Why Trump creates 'emergencies' and sends taxpayers the bill

12h

U.S. President Donald Trump holds a model of an arch monument during a ballroom dinner in the East Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

In the United States' last three presidential elections, Donald Trump had a clear advantage in rural areas. But Trump's steep new tariffs are creating a great deal of hardship for many of the farmers who voted for him, and farmers are hoping that a bailout will enable them to make ends meet.

The New York Times' Michael Grunwald, in an op-ed published on October 21, points to the difficulties farmers are facing as an example of a pattern with Trump — who, according to Grunwald, creates a crisis, then proposes a solution at taxpayers' expense.

"Once again, President Trump says he's preparing an emergency bailout for struggling farmers," Grunwald explains. "And once again, it's because of an emergency he created. China has stopped buying U.S. soybeans to protest Mr. Trump's tariffs on imports. In response, Mr. Trump plans to send billions of dollars of tariff revenue to U.S. soybean farmers who no longer have buyers for their crops. At the same time, Argentina has taken advantage of Mr. Trump's tariffs to sell more of its own soybeans to China — yet Mr. Trump is planning to bail out Argentina, too."

Grunwald continues, "This may seem nonsensical, especially since Mr. Trump already shoveled at least $28 billion to farmers hurt by his first trade war in 2018. But it actually makes perfect sense. It's what happens when Mr. Trump's zero-sum philosophy of trade — which is that there are always winners and losers, and he should get to choose the winners — collides with Washington's sycophantic approach to agriculture, which ensures that farmers always win and taxpayers always lose. In the end, Mr. Trump's allies, including President Javier Milei of Argentina and the politically influential agricultural community, will get paid — and you will pay. I didn't say it was good. I just said it makes sense."

Trump's view of economics, Grunwald notes, is outlined in his 1987 book "The Art of the Deal."

"The most important thing to know about the former real estate developer and casino operator in the White House is that he doesn't believe in mutually beneficial transactions," the Times journalist observes. "The central theme of his book, 'The Art of the Deal,' is that every deal has a winner and a sucker. On trade, Mr. Trump sees America as a perennial sucker, and he vows to make it win so much that you'll get tired of winning."

Trump's protectionist approach to trade, according to Grunwald, is "lousy policy for America" but "works nicely for Mr. Trump, because it gives him enormous power to reward or punish specific companies or industries."

"We do not live in a zero-sum world," Grunwald argues. "The nice thing about free markets and free trade is that voluntary transactions between individuals or nations really can make both sides better off. Or we can keep paying farmers to farm soybeans, pay them more to convert some of those soybeans into wildly inefficient fuels, pay them even more when they can't sell their soybeans because we're in a trade war with their customers — and then pay extra to bail out one of the countries replacing them in the marketplace. That only makes sense in Mr. Trump's Washington."

Michael Grunwald's full New York Times op-ed is available at this link (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles