Three Hillsdale College professors joined hundreds of economists in signing an Oct. 24 letter that describes President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs as a “threat” to the economic prosperity of America. 

Professor of Political Economy Gary Wolfram, Associate Professor of Economics Michael Clark, and Associate Professor of Economics Christopher Martin were among the 467 economists who added their names to the letter. 

“As economists, we know that broad-based tariffs impose net costs on the economy,” the letter says. “They divert resources from their most efficient use, while making it more difficult and expensive for U.S. businesses to access inputs and capital goods, like steel and machinery for manufacturers and fertilizer and agricultural equipment for farmers.”

The letter was published by the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that lobbies for fiscal responsibility and lower taxes, and argues that Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, not trade deficits, are the real threat to the American economy.

“We have to try to speak for what we think is true and useful to the country,” Martin said. “And if each of us does that, then maybe that’ll push things in a better direction.”

The letter was released in anticipation of a ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court that will eventually decide the legality of Trump’s tariffs. Trump’s justification for imposing the tariffs in question is that large and persistent trade deficits with foreign countries constitute a national emergency. 

Wolfram predicted the Supreme Court would rule against Trump’s definition of a national emergency — a rare occurrence for the conservative-leaning court — because trade deficits are offset by foreign investment in America, either through the building of factories or the purchases of U.S. stocks and bonds.

“A trade deficit is really a sign that people want to invest in U.S. companies,” Wolfram said. “So, trade deficits are, in fact, a good thing, and not a real emergency.”

Martin said a common misconception is viewing trade deficits as a drain on America’s economy, when the real problem is “profligate spending” by the federal government.

“The key point is that trade deficits are not inherently a problem,” Martin said. “They could even be good if it indicates that we’re an attractive place to invest.”

According to Wolfram, Trump’s tariffs are not just legally unjustified, but also economically unsound.

“Tariffs are attacks on the people that are in your own country,” Wolfram said. “They lower the amount of things being produced in the U.S. and lead to higher prices.”

Clark said he hoped pro-tariff advocates would realize that the vast majority of economists are opposed to the use of tariffs and reconsider their position.

Martin and Wolfram both said tariffs can sometimes be justified for the purposes of national security.

“Should we be dependent on a powerful foreign adversary for critical military stuff? Absolutely not,” Martin said.

Economics major and junior Stephen Zhu said Trump’s tariff policy is misguided because he imposes the same tariffs on allies and international rivals alike.

“Overwhelmingly, the tariffs are on things that are clearly not of national security concern,” Zhu said. “It’s hurting us, it’s making everything more expensive, and it’s hurting our relationship with our allies. I don’t think the tariffs are helpful at all.”

Junior Brian Shia, president of the student economics club Praxis, said a better economic stimulant than tariffs would be repealing the 1920 Jones Act, which he said has reduced shipping off American shores and increased the cost of transporting goods.

“We disagree on the means to achieve the ends we all want: American strength and flourishing and economic dynamism,” Shia said. “But when you look at past examples, considering things like industrialization and national security, tariffs are really not the right solution.” 

Sophomore Sophia Carey said she thinks it’s admirable for her professors to critique other conservatives, like the president.

“I don’t want to be so pro-Trump in the conservative movement that we just lose the ability to critically evaluate what is right and what is wrong,” Carey said.