President Donald Trump argues that his sweeping tariffs have produced extraordinary economic growth, low inflation, booming investment, and enhanced national security, proving critics wrong. Assistance from ChatGPT AI.
Trump, Donald J. “Donald J. Trump: My Tariffs Have Brought America Back.” The Wall Street Journal, 30 Jan. 2026, www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-j-trump-my-tariffs-have-brought-america-back-2248391b. Unlocked gift link here.
Basic information
- Author: Donald J. Trump
- Publication: The Wall Street Journal (Opinion section)
- Genre: Political opinion / advocacy essay
Conflicts of interest:
The author is the sitting president writing about the success of his own policies. This is a direct and substantial conflict of interest. The piece should be read as a political argument rather than an independent analysis.
About the publication:
The Wall Street Journal is a highly influential U.S. newspaper with a strong reputation for business and financial reporting. Its Opinion section, however, is explicitly ideological and does not reflect the views or fact-checking standards of its news division. Publishing an op-ed does not imply endorsement by the paper.
Theme / thesis
The central thesis is clear and repeated throughout:
Trump’s tariffs are the primary cause of a dramatic U.S. economic revival, disproving economists’ warnings that tariffs cause inflation, slow growth, and harm consumers.
He further extends the claim to argue that tariffs:
- Reduce budget and trade deficits
- Drive massive foreign investment into the U.S.
- Strengthen national security
- Even contribute to global peace and conflict resolution
Main arguments
- Predictions of economic harm were wrong
Trump says experts predicted recession, inflation, and market crashes, none of which occurred. -
Strong macroeconomic outcomes
- High GDP growth (4–5% range)
- Low core inflation (~1.4%)
- Rising real wages
- Record stock market highs
-
Tariffs did not raise consumer prices
He argues tariffs are not a “tax on Americans” because foreign producers absorbed most of the cost, citing a Harvard Business School study. -
Improved trade and fiscal balances
- Large reduction in the trade deficit
- Significant reduction in the federal budget deficit
- Increased exports and domestic manufacturing (steel, factories)
-
Massive investment and reshoring
Claims of $18 trillion in investment commitments, particularly in semiconductors, autos, pharmaceuticals, and energy. -
Geopolitical and security benefits
Tariffs allegedly helped secure trade deals, energy agreements, military sales, and even contributed to resolving international conflicts.
Evidence provided
- Selective statistics (GDP growth rates, inflation figures, deficit reductions)
- Named institutions (e.g., Atlanta Fed, Harvard Business School)
- Lists of companies and countries investing in or trading with the U.S.
- Before-and-after comparisons between the Biden and Trump administrations
Notably:
- No direct citations, links, or methodology are provided.
- Numbers are presented without context (time horizons, counterfactuals, or alternative explanations).
Is the article successful in explaining its thesis?
Rhetorically: yes. Analytically: no.
- The essay is clear, forceful, and easy to understand for a general audience.
- It uses repetition, certainty, and superlatives (“never,” “unprecedented,” “everyone was wrong”) to reinforce its message.
- However, it does not explain economic mechanisms carefully. Complex issues like tariff incidence, inflation dynamics, and investment flows are asserted, not demonstrated.
Key counterarguments and missing context
- Correlation vs. causation
Economic growth and falling inflation can result from many factors:
- Monetary policy by the Federal Reserve
- Post-pandemic normalization
- Global supply-chain recovery
- Fiscal contraction after prior stimulus
The article assumes tariffs are the dominant cause without proving it.
- Tariff costs are usually shared
Most mainstream economic research (including from the Fed and IMF) finds tariffs are typically paid partly by:
- Foreign exporters
- U.S. importers
-
U.S. consumers
Claiming 80% is absorbed abroad is controversial and likely case-specific, not universal.
- Investment “commitments” vs. actual spending
Announced investment totals often:
- Span many years
- Include projects that might have happened anyway
-
Are revised or canceled later
Treating them as immediate economic impact is misleading.
-
Trade deficits are not inherently bad
Economists generally view trade deficits as a reflection of capital flows and consumer demand, not a scoreboard of national success. -
Extraordinary claims lack extraordinary evidence
Assertions that tariffs helped end wars or single-handedly made the U.S. the “AI superpower” are unsupported.
Overall assessment: Correct or wrong?
-
Partially correct:
- The U.S. economy can grow even with higher tariffs.
- Some foreign producers may absorb tariff costs.
- Tariffs can influence investment decisions at the margin.
- Largely overstated and misleading:
- The article overclaims causation.
- It ignores trade-offs and long-term risks (retaliation, efficiency losses, higher costs).
- It presents contested economic interpretations as settled fact.
Bottom line:
This is a political advocacy piece, not a balanced economic analysis. It is effective persuasion, but it should not be treated as an objective account of how tariffs work or why recent economic outcomes occurred.
Trump, Donald J. “Donald J. Trump: My Tariffs Have Brought America Back.” The Wall Street Journal, 30 Jan. 2026, www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-j-trump-my-tariffs-have-brought-america-back-2248391b.