- We The 66
- Posts
- 🌊 EXCLUSIVE: An Interview with Trump’s Tariff Mastermind
🌊 EXCLUSIVE: An Interview with Trump’s Tariff Mastermind
Oren Cass explains why the US right has moved toward tariffs
Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
Once a week over the next month, we are giving away a free year of Roca Premium. To be eligible, you have to be a subscriber or signed up for a free trial. If you already subscribe, you’re automatically entered. If not, enter today by starting a free trial!
By Max Frost
We begin each week wondering if it’ll be less interesting than the last. This week’s news cycle shook us awake and screamed at us: “NO!”
The week begins with the backlash surrounding Trump and Zelensky’s Oval Office meeting – a meeting decried as “shameful” by Ukraine’s supporters and “brilliant” by its skeptics. To Europe, the meeting was something else entirely: Scary.
European leaders rush to London where they gather to discuss how to aid Ukraine and make their militaries strong. European defense contractors’ eyes light up: Their stocks soar, sending European markets to record highs.
On Monday, as the Europeans scramble, Trump makes a shock announcement: He cuts off all military aid to Ukraine. His officials say this is to force Zelensky to the negotiating table. If Zelensky shows a willingness to negotiate, they suggest, Trump may send more guns.
On Tuesday, Trump secures a big win: The Chinese company that operates part of the Panama Canal sells its port rights to BlackRock. This comes after Trump repeatedly claimed that he could no longer tolerate Chinese “control” of the canal and after Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Panama to reduce Chinese influence, or else. They seem to have gotten their way.
At night, Trump delivers the longest joint address in recorded Congressional history. Ever the showman, he makes a 13-year-old brain cancer survivor an honorary Secret Service agent and announces a young man’s acceptance to West Point in front of millions of viewers. Republicans stand and cheer; Democrats stay seated and refuse to clap. Pundits debate whether this made the Democrats look strong or weak. Initial polling suggests viewers like the speech.
The news keeps coming: A leaked executive order shows that Trump plans to shut down the Education Department. The administration cuts off intelligence sharing to Ukraine. Florida opens a criminal investigation into the Tate brothers. A measles outbreak grows in Texas.
But arguably the biggest story this week was one word: Tariffs.
A month after delaying 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, Trump enacts them. Markets dive; economists fret. Then Trump officials suggest the tariffs may not stay. Markets climb; economists relax. Trump meets with auto CEOs and agrees to suspend tariffs on cars for a month. A day later he suspends tariffs altogether.
“Tariff.”
Trump says it’s “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” Economists say it’s a surefire way to wreck your economy.
In today’s deep dive, we ask: What’s the truth?
We take a step toward answering that below. First, we examine the economics that underpin the anti-tariff argument.
Then we feature an interview with Oren Cass – an alleged mastermind of Trump’s tariff strategy.

In economics classes, they teach that free trade explains the US’ immense wealth and rapid economic growth.
According to Oren Cass, this is wrong: “The model of American development – the way we went from colonial backwater to this globe-spanning industrial colossus – was not free markets and free trade.”
The rest of this report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!

Editor’s Note
What a week. We’ll be back tomorrow with our delayed third installment of our Sierra Leone series. In the meantime, we look forward to your feedback on today’s story. Trump says he’s a tariff man. Are you? Why or why not? Let us know by replying to this email.
Also, here are our last 5 stories:

Reader Replies
Spencer from Naples, FL:
There is SO much evidence out there to support what Bhattacharya is saying, and to support that there was a calculated misinformation campaign supported by the establishment to suppress cures to what is ultimately a very treatable disease. In my hometown, doctors used hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID with a 100% recovery. Not an exaggeration. 100%. My little sister caught COVID and was nearly on her deathbed. We took her to the hospital where she received monoclonal antibodies; she made a full recovery within 24 hours. Bhattacharya is the face of a long-suppressed scientific movement that proved COVID was far less threatening and easy to treat than those in power would have had us believe. Having him in charge hopefully will help prevent another such disaster should we have another pandemic.
Alex wrote:
Is the only reason Bhattacharya was ostracized by the establishment and subsequently embraced by the Trump crowd because of his views on Covid? If this is the case, then we’ve done both him and our country a huge disservice. Based on the information presented in this article, it seems he’s pushing the health science establishment to think differently but not dangerously so, and I don’t disagree with some of the positions you’ve attributed to him here. If he’s able to work without undue influence - like being pushed to uphold some of the administration’s egregious agendas - he might bring some interesting new ideas and directions to the NIH.
John from Virginia:
Yes, people who doubt clear, established evidence are unreliable and dangerous. If they believe they alone know the truth, that the countless scientists and doctors are lying, bribed, or stupid, then they cannot be relief upon to objectively interpret policy or outcomes. Furthermore, agreement with the current administration already undermines their credibility. An administration that unilaterally halts communication from health institutes during major outbreaks of bird flu and measles does not care about promoting scientific solutions to public health. It cares aboit being powerful. Can people change their opinons, can dissenting voices be valuable? Yes, if evidence and analysis are brought in. Do I think that is the case here? Absolutely not. People are already dying for clearly preventable diseases and it’s just going to get worse.
And last, but certainly not least, Julie:
For some context, in graduate school i studied virology in a research setting. I've always had a love for science due to my inate curiosity about everything.
In my opinion, having a Covid "dissenting voice" leading the NIH is absolutely a good thing. It is clear that even if you assume that a lot of Covid was real, true, and necessary you still have to listen to the broader Healthcare community who have repeatedly pointed out many flaws in government strategies all across the world, which failed to accomplish what they set out to do.
It's a disgrace to have Healthcare and science experts blackball people who do not share their perspectives, who have examined the data and draw a different conclusion, and to discredit and publicly flog them for their differences in opinions and conclusions. The whole scientific method is based on testing hypothesis and retesting as new information becomes available or as new discoveries/capabilities become possible. What was done to this man and others like him was a public manipulation to silence someone who is not only well informed and capable of examining raw data and reviewing other people's conclusions around Covid, but someone who is a leading expert in the field who simply did not agree with Fauci or the other experts creating policies around the world. More than ever, we need free and open scientific debate. We need discussions, we need experiments, we need research competitions to encourage all scientists to look at their research as a building block rather than a clear destination. To encourage everyone to have discussions about their disagreements, especially when it comes to profoundly impactful events and diseases.
Historically, if you look at any early scientific discovery and the journey of that science, you can see that scientific discovery isn't a linear path. It's typically a path full of small or large discoveries over time, and most scientific theories require amending repeatedly over time.
Our science becomes bad science when people are motivated my money and profit to cherry pick data to fit their preferred narrative. There were a number of over the counter medications and readily available treatments that could have (and did in many cases) improve outcomes substantially in covid patients, preventing the disease from progressing to a point of death or permanent damage to the body. Yet, those medications became the target of misinformation campaigns, likely due to the strict requirements for emergency authorization of vaccines. This is deeply concerning.
I am always glad to see, in every field of study, a variety of views and interpretations of data. This means that people are examining the data and critically thinking about the implications and drawing their own conclusions rather than going along with what others think.
I dont wish to see the NIH gutted, but I do want to see NIH money used to fund solid, repeatable research studies that help us better understand diseases and ailments that negatively impacting the US.
That’s a lot for today – hope you enjoyed, and see you tomorrow.
–Max and Max