- Details
-
Tuesday, 03 March 2026
-
Written by John Hood
When the U.S. Supreme Court released its long-awaited ruling in the “emergency tariff” case, President Donald Trump called the decision “ridiculous,” its reasoning “stupid,” and the justices who wrote or supported it “fools,” “lapdogs,” and the agents of nefarious foreign powers.
At the same time, Trump and other defenders of his protectionist policies insisted that the 6-3 decision was “irrelevant” and that “all of those tariffs remain,” because the administration has or will soon cite other statutory authority to reapply them.
These two sets of claims are, at best, in tension. The president does, indeed, possess some legal authority to impose taxes on imported goods, authority specifically assigned to the executive branch to address national security or concerns about illegal trade practices. But these tariff powers are more cumbersome to exercise and limited in scope than the “Liberation Day” taxes he initially sought to impose.
And the latest 15% tax on most imports Trump is now seeking to apply to replace much of the revenue loss from the Supreme Court decision, relies on a 1974 law that gives a president the power to impose tariffs for up to 150 days to address “balance-of-payments deficits.” But the United States does not have a balance-of-payment deficit. We haven’t had such a deficit in more than 50 years, ever since we let the value of the dollar float on international currency markets rather than fixing the exchange rate to gold or some other standard.
A balance-of-payments deficit isn’t equivalent to a trade deficit. The latter exists when Americans buy more goods and services produced in other countries than Americans sell to consumers in other countries. Under floating exchange rates, the flipside of a trade deficit — formally called a current-account deficit — is almost always going to be a capital-account surplus. That is, virtually to the dollar, every $100 billion in trade deficit is offset by a net inflow of $100 billion in investment.
That’s why, contrary to popular belief, a trade deficit isn’t a signal of economic weakness. If you’re a net importer of capital investment, you will also be a net importer of goods and services. That’s what a balance of payments looks like under a system of floating exchange rates. Only when exchange rates are fixed can there be the kind of currency crisis for which the 1974 Trade Act was enacted (unnecessarily, as it turned out).
In short, Trump’s new global tariff is also illegal. When it is legally challenged, it will go poof. Ideally, the federal courts will intervene to block it.
For long-suffering North Carolina households — and for businesses that sell foreign-made goods or use them as components to produce their own goods and services — such legal relief would be most welcome. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the United States taxed imports at an average rate of about 16% before the Supreme Court ruling, generating about $2.62 trillion over the next 10 years (collected mostly from Americans in the form of higher prices and other costs). After the ruling, the average tariff rate should have dropped to 9.1%. Over time, that would have saved North Carolinians alone many billions of dollars a year.
Lower import taxes would serve our interests in other ways, as well. In a recent report published by the John Locke Foundation, North Carolina State University economist Jeffrey Dorfman observed that foreign governments often respond to American tariffs by levying their own taxes or restrictions on American imports — including pork, poultry, lumber, tobacco, cotton, sweet potatoes, and other goods produced for export by North Carolina farmers and agribusinesses. Using scenarios based on historical examples, he estimated that retaliation to American tariffs could eliminate 8,000 North Carolina jobs and impose $1.9 billion in direct and indirect costs on the state’s economy.
“The easiest way to avoid the risks from countries retaliating against the U.S. for placing restrictions on international trade,” Dorfman wrote, “is not to put restrictions on international trade in the first place.”
Editor’s Note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).
- Details
-
Tuesday, 24 February 2026
-
Written by Laura Rodrigues Mussler
In recent weeks, many people have asked the same question: Why aren’t there dozens of candidate forums before the primaries like there were last year? Why don’t voters have multiple opportunities to hear from every candidate before Primary Election Day?
It’s a reasonable question, especially for voters who are engaged and trying to make informed decisions. The answer has less to do with access and more to do with how different elections are structured.
During municipal elections, forums seem to be everywhere. Community groups host them, civic organizations organize them, and candidates often appear together repeatedly. This happens because municipal elections are nonpartisan. All candidates run in the same pool, and the top two advance. That structure naturally encourages broad, community-wide forums where everyone participates together.
Primary elections in even-numbered years work very differently. In these elections, political parties are selecting their own nominees. Parties take responsibility for educating their members, hosting candidate events, and creating opportunities for voters within the party to meet and hear from those seeking the nomination. That difference alone explains why the pre-primary season feels quieter and why many conversations occur within party organizations rather than in public, community-wide settings.
This is where party affiliation becomes relevant.
Political parties are membership-based organizations. They communicate with the people they know how to reach — members, supporters, volunteers, and those who have chosen to stay connected. That is how invitations are sent and how information moves.
When a party hosts a meet and greet, a candidate night, or a casual event where voters can ask questions directly, invitations typically go to existing contacts. This is not because others are unwelcome, but because outreach requires time, people, and resources. Local parties do not have a master list of independent or unaffiliated voters with neatly organized contact information. Nor do they have unlimited funds or volunteers to personally reach every unaffiliated voter in the county. If they did, local politics would look very different — and probably involve a lot more coffee.
Party affiliation simply puts you on the radar. You receive the email. You hear about the event. You know when candidates are coming to town and where to find them. That is one of the practical benefits of party affiliation: you are more connected.
For independent or unaffiliated voters, this can feel frustrating, especially for those who are engaged and eager to learn about candidates before voting. The good news is that independents are not shut out. They are welcome — often very welcome. The difference is that the responsibility shifts slightly.
Any voter can contact local party organizations to ask about upcoming events, candidate appearances, or opportunities to learn more. Most parties are happy to share information, and a little personal outreach goes a long way.
Think of it like joining a gym. Members receive emails about class schedules, updates, and special events. Non-members can still use the equipment, but they may have to ask a few questions to find what they need. No one is hiding the treadmill.
The same idea applies to party members. Being registered with a party does not guarantee every invitation or update. Like most community organizations, parties stay connected with those who participate, attend events, and stay engaged. Being on a list only matters if there is involvement behind it.
Access grows with participation.
Regardless of registration status, staying informed usually requires taking an active role — asking questions, showing up when possible, and connecting with organizations that align with your values. These groups are communities, run by volunteers but powered by participation.
This is not about telling voters which party to choose. Independence is a valid and thoughtful choice for many people. Party affiliation is, too. It is simply about understanding the trade-offs. Party affiliation offers built-in communication and easier access during partisan election cycles. Independence offers flexibility and distance from party labels but often requires more individual effort to stay connected.
Local democracy works best when people feel welcome and participate in ways that fit their lives. At the end of the day, we share the same community. We all benefit from informed voters, and we all play a role in making civic participation accessible, welcoming, and productive.
Find the path that aligns with your beliefs. Stay curious. Engage where you can. In the end, informed voters are created through participation — not just by checking a box on a registration form.
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Many families in Cumberland County believe the time has come to decide whether faith is simply professed or actively lived out. For them, the issue at hand is not only political but spiritual, moral, and deeply personal. It centers on protecting children, empowering parents, and standing for truth when systems fall short.