The federal government doesn’t merely spend nearly $7 trillion annually with debt approaching $40 trillion; it also directs the private sector to spend colossal sums and reallocate vast resources through regulations. Accordingly, the concept of a regulatory budget occasionally gains traction, sometimes appearing in House budget resolutions that include a Policy Statement on Government Deregulation. […]

'Could be leading Democrats out of the wilderness'

President Donald Trump’s 2026 budget proposal would increase border security funding by 65%, marking the largest investment in homeland security in history, a senior White House official said. The White House unveiled its $1.7 trillion budget for the 2026 fiscal year, proposing about $163 billion in cuts to domestic programs, as well as a 13% increase in defense spending and that 65% increase in border spending. Fiscal 2026 begins Oct. 1. The federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2025 was $1.83 trillion. On average, federal agencies will face budget cuts of 35%. The budget commits $175 billion to fully secure the border. For defense spending, the president proposes an increase of 13% to $1.01 trillion for fiscal year 2026, an amount on par with the defense spending of the Reagan administration and the first Trump administration. The budget cuts also reduce foreign aid by $49 billion. Foreign aid was destabilizing the countries receiving it because nonprofits receiving funding pushed radical woke ideology and sometimes advocated for regime changes, a White House official said on a background call for members of the media. Rather, the budget “ensures that foreign aid spending is efficient and consistent with U.S. foreign policy under the America First agenda,” according to a White House fact sheet. America will be asking other countries to step up to fill in the gaps of what the U.S. will no longer contribute, the White House official said. The budget implements Trump’s executive order dismantling the Department of Education by cutting the agency’s budget by about $10.76 billion. But the Department of Education will receive a $60 million increase to expand the number of high-quality charter schools. While the budget maintains full funding for student loan grants and special education programs, it creates a new K-12 Simplified Funding Program that consolidates 18 competitive and formula grant programs into a new formula grant, and a Special Education Simplified Funding Program that consolidates seven Individuals with Disabilities Education Act programs into a single grant. This saves more than $1.5 trillion. The discretionary budget also request $500 million for the president’s “Make America Healthy Again” commission. Department of Government Efficiency was intimately involved in the budget proposal, a senior White House official said. The White House has been rooting for DOGE since its inception, and the budget proposal is considered to be a joint project between DOGE and the Office of Management and Budget. The proposal contains numerous cuts to the administration considers wasteful spending projects, such as the $315 million that was allocated to push critical race theory in preschools. The Minnesota Department of Education used its funds to implement “intersectionality” and “racial equity” for four-year-olds. The senior White House official said he doesn’t think America knew the extent of the wastefulness of the government before DOGE and that it divided Americans on the basis of race and identity. Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said in a letter accompanying the spending blueprint that many of the cuts reflected “spending contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans.” He said the administration sought to target funds toward “niche, nongovernmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.” Republicans on the Hill have praised Trump’s budget, including fiscal conservative Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas. “I strongly commend President Trump, OMB Director Russ Vought, and the entire White House team for releasing a truly transformational budget that maintains strong funding for our national defense while reducing by 20% the woke, weaponized, and wasteful bureaucracy by 20% to better than pre-COVID levels,” Roy said. Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., said the Left treated the federal budget like a slush fund. “This budget reflects the commonsense priorities the American people voted for: secure borders, strong national defense, and an end to wasteful, weaponized programs,” he said. The post White House Budget Proposes 65% Increase in Border Security Spending appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Tennessee Highway Patrol has released body camera footage of its November 2022 traffic stop of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, in which he is suspected of human smuggling.   It was dark outside when the state trooper pulled Abrego Garcia over and walked up to his vehicle. The officer’s flashlight revealed eight additional men cramped into the vehicle.   “How many rows have you got in here? Four seats? Four rows of seats?” the trooper asked Abrego Garcia. “Did y’all put an extra one in?”   Abrego Garcia says no.   “He’s hauling these people for money,” another trooper can be heard saying moments later.   The troopers discuss the fact that there is no luggage in the car, despite the fact that Abrego Garcia said all the men were traveling through multiple states for construction work.   “He’s got $1,400 cash in his pocket in an envelope,” one of the troopers can be heard saying a moment later. Abrego Garcia was also driving without a valid license and said the vehicle belonged to his boss.   Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not a “Maryland Man”—he is an MS-13 gang member involved in human trafficking who entered the United States illegally.His removal from the United States should have occurred under the Biden Administration.He will not return to our country under the… pic.twitter.com/agl9pgJqOk— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) May 2, 2025 Fox News obtained the video footage through a Freedom of Information Act request.   According to Fox News, a source familiar with the situation said a portion of the video was redacted in which the troopers discuss contacting Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but ICE never came to pick up Abrego Garcia. The source also told Fox News that when the troopers put Abrego Garcia’s name into the National Crime Information Center, he came up as a suspected gang member or terrorist.   Police and court records also reveal that Jennifer Vasquez Sura, Abrego Garcia’s wife, claimed multiple times that her husband was beating her.   A March 2019 report from the Department of Homeland Security reports that Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador and crossed into the U.S. illegally near McAllen, Texas, in March 2012.    Abrego Garcia was living in Maryland until the Trump administration deported him back to El Salvador on March 15. The Trump administration initially said he was removed due to an “administrative error,” but later said that was an inaccurate claim. But some Democrats and media outlets continue to claim the illegal alien was wrongfully removed from the U.S.   Maryland Democrat Sen. Chris Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador and met with Abrego Garcia in April. Shortly after Van Hollen’s trip, Democrat Reps. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, Maxine Dexter of Oregon, Maxwell Frost of Florida, and Robert Garcia of California all traveled to El Salvador together to advocate for Abrego Garcia’s release from prison.   Despite calls from the political left for Abrego Garcia to be returned to America, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele says the deported illegal alien has the “honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody.”   Bukele and President Donald Trump struck a multiple million-dollar deal for El Salvador to receive and house hundreds of deported illegal aliens in its prisons.   The post Newly Released Video Shows Abrego Garcia Traffic Stop and Why Troopers Suspected Him of Human Smuggling appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It was a day that couldn’t come soon enough. Thursday night, President Donald Trump signed an executive order ending taxpayer subsidies for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service—media outlets receiving tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds each year to spread biased propaganda falsely labeled as “news.” I made the case for defunding in The Daily Signal in January, two days after Trump’s second inauguration—a celebration that included a speech by Elon Musk expressing his love for America and its people with his hand raised in the air in victory in what PBS falsely labeled “a fascist salute.” PBS and NPR have a long pattern of biased, anti-American, anti-conservative, and pro-woke slants in their stories. For example, in 2021, NPR declared the Declaration of Independence to be a document with “flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies.” In 2022, NPR scrapped its decades-long Independence Day tradition of reading the Declaration of Independence on air to instead discuss “equality.” NPR also slapped an “editor’s note” warning that the Declaration of Independence is “a document that contains offensive language.” The radio giant also once reported on the “cousin of diet culture” known as “healthism, which is the idea that we have to be healthy”—claiming healthy living was a negative.  In a project completely unworthy of taxpayer funding, NPR once assigned three reporters to investigate how the thumbs-up emoji is racist. Similarly, NPR suggested doorway sizes are based on “latent fatphobia” and speculated about “the racial origins of fat phobia.” And flying in the face of mounds of evidence, NPR laughably claimed there is “limited scientific evidence of physical advantage” between male and female athletes. NPR management also reportedly pressured its editors to nix the term “biological sex” in stories on transgender issues.  NPR ran an article, complete with cartoon illustration, on “What ‘queer ducks’ can teach teenagers about sexuality in the animal kingdom.” NPR disparagingly referred to pro-life Americans at the March for Life with the slanted description of “anti-abortion rights activists.”Meanwhile, PBS devoted a panel to what it “mean[s] to be woke” and “white privilege.” Then-PBS White House Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor biasedly described a 2020 patriotic speech by Trump at Mount Rushmore as a love letter to “white resentment” that promoted the “myth of America.” In 2023, PBS’ “Washington Week” roundtable covered up then-President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic claiming Biden was actually “quite acute.” PBS also produced a documentary advocating for reparations for black people. NPR and PBS practically maintain zero tolerance policies for non-leftist viewpoints. For example, in 2020, NPR refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop scandal in the runup to the presidential election, falsely claiming the assertions that the laptop was Biden’s “don’t amount to much” and the managing editor patronizing its audience with claims that they “don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” This despite the fact that polling showed if the contents of the laptop were more widely known by the American people, the story could have led to a different outcome in the 2020 election.  When Uri Berliner, a 25-year veteran NPR reporter and editor spoke out about how the network lost America’s trust by favoring liberal slants, NPR suspended him. Berliner found that registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans 87 to zero in the NPR newsroom. NPR gave much coverage to the Trump Russian collusion hoax, with Berliner characterizing “[Democratic Rep. Adam] Schiff talking points” as “the drumbeat of NPR news reports.” If that’s not bad enough, NPR CEO Katherine Maher claimed Trump was “a racist,” posted a photo on X of herself wearing a “Biden for President” campaign hat, serves on the board of a George Soros-funded activist group, and shockingly described “reverence for the truth” as a “distraction.” In 2023, a study found that congressional Republicans saw 85% negative coverage while congressional Democrats saw 54% positive coverage on PBS’ flagship news program. According to a 2024 study, PBS news staff used 162 variations of the term “far-right” but only six variations of “far-left.” Media bias rating agency AllBias—which surveyed nearly 24,000 NPR listeners—found NPR’s bias aligns with “liberal, progressive, or left-wing thought and/or policy agendas.” NPR repeatedly dismissed the theory that COVID-19 originated in a lab—a conclusion now deemed likely by the FBI, CIA, and Department of Energy. A 2024 Media Research Center study found that PBS’ coverage of the Republican National Convention was 72% negative while coverage of the Democratic National Convention was 88% positive. While the Left will howl about these funding cuts, it is important to note that cutting public funding is not the same thing as restricting the First Amendment. Trump is not stopping these outlets from producing content, which is even more heavily subsidized through private donations, including from individuals and foundations. What Trump is doing is removing taxpayer subsidies for this type of terrible speech, and it’s a welcome change. Carrie Sheffield is a senior policy analyst at Independent Women’s Voice and author of ”Motorhome Prophecies: A Journey of Healing and Forgiveness.” We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Trump Rightly Defunded PBS and NPR’s Long History of Anti-Conservative, Pro-Leftist Content appeared first on The Daily Signal.

TEL AVIV, Israel—Taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities wouldn’t automatically result in war, according to The Heritage Foundation’s Victoria Coates.   “We also very strongly believe, and this is the critical point, a strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities does not result, necessarily, in war,” Coates, who serves as vice president of the think tank’s Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, told The Daily Signal.   The U.S. is engaged in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.   Trump knows Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons poses an “existential threat,” first to Israel, “but then also to America,” Coates said, explaining that if Israel is the “‘little Satan‘ and we’re the ‘big’ Satan in [the Iranian] worldview, if you get the ‘little Satan,’ you don’t stop there.”  One of the options before the Trump administration is use of a targeted strike to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but some argue such a strike would lead to war between the U.S. and Iran. But Coates says similar strikes in the past have not led to a war.   Last October, Israel struck and destroyed a nuclear weapons research facility in Iran. And in April 2024, an Israeli strike damaged an air-defense system in Iran. Neither incident led to a full-scale war between Israel and Iran.   “I think we need to be, obviously, very cautious and judicious about our use of force, but we also can’t scare ourselves into inaction that could cost us dearly down the road,” Coates said.   Steve Witkoff, U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, was slated to meet with Iranian officials in Rome on May 3 for a fourth round of talks over Iran’s nuclear program, but the talks were postponed for “logistical reasons.”   News of the postponed talks, which have yet to be rescheduled, came the same day Trump announced new “secondary sanctions” on countries that purchase Iranian oil.   “All purchases of Iranian oil, or petrochemical products, must stop, NOW! Any country or person who buys any amount of oil or petrochemicals from Iran will be subject to, immediately, secondary sanctions,” Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social.   “They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form,” the president added.   Trump’s new secondary sanctions will directly affect China, the world’s largest importer of Iranian oil. The post Targeted Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Wouldn’t ‘Necessarily’ Lead to War, Foreign Policy Expert Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Former scandal-plagued NPR CEO Vivian Schiller joined CNN News Central guest host Erica Hill on Friday to freak out over President Donald Trump’s Thursday executive order that ceased taxpayer money from going to NPR and PBS. According to Schiller, the move is just another example of Trump “attacking a free press” for reporting on things he does not like. A worried Hill wrapped up their interview by wondering, “We’re really tight on time, but I'm just curious, your take. I mean, this is whether or not this goes through, right? What it does is it creates a narrative. It creates a narrative, multiple narratives. But the president has long pushed back against NPR, against PBS. What does that do overall in terms of the credibility of these organizations? How harmful is this?”     Schiller replied that, “I don't think the government's, sorry, the White House's attack, will particularly harm people who have been reliant on NPR or PBS programming for a long time, but this is part of an overall narrative of attacking a free press, an independent free press that reports on things that maybe the president doesn't like.” It is impossible to take such comments seriously. For years, the media has attacked the Republican Party for being enthralled with Trumpism, but Republicans they now claim to like also once favored defunding public broadcasting, and they freaked out then too. Nevertheless, Schiller continued, “I mean, this is one of many examples. You've covered them amply on CNN. And I will also say this is not the only way that they're going after public radio and public television. There's a whole bunch of other things that they're doing, too, in trying to fire trustees of CPB and other kinds of cuts and legal attacks” NPR has had twelve-and-a-half years since Mitt Romney brought up defunding PBS at a debate with Barack Obama, and it has nothing since then to show that they have become less left-wing. If anything, they have become more progressive. Trying to make Trump the main character in this story won’t work. Here is a transcript for the May 2 show: CNN News Central 5/2/2025 1:40 PM ET ERICA HILL: We’re really tight on time, but I'm just curious, your take. I mean, this is whether or not this goes through, right? What it does is it creates a narrative. It creates a narrative, multiple narratives. But the president has long pushed back against NPR, against PBS. What does that do overall in terms of the credibility of these organizations? How harmful is this? VIVIAN SCHILLER: I don't think the government's, sorry, the White House's attack, will particularly harm people who have been reliant on NPR or PBS programming for a long time, but this is part of an overall narrative of attacking a free press, an independent free press that reports on things that maybe the president doesn't like. I mean, this is one of many examples. You've covered them amply on CNN. And I will also say this is not the only way that they're going after public radio and public television. There's a whole bunch of other things that they're doing, too, in trying to fire trustees of CPB and other kinds of cuts and legal attacks.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) revealed Tuesday that polls matter when they reflect poorly on President Donald Trump but are alternatively meaningless when Schumer himself is implicated as an incredibly unpopular politician. After Senate Democrats' weekly caucus lunch meeting, Schumer ambled over to reporters to recycle his usual anti-Trump rhetoric, this time framed as a critique of the president's first 100 days in office. "There is a feeling of incompetence, of indecision, and chaos eating away at much of the country," said Schumer, "and that is emanating from the man who's in charge, Donald Trump." Schumer claimed that the costs of cars, clothing, energy, and groceries are up, whereas "your retirement and 401Ks — down. The stock market? Down. The dollar — down. And today, we saw the trend continue. Consumer confidence? Down." 'Are you concerned that you may be a liability for your party?' "Americans are noticing," continued the Democrat. "The polls this week show Trump has the lowest 100-day approval rating since they started polling 80 years ago. The lowest. Even worse, 72% of Americans think it's likely that Trump's handling of the economy will walk us directly into a recession." A CNN poll conducted by SSRS indicated Sunday that Trump's approval rating was 41%, the same result reached by a recent poll by the Economist/YouGov. An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll released Tuesday put the president's approval rating at 42%. Emerson College and Rasmussen Reports polls both put Trump's approval several points higher, at 45% and 50%, respectively. Several minutes after using recent approval polls to attack Trump, CNN reporter Manu Raju asked Schumer, "There's a poll out today that has your approval rating lower than any other congressional leader at 17%. Are you concerned that you may be a liability for your party?" 'We are focusing on how bad Trump is.' The Democratic senator's approval rating is less than half of what Trump is netting at his worst. While Schumer's average approval rating is 27.9%, according to RealClearPolitics, the CNN poll that put the president at 41% indicated Schumer's approval rating was 17% — the New York senator's worst approval numbers in a CNN poll going back eight years. Later Tuesday, CNN talking head Kaitlan Collins told Schumer that while the poll showed a dip in Trump's approval, "It's not exactly great for your party, either, because Democrats, or people who lean Democrat, according to CNN's latest poll, say that they're not satisfied with your party's leadership." After highlighting Schumer's abysmal approval rating and noting that 61% of respondents who identified as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party disapproved of its leadership, Collins asked Schumer, "Is that concerning to you?" Schumer answered, "No," then engaged in a few moments of cable news filibustering. Collins later circled back to her question, pressing Schumer about how his approval rating bottomed out during Trump's first 100 days back in the White House. "Look, the polls come and go, OK?" said Schumer. "I've been through all the years, and I've seen them. I pay attention to doing the right thing. And when you do the right thing, things work out all right. We are doing the right thing. We are focusing on how bad Trump is." Although Schumer said he's not concerned about his unpopularity, he should be since there is considerable interest among New Yorkers in having someone else take his seat. A survey conducted in late March by the liberal firm Data for Progress found that in a head-to-head matchup, 55% of Democratic likely voters would support Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whereas only 36% supported or leaned toward backing Schumer. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The controversial "60 Minutes" episode featuring then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris has now been officially nominated for an Emmy — and not for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series.On Thursday, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences announced the nominees for the 2025 News and Docs Emmys. Among the nominees for Outstanding Edited Interview is "The Democratic Ticket," the interview between "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker and Harris.'60 Minutes perpetrated a Giant FRAUD against the American People.'While "60 Minutes" interviews of major presidential candidates at the peak of election season are nothing new, this interview drew significant criticism after the episode that ultimately aired last October differed notably from a preview of it.In a preview promoted by CBS News, Harris gave one of her infamous word-salad responses to a question about Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In his question, Whitaker implied that Netanyahu was not "listening" to the Biden-Harris administration."Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region," Harris replied in the preview.However, when the episode aired, Harris gave a less scattered, slightly more germane reply. "We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end," she said.Then-candidate Donald Trump immediately cried foul, claiming that the network had "sliced and diced ('cut and pasted') Lyin' Kamala's answers to questions." He later went so far as to argue that the change amounted to "election interference" and filed a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS News for "doctoring" the interview.The network eventually released the unedited video footage, as well as a full transcript of the interview, revealing that both clips came in response to the question.Trump spoke out about the discrepancy as recently as this week, claiming in a Truth Social post that the final answer that aired "was not good" but at least did not "show Gross Incompetence" like the preview answer did."In other words, 60 Minutes perpetrated a Giant FRAUD against the American People, the Federal Elections Commission, and the Federal Communications System," Trump railed on Wednesday.Late last month, "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens announced his resignation, citing an inability "to make independent decisions based on what was right" for the show's audience. Many have speculated that pressure at the network stemmed from Trump's lawsuit, which could be on the verge of a settlement now that both sides have agreed to mediation.Owens and others at CBS News reportedly strongly oppose settling the lawsuit.The other nominees for Outstanding Edited Interview are Hoda Kotb's interview of Celine Dion on NBC News, a CBS interview with SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a "20/20" interview with Brittney Griner, and yet another "60 Minutes" interview, this time with Pope Francis.In response to the nomination of the Harris interview, White House communications director Steven Cheung quipped, "Of course it’s nominated for best editing, because it takes some serious talent to edit Kamala’s answer into something that’s coherent and understandable, which in the end they still failed to do."CBS News did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.The news Emmy award ceremony is scheduled to air on June 25.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Earlier this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a short-lived attempt to block President Trump’s new tariffs. Fortunately, in this case, he lost. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote.Paul played all of the libertarian greatest hits, from calling tariffs “taxation without representation” to claiming they represent big-government tyranny. He ignored one key fact: Donald Trump ran, and won, on an explicitly pro-tariff platform. The American people voted for this.If Paul really wants to reduce the size and scope of government, he has no choice but to support Trump’s tariffs.The reality is that tariffs are the form of taxation most compatible with small government. That’s why America’s founders — and every president on Mount Rushmore — supported them.How tariffs promote small governmentTariffs shrink the power of government in three ways. First, they reduce foreign demand for U.S. debt, limiting borrowing. Second, they promote full employment, reducing welfare dependency. Third, they protect American businesses from foreign state interference.America has run trade deficits every year since 1974. The cumulative total, adjusted for inflation, approaches $25 trillion. In 2023 alone, the trade deficit in goods and services neared $920 billion.We didn't pay for that deficit with domestic production. Instead, we sold off assets — real estate, stocks, and bonds. China and its trading partners ship us goods, then buy up our future in return.That includes our debt. Foreign demand for Treasury bonds has exploded because countries like China must recycle their trade surpluses somewhere. This artificial demand makes it easier — and cheaper — for Washington to borrow without raising yields. Foreign entities now hold $8.5 trillion in U.S. public debt, about 29% of the total. The explosion started in 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization, and our deficits soared.The result? Washington spends recklessly. And the cost of servicing that debt — over $300 billion in interest payments to foreign creditors — bleeds out the economy. That’s roughly equal to our annual trade deficit with China.Higher tariffs would shrink the trade deficit and lower foreign demand for American debt. That would limit Washington’s access to cheap credit — exactly what fiscal conservatives should want.Long term, if tariffs replaced the income tax as the government’s primary revenue source, federal borrowing would face a hard cap. Unlike the income tax, tariffs are avoidable. If rates rise too high, people buy domestic. That reality places a natural limit on tax revenue and borrowing capacity.In short: Tariffs enforce fiscal restraint.Tariffs favor work over welfareSince 2001, the U.S. has lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs — along with the service jobs that depended on them.Offshoring gutted labor’s bargaining power. When employers can threaten to send jobs to China, wages stagnate. Productivity no longer guarantees compensation. Workers take what they can get, or they’re replaced.This “race to the bottom” helped erode middle-class wages and drive up welfare dependency. Over 10 million Americans now qualify as chronically unemployed, with many dropped from the labor force entirely.As I explain in my book “Reshore,” mass job loss carries political consequences. Unemployed citizens are more likely to vote for higher taxes, expanded social programs, and even socialist policies. Poverty breeds dependency — and dependency fuels government growth.Even if you buy the libertarian argument that tariffs “distort” markets, the result still favors liberty. The jobs tariffs protect are real. They preserve dignity, reduce welfare rolls, and shrink government.Work is cheaper — and better — than welfare.Good fences make good neighborsPaul argues that tariffs let government “pick winners and losers.” He wants the market to decide.Well, sure. That would make sense — if America competed on equal footing. But we don’t. Chinese businesses don’t operate under free market conditions. They’re backed by the Chinese Communist Party, which props them up with subsidies, below-market financing, land-use preferences, and outright theft — up to $600 billion per year in American intellectual property.U.S. small businesses can’t compete with state-sponsored enterprises. That’s why entire American industries, towns, and families have disappeared.Tariffs serve as economic fences. They shield American firms from foreign governments — not just foreign competitors. That protection restores actual market competition inside the United States, where private companies can go head-to-head without facing a communist superstate.And economic competition isn't just about firms. It happens at every level: workers vying for jobs, companies for customers, nations for global influence. Globalism collapses these layers into a single, rigged marketplace where the biggest government wins — and right now, that’s Beijing.Tariffs restore order by separating national economies enough to maintain fair play. They enhance domestic competition while preserving international boundaries. Most importantly, they keep the CCP — the world’s largest and most authoritarian government — from dominating American markets.If Rand Paul really wants to reduce the size and scope of government, he has no choice but to support President Trump’s tariffs.