In partnership with

On February 1st, the Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on our allies, Mexico and Canada.

The reason?

Allegedly, fentanyl trafficking.

The administration claims that Mexico and Canada aren’t doing enough to prevent the trafficking of fentanyl across their borders with the United States, and claimed that the tariffs were a tool to obtain cooperation from our neighbors on border security.

But in the last few days, each new statement from Trump and his advisors has seemingly given a new reason for the tariffs:

• Trump seems to believe that tariffs are actually good economic policy (a belief which almost every economist agrees is untrue)

• His advisors want to shift away from the income tax and toward tariffs as the main revenue generator for the government

• Trump seems to think that the United States is subsidizing Canada, and that this would simply correct trade imbalances while maintaining existing import/export levels

• He also somehow believes that Canada should become the 51st State, and this would help to induce their capitulation

So, to clarify the position of the administration: the tariffs are good policy, but they’re also just meant to threaten Mexico and Canada into cooperating on the border, but they’re also meant to weaken Canada as a country.

Does that make sense to you? No?

Well, it doesn’t matter. After a weekend of chaos and the stock market plummeting on Monday, Trump stuck a deal with the Mexican and Canadian governments: they would do more to secure their borders, and the tariffs would be put on hold. Victory, right?

Well…

While Mexico agreed to reinforce its border with 10,000 members of its National Guard, the impact will likely be negligible: under Biden, the Mexican government regularly deployed 20,000-30,000 members of its military to the border. And according to NBC: “It is currently unclear if Mexico’s newly promised National Guard deployment would even increase the net number of currently deployed troops focusing on migration and drug trafficking in Mexico, or if redeployments would make them more effective in any way.” What’s more, the Trump administration also agreed to dedicate more resources to stopping the flow of arms from America to Mexico.

And while Trump claims he secured over a billion-dollar investment from Canada to secure its border, that plan was announced in December, before Trump even took office.

So to distill this all down to a few bullet points:

• Trump slaps tariffs on Mexico and Canada

• The stock market plummets

• Mexico and Canada agree to continue doing what they were already doing

• Trump pauses tariffs while committing more resources toward Mexico and claims victory

Or, in an image:

This is the Trump Policy Scam Cycle (or TPSC).

The TPSC and How it Works

Simply put, the reason for these tariffs and similar baffling proposals is that Trump prefers to obtain compliance by threats and leverage, and to be seen doing it this way. 

In the minds of Trump and his followers, this makes him a strong leader in the same vein as monarchs of old. But in reality, what Trump is effectively doing is forcing America to hold a gun to its own head and dare the other side to let us pull the trigger.

In the first Trump term, this seemed to work more than most expected (myself included). But in his second term, it seems that world leaders and political advisers have Trump figured out:

What matters to Trump is not tangible results, but whether he can claim that he made another leader or government bend to his will. This is the ultimate goal of the wannabe monarch: not to improve the lives of his people, but to project power to his subjects and foreign leaders. To this end, Trump follows a clear-cut process:

1. Introduce an insane proposal

2. Portray any backlash as “fake news” from political opposition

3. Eventually come up with a somewhat believable justification for his actions

4. Allow the opposition to come up with a proposal that costs them nearly nothing and allows him to declare victory

5. Repeat with a new target

The tariffs are an example of this happening in real time. But we can use this framework to make an educated guess about how Trump’s actions will play out in the future. Let’s use his Elon Musk-backed takeover of USAID as an example.

The Daily Newsletter for Intellectually Curious Readers

If you're frustrated by one-sided reporting, our 5-minute newsletter is the missing piece. We sift through 100+ sources to bring you comprehensive, unbiased news—free from political agendas. Stay informed with factual coverage on the topics that matter.

Join for free today!

USAID and executive overreach

On his first day in office, Trump ordered a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid. After significant backlash, he created some short-term exemptions for wildly effective and popular programs like PEPFAR. But those small carve-outs didn’t stop his attack on all U.S. foreign aid programs.

For the past two weeks, Trump and Elon Musk have taken major steps to “dismantle” the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Agency headquarters and campuses have been shuttered. Members of Congress were denied entry to the premises. The website was taken down and replaced with a notice statin

In addition to being an expensive, undignified operation that serves to damage trust in the United States across the world and drive more countries into the arms of China, this is plainly unconstitutional. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service wrote it clear as day:

When Congress establishes an agency, only Congress can eliminate that agency. What we’re seeing from Trump and Musk here is the stuff of third world banana republics, not the United States of America. And while I have a low opinion of Trump himself, I’m certain he has some capable people in his sphere who know that this cannot be a lasting move without Congressional approval. The courts will almost certainly shut some of these efforts down.

So what is the plan here?

We’re somewhere between steps 2 and 3 in the process. The insane idea has been implemented. The backlash is happening. And now, Secretary of State (and somehow acting Administrator of USAID) Marco Rubio has said the following:

This is a massive step back from Elon Musk claiming that the agency is “a criminal organization that needs to die”.

Despite his recent Trumpist language around the agency, Rubio has long been a massive supporter of USAID. Some quotes from his tenure in Congress include:

• “Foreign Aid is not charity. We must make sure it is well spent, but it is less than 1% of budget & critical to our national security.”

• “We don’t have to give foreign aid. We do so because it furthers our national interest. That’s why we give foreign aid. Now obviously there’s a component to foreign aid that’s humanitarian in scope, and that’s important too.”

• “Foreign aid is a very cost-effective way, not only to export our values and our example, but to advance our security and our economic interests.”

• “Foreign aid is less than 1% of our budget. But foreign aid can make a difference when properly used. And if you ever have a chance, travel to the African continent and you will meet people who are alive today because the American taxpayer funded antiviral HIV medications that kept them alive. It will not be easy to radicalize people who are alive because the American taxpayer saved their lives and the lives of their children.”

• “Anybody who tells you that we can slash foreign aid and that will bring us to balance is lying to you.”

As a member of his administration, Rubio has to emulate Trump to avoid being canned. But it seems likely to me when viewed as a part of the TPSC that Rubio, a long-time USAID supporter, is searching for a way to give Trump a win through a “reformed USAID.”

This probably looks like a USAID that does less, but still exists and performs its core functions. Likely a USAID that does slightly less humanitarian work and slightly more political interventionism. A USAID that helps less and evangelizes America more—a USAID that is, simply put, less convincing and less effective.

But again, it’s not about results for Trump. It’s about being seen browbeating others into submission.

He will probably get his way, to the detriment of American interests and global health. He will likely be able to staff top roles at his “reformed USAID” with more cronies and lackeys, and the agency’s overall productivity will decrease. And while many USAID workers will stay in their positions in the long run, their credibility will be undermined, their relationships damaged, and trust in America reduced.

But at least the king looks strong.