Rand Paul: Why I Oppose Trump's Tariffs

The Kentucky senator joins Just Asking Questions to explain why he's fighting against the president's unilateral tariffs.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Rand Paul: Why I Oppose Trump's Tariffs

HD Video Download

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) has been speaking out against President Donald Trump's tariffs. He supported a bill to repeal the emergency powers that allowed him to levy tariffs on Canada and recently co-sponsored a joint resolution with Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) to immediately terminate the national emergency that Trump declared in order to impose the worldwide tariffs. Paul joins the show today to explain his opposition to tariffs, defend free trade, warn about the dangers of expansive emergency powers, and discuss his own bill to end unilateral tariffs for good: the No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2025.

This interview was recorded on April 8, 2025.

Sources Referenced:

• List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average
• A joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared to impose duties on articles imported from Canada.
• Trump blasts "disloyal" Republicans on Truth Social
• Flexport's reverse engineering of tariff formula
• Just Asking Questions with Batya Ungar-Sargon: The Case for MAGA Leftism

Chapters:

• 00:00 Coming up…
• 00:22 Introduction
• 01:04 Can the president start a trade war alone?
• 04:25 Congress vs. emergency powers on tariffs
• 06:11 Paul reacts to Trump's market and trade comments
• 09:09 Is the middle class really hollowed out?
• 13:59 Tariffs, class warfare, and the MAGA Left
• 16:33 Debunking the Rust Belt narrative and the future of jobs
• 20:46 Paul on the Taxation Without Representation Act

• Producer: John Osterhoudt

Comments

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

If tariffs are bad, why do other countries use them?

[Spiritus Mundi]

They don't. The tariffs are uNiLaTeRaL! Duh.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

If bureaucrats are bad, why do other countries use them?

If politicians are bad, why do other countries use them?

How many other examples do you want? Or maybe we can do it the other way round.

Europeans have tariffs, China has tariffs, and those countries are bad, we don't want to do what they do.

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

…and those countries are bad..

Because of tariffs or in spite of tariffs?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Oh, doesn't matter. If Europe wants it or does it, it's wrong and the US should do the opposite.

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

So back when our government was funded by tariffs, we were a bad country?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You mean that government which was so small it could be funded be revenue tariffs, which are deliberately small enough to still collect revenue?

Or the protectionist tariffs which are deliberately high enough to reduce imports and revenue?

Or the zero tariffs Trump claims to want which produce zero revenue?

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

So some tariffs are ok?

[Zeb]

Jesus Christ, dude. Nothing in government actions is purely OK or not OK. Everything's a tradeoff. Tariffs will benefit some and harm others. TO me the questions are (in order of precedence): 1) how do we best protect individual liberty and autonomy, 2) what is the proper limit of government power, and 3) how to the benefits and harms of a particular policy balance in the long run?

[Strawmancasmic, Town Drunk and Gay for Booze]

He doesn’t know. He has no answers to anything. He just wants to bitch endlessly.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

As opposed to that comment, which was just plain bitchy?

As opposed to Jesse, who has no answers and his only ideas are non-sequitors worthy of a Harvard PhD in economics?

[Zeb]

That's silly and not an argument for anything. Most other industrialized countries also have gun bans, socialized medicine, big welfare states, etc, etc.
Why are tariffs good? What will they accomplish? Those are the questions. This rhetorical bitch fighting gets tiresome. Make the argument for the policy you support.

[Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)]

Hooray! Reason finally likes Rand Paul again. Lets hope he never falls afoul of the DC establishment any more.

[mad.casual]

[Tosses "Mission Accomplished!" banner, with "To be unfurled when Fauci hangs from a rope." post-it stuck to it, in the trash.]

[BYODB]

This has approximately a snowballs chance in hell, I'd think, since most of Congress and the Senate love not being responsible for things.

Rand is, of course, correct here but nobody is willing to scale the Presidency back. Maybe animus towards Trump will make them do the right thing for the wrong reasons, but I doubt it.

Most of them hate Rand, too, so they'd have to overcome their distaste for Trump and Paul to sign onto this.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

And Trump would have to sign it. No President will ever sign any bill revoking his power.

Heinlein was right. It needs to be easier to repeal laws than enact them.

[DesigNate]

Pretty sure if it had enough congressional support, it wouldn’t matter if Trump refused to sign it.

That’s a big if though.

[Lester75]

Republican congress is too shit scared of Trump to advocate for their constituents. They are afraid of the justice department coming up with Trumped-up charges, being primaried, and being attacked in their homes by Trump-crazies after Trump denounces them on Truth Social.

[Dillinger]

>>unilateral tariffs.

kinda just liars now ... or frontmen idk ... isn't a good look

[Stupid Government Tricks]

How to say you don't understand trade and tariffs without actually calling yourself Trump, or Jesse.

[Dillinger]

I'm interested in what your expected response is

[Strawmancasmic, Town Drunk and Gay for Booze]

Notice how SGT never really says much of anything?

[Dillinger]

I don't mind chatting with people but I got over being mocked online in like 2002

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I thought I said too much. Here, let me repeat the rant which says so much you guys like to ignore.
====================
Forget it, Jake, it's Trump Town.

He blew it. He put his incompetence on full display for the world to see, as bad as Biden seeing ghosts and reading teleprompter instructions. Slapdash doesn't begin to describe it.

* He doesn't understand trade deficits, that foreign investments ARE trade deficits, and good because they mean foreign investors think the US is a better investment than elsewhere.

* He doesn't understand trade balances, that they are meaningless between pairs of countries in a world of multiple trading partners.

* He doesn't understand tariffs, that they are taxes on consumers and generate more revenue for the government to spend and waste.

* He says tariffs should be high to protect American industry at consumers' expense, yet he also says he wants tariffs to be zero.

* He says tariffs should be high to compensate for foreigners lax labor, environmental, and safety regulations, yet he also says he wants tariffs to be zero.

* He says tariffs should be high to punish other countries for not stopping drug smuggling into the US, admitting the US hasn't been able to stop the same smuggling in 50 years.

* He says tariffs should be high to reduce trade deficits, yet the two are unrelated, and he added tariffs to countries with trade surpluses.

* He says tariffs should be high to replace the income tax, yet they'd have to be so high that they'd reduce revenue.

* He says he wants reciprocal tariffs, yet slaps tariffs on allies and friendly countries which already have zero tariffs on imports from the US.

* He negotiated the USMCA trade treaty with Mexico and Canada in 2020, yet unilaterally abrogated it and at least 14 other trade treaties.

* He doesn't understand "reciprocity", either what it means or that it works both ways.

* He doesn't understand trade itself as an individual transaction by voluntary parties who are both left better off, since they wouldn't trade otherwise. If he wants to limit the government to Buy America, that's the government's business. But my trades are none of the government's business. That's freedom, isn't it?

* He levied independent tariffs on 15 jurisdictions of parent countries which also got tariffs.

* He thinks Americans who buy imports from penguins need to be taxed.

* He says he wants to reduce spending, yet won't discuss Social Security, Medicare, or other mandatory spending. DOGE's few hundred billion in cuts are one-time and meaningless in the big picture.

* He doesn't understand freedom or individualism. He thinks everything people do is his business.

In other words, Trump doesn't know what he wants or expects, so whatever happens, he will declare victory, and his fanbois will say, "See, I told you so!"

He runs a real risk of beclowning himself and the GOP so thoroughly that the Democrats will take back both the House and Senate in 2026, and give Kamala the election in 2028. Remember, Trump won in 2024 by only 1.5%, against Cackling Kamala, who had never won a single primary vote in 2020 or 2024, against all the woke and DEI crap, and men beating up women in sports. That's a pathetic win.

By the way, if the Democrats take back Congress in 2026, that almost guarantees a third and successful impeachment over those 15 broken trade treaties, if nothing else. Could JD Vance be man enough to take that opportunity to distance himself from Trump and rescue the 2028 elections? I doubt it; he sold his soul to Donald Trump, and canceling that contract prematurely looks bad.

Maybe Trump can pull something out of his hat before this fiasco embeds itself in the 2026 electorate consciousness. But he hasn't got a lot of time.

[Azathoth!!]

It's ever so amazing to see people insist that the billionaire, who dipped his toe into politics and won the presidency with the entirety of the establishment against him, who got the economy booming in that run, who got it started again after a plague was released and swept the globe, who runs hundreds of businesses, doesn't understand business.

Doesn't understand the international commerce he's been doing for decades.

Doesn't understand how the corrupt scheme.

Doesn't understand anything.

All these people insist that without ever once realizing how utterly moronic they look.

[Lester75]

Trump's business 'successes' from Wikipedia:

Although Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, hotels and casino businesses of his have declared bankruptcy[56] six times between 1991 and 2009 due to its inability to meet required payments and to re-negotiate debt with banks, owners of stock and bonds and various small businesses (unsecured creditors).[57][58] Because the businesses used Chapter 11 bankruptcy, they were allowed to operate while negotiations proceeded. Trump was quoted by Newsweek in 2011 saying, "I do play with the bankruptcy laws—they're very good for me."[59][60]

The six bankruptcies were the result of over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City and New York: Trump Taj Mahal (1991), Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino (1992), Plaza Hotel (1992), Trump Castle Hotel and Casino (1992), Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (2004), and Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009).[56][61] Trump said "I've used the laws of this country to pare debt. ... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on The Apprentice. It's not personal. It's just business."[50]

[Dillinger]

everybody laughed at Bush & The New World Order in '88 and then 37 years went by and now they want us to eat ze bugs. I can be patient enough now to witness and root hard for the attempted realignment. You're free to root for the Rulers. If it fails what have I lost?

[JFree]

Rand Paul: Why I Oppose Trump's Tariffs

You make some fucking speech? Defend the Constitution you fucking blowhard!!

[Strawmancasmic, Town Drunk and Gay for Booze]

Funny how the constitution isn’t a big deal when your democrat masters are in charge. You only bring it up when we have a decent president that actually follows it.

[Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)]

The constitution doesn't need defending because it isn't being attacked, no matter how hard the DNC lies to you chumps about it.

[TJJ2000]

True.

Now where were the Democrats when FDR and his [D]-trifecta KILLED it..........

As they have done again, and again, and again, and again????

Seems Rand Paul should be the new Democrats spokesperson if Democrats really cares even a speckle about the Constitution instead of played [WE] gangster games all day.

[sarcasmic]

Defending the Constitution is leftist.

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

ZZZZZZZ

[5.56]

"ZZZ[...]"

Sleepy right-winger, obsolete, impotent and soon to be replaced?

[Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)]

Destroying the constitution is leftist. Lying about who is doing it is Sarcasmic.

[Eeyore]

I'm not sure tarrifs will work against the EU. Time to straight up ban all appellations. Screw champagne and cognac.

Not sure they will work against China either. We should ban the export of chicken feet.
Then require all products imported from China to have a Winnie-the-Pooh logo on them.

[mad.casual]

Then require all products imported from China to have a Winnie-the-Pooh logo on them.

That would increase the cost of cocktail napkins and infringe on the right to free cocktail parties.

[Azathoth!!]

Every now and then, Rand, as much as I love him, demonstrates that he is a doctor and not a businessman.

[Thought about __ all my life]

I could never go gung-ho behind Rand Paul because of things like this: standing aloof from group support just to grandstand.
He knows he's wrong. We are headed over the cliff....federal deficit....utterly untethered spending....hundred of thousands of non-Americans on MedicAid .
Waiting for the perfect solution is like solicitng opinions about who is the very best doctor --- while you are bleeding to death.
Yeah, here he is the ideolog

[Thought about __ all my life]

All that Economics mumbo-jumbo when the real debate is over the meaning of 'bad' true, we might fail but what we are doing now ends badly for sure. And will we curtail freedom in the name of freedom.

[TJJ2000]

Unlike Leftarians at Reason...

Rand isn't against 'Trump' Tariffs.
He is against E.O. Tariffs that FDR and the [D]-trifecta UN-Constitutionally legislated.

And to watch the hypocrisy of the left against just 'Trump' Tariffs specifically just shows how [WE] gangster identify-as founded the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] are.