Op-Ed: Tariffs fail the conservative test
President Trump’s new executive order on reciprocal tariffs arrived with bravado, meant to punish unfair practices and shrink the trade deficit. Beneath its populist appeal lies a question: Are tariffs a conservative approach to economics?
The answer is no, and modern conservatism’s intellectual forefathers help explain why.
John Locke, whose writings laid the foundation for American constitutional thought, championed limited government, property rights, and the primacy of voluntary exchange. For Locke, the state exists to secure liberty, not to manipulate commerce from above. The 18th-century British statesman Edmund Burke valued prudence and tradition and warned against concentrated power. Together, they shaped a conservatism grounded in liberty, order, and restraint – principles that contrast with using tariffs as an economic weapon.
Across-the-board tariffs violate that conservative ethic, especially when imposed unilaterally by executive action. They empower government to pick economic winners and losers. They concentrate commercial decision-making in Washington instead of dispersing it through voluntary exchange. And they ignore a foundational conservative lesson: markets, not mandates, drive prosperity.
Recent developments underscore the instability of a tariff-driven trade strategy. Although President Trump signed the reciprocal tariff order on April 2, he announced a 90-day pause on new tariffs just a week later, excluding China.
Yet even that exception began to unravel when the U.S. and China reached a deal on May 12 to roll back most tariffs during the same window. Meanwhile, the U.S. struck a separate tariff agreement with Britain to lower duties on steel, cars, and beef, further illustrating the ad hoc nature of these policies.
Consumers will soon feel the effects at home.
On May 15, Walmart, citing tariff uncertainty and supply chain pressures, announced it would raise prices. Tariffs have brought volatility abroad and higher prices at home, undermining conservative principles of predictability and limited interference.
Burke saw commerce as a civilizing force – a path to cooperation. He defended trade not out of rigidity, but because it fostered negotiation, trust, and mutual benefit. President Trump has sometimes used trade as a tool of diplomacy, such as forging investment and arms agreements with Saudi Arabia. But such moments of strategic leverage are the exception, not the rule.
Burke wrote, “The moment you abate anything from the full rights of men, each to govern himself, you erect a despotism.” That logic applies as much to economic liberty as it does to political liberty.
Recent polling from Carolina Journal shows how this skepticism resonates with voters. In a May 2025 statewide survey, only 10% of North Carolinians said imposing tariffs would be the most effective way to grow manufacturing jobs. Instead, they favored lowering taxes (23.2%) and cutting government red tape (24.5%). While nearly half said tariffs are necessary to protect industries, nearly as many (45%) believe they raise prices or are merely symbolic. In short, voters lean toward conservative economic fundamentals: competitive markets and limited government, not trade manipulation.
Conservatives often speak of limited government, but tariffs expand government authority. They invite bureaucratic discretion, international retaliation, and domestic rent-seeking. They distort price signals and breed cronyism. That is why conservative economists from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman warned against them. And it’s why the constitutional framers put trade policy under Congress’ authority, and not the executive branch.
To be sure, conservatives are not free-market absolutists. Burke believed in prudence over purity. Prudence allows, and sometimes demands, scrutiny of bad actors like China, whose subsidies, IP theft, and aggression disrupt markets and stability.
But bad actors on the world stage don’t require the U.S. to treat every nation equally. A thoughtful trade policy should punish predatory behavior and strengthen ties with free nations that share our interests. Blanket tariffs raise tensions and erode alliances that pressure rogue regimes. Prudence means resisting the temptations of populist theatrics. It means asking whether the benefits of intervention outweigh the cost to institutions, allies, and constitutional norms.
In this case, they don’t.
If modern conservatism stands for anything, it should stand for ordered liberty over economic command and persuasion over coercion. Tariffs may score points but fail the conservative test of humility and long-term trust in the citizen.
Conservatives should recover Locke and Burke’s insight: real strength lies not in sweeping authority but principled restraint.
