I will attempt to steel man the best possible arguments against Trump's plan. Please note I'm not going to parrot Democratic claims, because many of them will just be wrong. Instead, I'm going to give valid counter-arguments to Trump's plan. Which, to be clear, involves abolishing the income tax, lowering corporate tax, and basically funding the government with tariffs; which is a pre-Keynesian economic plan which correctly resembles the Whig Party's economic policies, along with being the predominant policy of the US during the Gilded Age.

First and most obvious: Trump is assuming that he will win his Tariff Wars that he's about to start. He's actually arguing that he'll get better trade negotiations when he starts using Tariff's as a weapon. But history doesn't necessarily bare this out. To this day, as he complains about, some tariffs are still in place from post-war reconstruction. Neither side moved on the issue, and some corporations benefited from the trade barriers even though the market didn't. I will remind you also that Donald Trump's monetary & trade war with China caused serious problems for American farmers. Specifically because China decided to damage our agricultural sector by requesting millions of tons of agricultural commodities, then canceling the orders after it was impossible to grow different foods. As bad as America's subsidy system was, stunts like that could have wreaked havoc on food across the globe, and even caused famines. Instead the subsidy system worked to stabilize prices, and basically bailed out some farmers. However, it's called a trade war for a reason. Sometimes you take casualties. If he can get better deals, it'll be fine, but he's pre-supposing that the political pressure from economic damage will save him. In fairness, some people will put up with it for a while. Lots of farmers supported him knowing they're gonna have hard times with a trade war, simultaneously we can look to Milei in Argentina to see that some people will put up with it for years, but it's never forever.

Second, his plan relies on basically de-regulating the US market, so that the US market will grow regardless of the trade wars it starts. Now, he has succeeded at this before, but it took him damn near 3 years to do it, and it still requires cooperation from state governments and the judiciary. He's not going to get a lot of cooperation on some of those things, and yes, Democratic governments might block his way. Depending on the corporation, even Republicans might stop him. Even in the best case of co-operation, it simply takes time to move factories, businesses, employees, and all the other things that make a business happen, and he's only got 4 years. The worst thing he could do is get stuck in an unending trade war with high taxes and high regulation. At that point, he would be re-creating the effect "Old Left" Socialist policies. See the archaic concept of: Autarky.

Third, trade wars can lead to real wars. Currently, under Keynesian Economics, we use our currency as a weapon of war, not trade. This allows us to vassalize countries with our debt, and even control corruption. But a true trade & tariff war means actually causing major economic hardship against our opponent. Weaker governments could potentially collapse in the event of civil unrest from mounting food or energy prices. It's one thing if that is China or Russia, who are (currently) protracted enemies. But it's another thing if the trade war ends up damaging allies with knock-on effects. What happens if the government's of Canada, the UK, or Germany decide they don't want to play ball? Well, we have to hit them with a trade war too. Suddenly, due to knock-on effects of one tariff policy, our friends start trade wars with us too. As for

Fourth, which is an extension of all of this, it could cause a world-wide economic melt-down. Let's say the trade wars start spiraling out of control. If countries across the world start shutting their borders to trade, you're going to see the largest economic collapse in human history. Everyone is over-leveraged, everyone is over-dependent, everyone is inter-dependent. But, if trade stops, the global trade stops, and the world economy stops. It would be cardiac arrest for every economy, everywhere, all at once. To give you an idea of how bad this could get, look at the Lockdowns during covid. The lockdowns shut down the economy, sent unemployment to the fucking moon. In order to keep people gainfully employed the Fed printed more money than had ever been created in all of history, along with every other central bank doing the same. As a result, you got the Supply Chain Crisis and rampant inflation. But that was still the better outcome than shutting down the economy and doing nothing which might have been runaway deflation, with everyone's debts being suddenly called in, and you don't have a job, and the loans you took out are now way more expensive in purchasing power than you can pay down. If a full scale international tariff war shuts down international trade, you'll have created the same effect: a shut down to economic activity which implodes the world economy.

How likely are these situations? Frankly, no body really knows. Not even Trump. He's confident it won't happen because he'll make a deal, but nobody can no for sure because each tariff conflict is going to be unique to each economic and political situation to each country.

Fifth, there's real apprehension about the idea of being able to fund the government programs we have mostly through tariffs. That might sound great for getting rid of the welfare state, but it might be a lot less great for lowering the size of the military or CBP when you're trying to institute the largest deportation program in all of human history. Less money, less programs. Which means you have to hope that you win your budget fights in congress.

Sixth, colonization. I can't say this for sure, but if the government is getting the majority of it's money from tariffs rather than taxes, what is the economic incentive of the government? First, it's not to create a free market. Second, it is to give protectionism to American corporations and promote a lack of competition against international corporations. But third, it means that foreign governments and corporations are how the US government currently makes money. If you're not paying for it, your the product. What's the chance that a tariff system only helps to make the American market a vassal state to foreign corporations and governments, when it is those governments keeping the federal government afloat?

In fairness and transparency, here's my counter-arguments for why these policies are good, even if I don't think they are perfect.