The press secretary believes tariffs are a tax cut for the American people. Read that again.
Some things just have to be seen and heard to be believed. Watch the above video.
Yes.
Yes, indeed.
Oh boy.
For years there have been questions about Donald Trump’s grasp of tariffs: He has himself suggested they’re taxes on the exporters. Does he actually misunderstand them, or is he simply uninterested in reality? Many have speculated that he might be speaking in shorthand, or oversimplifying for a political audience.
Now along comes Karoline Leavitt, his youthful press secretary, with statements so brazenly incorrect that they leave no doubt: the administration does not understand tariffs. In a heated exchange with Associated Press reporter Josh Boak, she claimed that Trump’s tariffs are “not a tax hike” but rather “a tax cut for the American people.”
To state what is almost certainly obvious to readers of this publication, tariffs are taxes on imported goods. They are paid by American importers, which often pass those costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices. If goods coming from Canada are hit with a 25% tariff, the importer then generally charges the US consumer more to maintain profitability. That extra money goes straight to the government.
Now, if the imports are competing with similar domestic products, then the consumer might migrate to those, and then the effect is to protect US industry for a time. But that is not the case with many and probably most of the imports in the current pointless tariff war – which has been presented by some in the administration, however absurdly, as pressure on Mexico and Canada to do more to halt the fentanyl trade. Either way the idea that tariffs function as a tax cut defies basic economics and elementary logic. Either the speaker is an idiot – or the speaker assumes the listeners are idiots.
When Boak pressed Leavitt on why Trump was prioritizing tariffs over traditional tax cuts, her response was a masterclass in economic illiteracy. “Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries that have been ripping us off,” she said. “Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people.” This type of nonsense should prompt immediate, bipartisan disbelief. But Leavitt doubled down: “As you know, the president is a staunch advocate of tax cuts. He campaigned on no taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime, no taxes on social security benefits.”
What makes Leavitt’s statements even more remarkable is the hostility with which she defended them. “Have you ever paid a tariff, because I have,” the reporter insisted. “They don’t get charged on foreign companies, they get charged on the importers.” Leavitt snapped back: “I think it’s insulting you’re trying to test my knowledge of economics and the decisions this president has made.” Insulting? A press secretary’s job is literally to explain and defend policy decisions. For extra credit, as Trump is at war with the AP, she threw her boss a bone: “I now regret giving a question to the Associated Press.”
Trump’s hostility toward critical and free press is well documented, but his latest actions signal an even more disturbing turn. In February, he revoked the Associated Press’s access to the Oval Office and Air Force One after the outlet refused to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” Leavitt then announced that the administration will take direct control of the White House press pool, handpicking which outlets get access. The clear goal is to shield the administration from tough questioning while amplifying favorable coverage from right-wing media. If that strategy succeeds, then economic absurdities like Leavitt’s tariff comments will go unchallenged, feeding the public a steady diet of misinformation.
In Trump’s first term, his trade war with China didn’t create a fairer playing field—it led to retaliatory tariffs that crushed American farmers, raised costs for manufacturers, and forced companies to reconfigure supply chains in expensive and inefficient ways. The resulting economic drag prompted Trump to distribute billions in emergency subsidies to affected industries—an implicit admission that tariffs had harmed Americans, not foreign adversaries.
The consequences of this latest round of tariff talk have been immediate. The market, already on edge, has suffered a major shock, wiping out all gains since November. Investors have reacted with panic, recognizing that another Trump-led trade war could have devastating economic consequences. Inflation, which had been stabilizing, is now once again creeping upward as the specter of higher import costs looms. This was entirely predictable. When you raise the cost of doing business, those costs don’t disappear—they get passed down the chain, shocking markets.
There was a time when bad economic ideas had consequences. Politicians who failed to grasp basic policy concepts would pay a price, either through public embarrassment or at the ballot box. But Trumpism has changed the calculus. In this new reality, expertise is dismissed, criticism is framed as personal insult, and political loyalty is prioritized over competence. Leavitt’s statements are a reflection of that shift. They are not just wrong; they are defiantly wrong. And if this is how the administration is handling a fundamental issue like tariffs, it raises urgent questions about its ability to manage an economy already teetering under the weight of uncertainty.
There is no reasoning with illiteracy this profound. The administration is not engaging in a debate over tariffs — it is rejecting basic facts. And with the market tanking and inflation rising, Americans are paying the price for the absurd proposition, supported by just about half the voters, that these people should be in power.
