reports are even going as far
as claiming that the government might try to make some
furloughs permanent, meaning certain workers might never
get their jobs back.
America’s Thoughts
While some people believe that this shutdown is about saving
money and fixing a problem in the broken system, others
think that it is solely a way for leaders to show off the power
that they hold. With every second that passes by, more and
more people are being affected by this large-scale situation. If
this shutdown continues for any longer, the situation will only
deteriorate further.
Sources:
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
Post
0 Comments
Charlie Kirk’s Death: A Reflection on
America’s Divided Politics
9/24/2025 0 Comments
By: Leah Matheson
A Shocking Loss
On September 16, 2025, political commander Charlie Kirk
was assassinated during an outdoor Utah Valley University
speaking event labeled as the “American Comeback Tour.”
Kirk was known for founding the organization Turning Point
USA, as well as being a strong voice in conservative politics.
His sudden death shocked and traumatized numerous
individuals across the country. This situation has left many
people curious about the truth behind his death, also leading
to numerous speculations.
Background Information
Charlie Kirk began his political work at the young age of 18
years old. Through his organization, Turning Point USA, he
encouraged many young people to support conservative
values such as a smaller government and freedom of speech.
He gained a large following and worldwide recognition,
especially among youth voters. Additionally, he also had close
ties to political leaders, including former president Donald
Trump. Evidently, Charlie Kirk was a very well-known figure.
Admired by some, but also criticized by others. To a large
majority of people, he represented the growing divide in
American politics.
Political Division and Mourning Nation
Kirk’s assasination took place at a time when political
tensions in the United States were just beginning to heavily
rise. Due to this sudden death, many Americans are beginning
to no longer feel safe to voice their opinions and thoughts
publicly. Even after his death, many people through social
media showed how truly divided the country is. While some
are seen expressing their sadness and sympathy for his
grieving family, others are using this moment to continue
political fights.
The Importance of Respect
Regardless of any personal opinions you may have, it is
important to first recognize and remember that everyone is a
human being. Charlie Kirk had people who would support him
and people who disagreed with him, but no one should ever
have to face violence for their beliefs. His death now serves as
a reminder that political differences should never lead to
harm or hate. The U.S. cannot move forward if it continues to
let politics tear its citizens apart. Its people should continue
to show respect moving forward, instead of letting beliefs
push them further apart. No one should ever be forced to live
in fear of violence for expressing their views and opinions.
Sources:
[Link]
bridge-the-deepening-partisan-divide-243539
[Link]
kirk-obituary
[Link]
Like 0 Post
0 Comments
A History of Trump in the Courthouse
9/13/2025 0 Comments
By: Samantha Hamill
If there is one thing Trump has never wavered in his belief in,
it is the power of a lawsuit. For decades now, whenever
something or someone has threatened his image, money, or
ego, Trump has taken them straight to court.
Back in the 1980s and 90s, Trump began using lawsuits as a
form of intimidation. For example, Journalists who wrote
unflattering (but often truthful) articles about him found
themselves immediately slapped with legal threats and court
dates. Biographer Timothy O’Brien was sued by Trump in
2006 for writing that Trump wasn’t as rich as he claimed. This
case was tossed out, because it was ridiculous, but that's not
the point. The point of the lawsuit was to send a clear
message: criticizing Trump is a “crime” punishable by years of
being tied up in litigation.
It wasn’t just the writers either; Trump sued municipalities
that stood in the way of his developments or ideas,
contractors who he did not want to pay, and comedians who
made jokes about him, all of them paid. Rosie O’Donnell for
instance was famously threatened with a lawsuit after
mocking Trump on live tv. What the public learned, or should
have learned, is that Trump treats the legal system like a
personal complaint department. If something bothered him,
he would sue first and ask questions later.
The pattern continued even after he entered the big political
stage. During his 2016 campaign, Trump promised to sue
women who had accused him of misconduct, media outlets
who fact checked him, and even entire states who made
election rules he did not align with. For Trump, suing isn't
even always about winning, it's about posturing, creating fear,
and muddying waters.
Critics often argue that Trump uses litigation as a blunt
weapon, a way of flexing power rather than seeking justice,
while supporters see it as part of his “fighter persona”
showing that he will not be “bullied or messed with.” Either
way, Trump has woven lawsuits into the fabric of his public
identity and political figure.
In the end, Donald Trump’s history of suing away his problems
says as much about his worldview as any political speech he
could give: In Trump's universe, the courtroom is just another
stage for him, and a lawsuit is just another performance.
References
Aizin, R. (2025, March 25). Why are Rosie O’Donnell and
Donald Trump feuding? All about their 20-year drama – and
why it drove her out of the country. PEOPLE.
[Link]
feud-11702390
DONALD J. trump v. TIMOTHY L. o’brien. (n.d.). Justia Law.
Retrieved September 3, 2025, from
[Link]
published/2008/[Link]
USA TODAY Network: Dive into Donald Trump’s thousands
of lawsuits. (n.d.). USA Today. Retrieved September 3, 2025,
from [Link]
lawsuits/
Like 0 Post
0 Comments
The Progressive Revival, Choose
Change or Irrelevance
8/31/2025 0 Comments
By: Julian Torres
The current state of the Democratic Party can only be
described in a few words: ineffective, inept, and useless.
Every time it has an opportunity to rejuvenate itself, it
chooses instead to remain in the same feckless state it’s been
in since that now-infamous debate last July. Sensible
Americans are left disillusioned with a party led by geriatric
Clintonites who’ve overstayed their term, lost touch with
everyday people, and repeatedly fail to stand up to a rising
fascist regime.
One of the clearest examples of this dysfunction came last
December, during the party’s infighting over a ranking
position on the House Oversight Committee. On one side
were the old-guard moderates, backing 74-year-old, cancer-
stricken Gerry Connolly. On the other hand were the younger
progressives—or the “squad”—pushing Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez. Unsurprisingly, House leadership, influenced by
Nancy Pelosi, backed Connolly, who got the position... and
died five months later.
To be fair, both parties have an aging leadership problem. In
both cases, people who have held office longer than many
voters have been alive. But with the Republican Party, this is
somewhat expected—it’s a party built on conservatism and
tradition. Its leadership rarely changes unless a
transformative figure like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan,
or, more recently, Donald Trump comes along.
Say what you will about Trump—his rise fundamentally
changed Republican leadership. The GOP adapted to a new
era of right-wing populism, where leaders were no longer tied
strictly to the traditional party values but aligned more
directly with the executive branch. That shift worked. Trump
redirected public attention away from the unpopular party
establishment and onto Donald Trump himself, shielding what
the GOP really is: an organization that serves larger
organizations, a money-making machine that earns these big
businesses millions off the backs of the American people,
while presenting himself as a plain-speaking outsider who
“tells it like it is.” That populist rhetoric—fueled by grievances
and enemy-driven politics, casting the blame on immigrants,
welfare queens, and government waste—energized people
and gave them something to rally behind.
This is exactly why the Democratic Party needs structural
change. To regain public trust, it must embrace left-wing
populism to counter this age of Trumpism and elevate
genuine progressive voices. I keep hearing Democrats say the
party needs younger leaders—and while that’s true, age alone
isn’t the core issue. Take Hakeem Jeffries, for example. He
may be 30 years younger than Nancy Pelosi, but what fresh
ideas does he bring to the table? What sets him apart
ideologically? Nothing! He’s a moderate, just like Pelosi was
when she first took the gavel. A younger face with the same
centrist values isn’t real change. You can’t expect a different
future for the party if its leadership still clings to the past.
That kind of stagnation might be acceptable in a conservative
party. But for the party of FDR? Of Huey Long? Of John F.
Kennedy? The Democratic Party should be the engine of
progress. And yet here we are—watching them choose
caution over conviction, familiarity over fight. If Democrats
are serious about delivering change, the first step is electing a
Democratic Party Chair and House Democratic Caucus
leader who can actually lead that change. New leadership
must begin by focusing on safe blue states and championing
progressive voices. They should endorse candidates like
Zohran Mamdani in New York, Omar Fateh in Minnesota, and
rally behind Graham Planter in the Maine primary.
With progressive leadership in place, the next priority should
be replacing the centrist old guard in safely blue Senate seats
—those who have served too long, accomplished too little,
and stood on the wrong side of key moral issues, such as
Israel’s ongoing campaign in Gaza.
These ten senators are prime examples:
1. Chuck Schumer
2. Ron Wyden
3. Richard Blumenthal
4. Maggie Hassan
5. John Hickenlooper
6. Mark Warner
7. Kirsten Gillibrand
8. Chris Coons
9. Michael Bennet
10. Maria Cantwell
These senators all hold relatively secure seats, have logged
years—sometimes decades—in office, and crucially, all voted
against an attempted Democratic-led arms embargo on Israel
in response to its genocidal campaign in Gaza. That vote,
supported by 27 Democrats, failed—and these ten chose
complicity over courage.
The Democratic Party must become unapologetically pro-
Palestinian and vocal in its support for humanitarian rights in
Gaza. Doing so wouldn’t just be morally sound—it would be
strategically wise. Muslim American voters, particularly in
swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin, were instrumental
in Kamala Harris’s defeat in 2024. Winning back that base
through clear, consistent advocacy could rebuild the blue wall
and lay the foundation for a more progressive national
platform. In the same spirit, stagnant Democrats like Gary
Peters and Elissa Slotkin—both from Michigan—would face
strong primary challenges. It’s time for new leadership that
aligns with the party’s future, not its fossilized past.
And if Democrats are truly serious about rooting out
corruption, they must go after one of the most corrosive
forces in American politics: AIPAC. The American Israel
Public Affairs Committee has exerted bipartisan influence for
decades, bankrolling reelection campaigns and ensuring
America's foreign policy serves Israeli interests above all else.
Dismantling this machine won't be easy—Democrats would
need control of both chambers and the presidency, and they’d
need candidates not already bought and paid for. But a bold
new leadership could make this a central cause, rallying
support and laying the groundwork to remove Israel’s undue
influence from our foreign policy.
Beyond foreign affairs, new leadership must also take
immediate aim at domestic corruption. Insider trading in
Congress remains legal in all but name. Even if an outright ban
isn’t possible without a majority, Democratic leaders should
be vocal in their opposition, rejecting personal profiteering
while in office. This is a popular, bipartisan issue that could
attract moderate and independent voters to a new
progressive cause.
The next step? Ban corporate PAC donations. While Citizens
United v. FEC may have made corporate influence a legal
right, the Democratic Party can still choose to ban corporate
PAC money within the party. That means refusing such
donations in primaries, midterms, and general elections.
Doing so would filter out remaining “corporate Democrats”
and send a clear message: the Democratic Party stands with
workers and everyday Americans, while the Republican Party
remains the home of billionaire fat cats, big banks, and
corporate greed.
If the Democratic Party wants to win— truly be the party of
progress—it’s time to act. That means taking bold positions,
standing with moral clarity through a firm pro-humanitarian
stance on Gaza, and challenging the status quo, even within
their own ranks. It means running grassroots campaigns
powered by people, not corporations, and elevating populist
candidates who genuinely fight for working-class people.
That’s how you fix a broken, stagnant political system—by
restoring integrity, vision, and accountability to one of the
world’s greatest democracies.
Sources:
[Link]
alexandria-ocasio-cortez-house-oversight-committee/
[Link]
democratic-socialist-omar-fateh-loses-key-endorsement-in-
minneapolis-mayoral-race/
[Link]
sale-democrats-gaza-
58945751c7f88c1434a4be86e11af167
[Link]
block-arms-sales-israel-over-gaza-2025-07-31/
[Link]
p-populism-europe-us-00287198
[Link]
Like 0 Post
0 Comments
Trump Meets Putin in Alaska: What
To Know
8/19/2025 0 Comments
By: Leah Matheson
On August 15, 2025, former president Donald Trump met
with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska,
for a private meeting. This meeting's goal was said to have
been about how to end the ongoing war between Russia and
Ukraine. It has been reported to have lasted over 3 hours and
occurred completely privately. All representatives from the
United States and European allies were excluded from the
discussion. Additionally, once the conversation concluded,
both leaders fled the location without issuing any public
statements, leaving zero hints about how the situation was
looking. This caused many people to grow highly curious
about how the conversation went, leading to numerous
speculations.
Background Information: Russia-Ukraine War
In February 2014, a war broke out between Russia and
Ukraine after big protests in Ukraine led to its president being
removed, who was supported by Russia. Afterwards, Russia
took control over a region that was a part of Ukraine called
Crimea. Due to these events, fighting began to take place in
Ukraine, where groups that supported Russia fought against
the Ukrainian government. These fights occurred
consecutively for exactly 8 years.
In February 2022, Russia launched a much larger and
unexpected attack on Ukraine, which led to many deaths
across the two nations. Russia launched a full-scale invasion
of Ukraine, entering the country from Belarus, Russia, and
Crimea. Vladimir Putin, Russia’s leader, claimed to have
planted the attack as a way to protect all Russian speakers
located in Ukraine, and to stop Ukraine from joining NATO.
Doing this was called a “special military operation”, which
most of the world saw as an act of aggression, leading the
people to grow angry at the events that had taken place. As
time went by, the fighting continued, and both Russia and
Ukraine were back and forth with the constant taking of
territories.
Territories Captured by Russia - 2022
Kherson City and Kherson region
Parts of Zaportizhzhia region
Mariupo
Severodonetsk
Lysychansk
Territories Recaptured by Ukraine - 2022
Kherson City and west of the Kherson region
Kharkiv region
Reasoning Why the Summit Took Place in Alaska
Alaska, also known as the Frontier State, is the closest
American state to Russia. Furthermore, Alaska was once part
of Russia's territory before it was bought by the United States
for the amount of $7.2 million in 1867. This purchase added a
historical symbol between both countries, as it has been the
location where all discussions about political differences have
taken place since Alaska was established as the 49th state. As
of today, this state can be used as a symbol of peace for the
two countries, serving as a reminder that these countries
were once able to work together and come to a conflict-free
agreement.
While Trump described the meeting as “extremely
productive”, numerous individuals worldwide have shared
divided opinions regarding the situation. Some believe that
this was a step towards the beginning of world peace, others
argued that the discussion benefited Putin more than Trump,
and that this led to no significant progress for the United
States at all. Although the results of the meeting were not as
clear as many may have hoped, the meeting's goal was said to
put an end to a long and ongoing war, yet it also brought out
serious speculations. Was this a genuine effort to put the war
to an end? Or was this a tactical move for the campaign? Or
maybe even a warning for future enemies?
Sources:
[Link]
[Link]
purchase
[Link]
briefings/cbp-9847/
[Link]
Like 0 Post
0 Comments
The Definition of Insanity: Trump’s
Economy
8/15/2025 0 Comments
By: Isabella Musolino
By the facts.
Trump won the presidency in 2025 under his infamous
economic platform: low taxes and high tariffs. However, this
platform is not new. In fact, it is an almost identical platform
under which he ran and won in 2016; therefore, we have the
knowledge about how it worked and if he fulfilled his goals.
After all, insanity is doing something over and over again and
expecting a different result; so, what was the result last time?
Employment:
Trump’s main goal for his economic plans is to create jobs for
American workers, boosting American-made industries.
However, the facts point to an entirely different outcome last
time he tried this. The tariffs placed on countries, especially
China, resulted in increased costs for American producers,
requiring a decrease in output and, therefore, unemployment.
A PhD from Oxford, Benjamin Kett, found that import tariffs
on China decreased domestic job demand; what was more
devastating to job demand, however, was the retaliatory
tariffs imposed by China on U.S. exports. Kett found that
a one standard deviation increase in export tariff exposure
led to a 7.3 percent decrease in hiring, with a larger effect on
low-skill job postings. His calculations indicate an overall loss
of 0.6% of job postings in 2018 in total due to the trade war,
with no evidence of any increase in job postings as a result of
the tariffs. Other authors find a negative effect on
manufacturing unemployment. Also, while there was a small
positive effect on earnings in regions with reduced foreign
competition, the overall effect of the tariff was negative
because of the overpowering effect of the increased price of
inputs, increasing the cost of the overall production.
Price:
Another goal of Trump’s tariffs was to lower prices for
American consumers. However, a consensus among
researchers is that the American consumers paid the price of
the tariffs, not the foreign countries, as Trump claimed.
According to Amiti, Redding, and Weinstein in the Journal of
Economic Perspectives, by December of 2018, US consumers
and firms that import foreign goods paid an additional $3.2
billion per month, and deadweight loss- untapped production
capability due to inefficiency- totaled $1.4 billion. They also
found large increases in domestic consumer prices of 10-30%,
proportional to the magnitude of the tariff. Much of the
literature analyzing prior tariffs found an incomplete tariff
pass-through rate, meaning that the total cost of the tariffs
was not reflected in the price consumers pay for the good.
However, with Trump’s tariffs, researchers found a pass-
through rate of 100%, indicating that American consumers
paid 100% of the cost of the tariffs. Therefore, not only did
Trump not achieve his goal of lowering prices for American
consumers with his 2018 tariffs, but he also increased the
cost of living for the most vulnerable populations.
GDP:
GDP, or gross domestic product, is the measure of all of the
goods or services sold within a country in one year and is
found by adding a country’s consumption spending,
government spending, investment spending, and net exports
(exports minus imports). It is a metric by which countries
gauge economic strength, so an indication of positive
economic results from the tariffs would be an increase in
GDP. However, this was not the case. The tariffs increased the
world price, adding the cost of the tariff, reducing
specialization, and creating inefficiency. Instead of purchasing
the goods from the producer with the least cost, the tariffs
created inefficiency by forcing firms that produced at a much
higher cost to produce, raising prices for American
consumers. This creates deadweight loss, or unused
production potential, in the U.S. economy. Because less
production is occurring due to inefficient specialization, U.S.
GDP falls. The economics department of Gadjah Mada
University released findings of expected decline in both
China’s and America’s GDP because of the trade war, using a
GTAP model that depicts demand for domestic and foreign-
produced goods, international transport cost, global
investment allocation, regional household demand, and
welfare compensation. Additionally, retaliatory tariffs
imposed by China reduced U.S. exports, leading to a drop in
exports more significant than the reduction in imports,
decreasing net exports and, therefore, GDP. If the tariffs had
continued at the intensity they were in 2018, economists
predicted a recession would not have been far from the
horizon.
The case of Trump’s 2018 tariffs demonstrates the necessity
to truly understand not only the economic policies of a
candidate but their effects. More often than not, history
repeats itself, and Trump’s same economic plan was proposed
again, despite the devastating effects of it previously, seeking
the same result, and that is exactly what we are seeing. We
see it in the rise of prices in our everyday goods; we see it in
the reduced foreign investment into the U.S. because it is
seen as unstable and volatile for business; we see it in the
strain of our foreign relations as a result of these devastating
economic policies. It’s time to not only open our eyes to the
past but also encourage others to do the same, because the
facts don’t lie.
Works Cited
Amiti, M., Redding, S. J., & Weinstein, D. E. (2019b). The
impact of the 2018 tariffs on prices and welfare. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 187–
210. [Link]
Broda, C., & Weinstein, D. E. (2006). GLOBALIZATION AND
THE GAINS FROM VARIETY. In The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, The Quarterly Journal of
Economics. [Link]
[Link]
Cyriacus Ikechukwu, M. (2024). RESPONSIVENESS OF
OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE TO MEASURES OF
WORKING CAPITAL OF CONSUMER GOODS
MANUFACTURING FIRMS IN NIGERIA. Journal of Social
Sciences & Interdisciplinary
Research. [Link]
680_RESPONSIVENESS_OF_OPERATIONAL_PERFORMAN
CE_TO_MEASURES_OF_WORKING_CAPITAL_OF_CONSUM
ER_GOODS_MANUFACTURING_FIRMS_IN_NIGERIA
Fajgelbaum, P. D., Goldberg, P. K., Kennedy, P. J., &
Khandelwal, A. K. (2019). The return to protectionism*. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(1), 1–
55. [Link]
Fajgelbaum, P., Khandelwal, A., & Maximilian Schwarz.
(2021). THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE US-CHINA TRADE
WAR (Gene Grossman, Jonathan Vogel, & Stephen Redding,
Eds.; Working Paper 29315). NATIONAL BUREAU OF
ECONOMIC
RESEARCH. [Link]
ers/w29315/[Link]
Flaaen, A., Pierce, J., & Federal Reserve Board.
(2019). Disentangling the effects of the 2018-2019 tariffs on a
globally connected U.S. manufacturing sector (No. 2019–086).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. [Link]
[Link]
Impacts of Donald Trump’s Tariff Increase against China on Global
Economy: Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Model Munich
Personal RePEc Archive. (n.d.). [Link]
[Link]/79493/
Kett, B. (2020). Essays on foreign direct investment and
international trade. ORA - Oxford University Research
Archive. [Link]
4c3d-8854-84232eb028cd
Like 0 Post
0 Comments
Protectionism Reborn: Trump’s New
Tariffs in Historical Context
8/11/2025 1 Comment
By: Alaa Mabrouki
After an anticipated release and multiple postponed dates,
President Donald Trump’s new sweeping tariffs have finally
taken effect as of midnight on August 7th, 2025. These tariffs
directly indicate that the price for imports in the United
States will significantly increase for Americans buying goods.
In his own summarization, Trump argues that these new
tariffs will enforce and even boost the rate of job protection
and American manufacturing (Clarke, 2025). However, by
lifting the curtain and opening closed doors, we can witness a
pattern of chaos we have seen once before.
Tariffs and Their Utilization
For those unfamiliar with what exactly ‘Tariffs’ are, Tariffs are
taxes that are imposed by a government based on the value in
which freight and insurance of imported products are taken
into consideration, according to the International Trade
Administration. Tariffs have played a role in United States
history, one of the most significant events being in 2018,
when the US-China trade war broke out (Colson, 2025). The
utilization of tariffs had altered into a form of a strategic tool
for achieving political ends. This was represented when the
Trump Administration began to impose tariffs on Chinese
products and goods as a justification for acknowledging
conflicts such as trade imbalances and intellectual property
theft that not just complicated the relationship between the
two largest economies in the world, but also reflected across
global supply chains (Colson, 2025).
Trump’s Tariff Procedure’s Correlation to The Great
Depression
In accordance with recent reports from NBC News, the
majority of imports entering the United States are now facing
a baseline of 10% duty (imposed taxes) while the average
tariff rates are rising to more than 17 percent (Wile, 2025). As
we take a look back into United States history circa 1929, we
can see that after consumption from new tariffs shifted in
society, the rate increased to a staggering 17.3 percent,
signaling one of the few factors that lead to The Great
Depression – one of the most drastic economic disasters in
modern history (Pells & Romer, 2024). If there is one thing
that rules one of the economy's most fundamental principles,
it is that events always occur in a pattern. If the occurrence of
a similar event were to spread, it would be worse, considering
the collective global economy is far more interconnected and
dependent on financial markets. This means that a quick
ripple effect would cause a significant widespread fire of
unemployment, social unrest, and long-term economic
instability on a greater scale than in the 1930s.
The Hidden Cost of Trump’s Tariffs: Conclusion
While President Donald Trump’s new tariffs are being pushed
and promoted as a way to protect American jobs and even
bring manufacturing to a more advanced standard, history
reminds us that with protectionism comes profound
consequences. In the United States, we have witnessed
similar occurrences before, especially during the 1930s. They
played an extremely significant role in triggering one of the
worst economic crises in history. While the idea of
strengthening our economy through increasing import taxes
may sound appealing, digging deeper beneath the surface can
show a risk of repeating past mistakes. Learning from history
isn’t just about looking back, but also knowing when not to
repeat it.
Sources:
Clarke, J. (2025, June 4). What are tariffs and why is Trump
using them? BBC.
[Link]
International Trade Administration. (n.d.). Import Tariffs &
Fees Overview and Resources. [Link].
[Link]
resources
Pells, R., & Romer, C. (2024). Great Depression. In Britannica.
[Link]
State of U.S. Tariffs: August 1, 2025. (2025). The Budget Lab
at Yale. [Link]
august-1-2025
Wile, R. (2025, August 7). New tariffs snap into effect, raising
import taxes to highest level since Great Depression. NBC
News. [Link]
news/trump-tariffs-latest-round-takes-effect-thursday-
august-7-2025-rcna223461
Zahn, M. (2025, August 7). Trump’s sweeping new tariffs take
effect. ABC News. [Link]
sweeping-new-tariffs-set-effect/story?id=124410014
Like 0 Post
1 Comment
North Carolina Republicans Fall Prey
to Founding Founders’ Warnings
8/6/2025 1 Comment
P OW E R E D BY
