Most explanations I've seen for it being rational if the goal is improving the economy or furthering American national interests reek of "sanewashing" (https://

Most explanations I've seen for it being rational if the goal is improving the economy or furthering American national interests reek of "sanewashing" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanewashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanewashing). The formula they used for calculating tariff rates other countries impose on us is nonsensical and potentially LLM generated: https://www.axios.com/2025/04/03/trump-tariffs-formula-calculated https://www.axios.com/2025/04/03/trump-tariffs-formula-calcu... In my opinion, they're just using the "reciprocity" argument to paper over more nefarious goals. Onshoring certain critical supply chains and using targeted tariffs to achieve that may make some sense, but that's not what's going on with these across-the-board taxes punishing what are becoming former US allies. From a self-interest perspective, it may be rational if you're optimizing for increasing your raw power at the expense of American national interest. My understanding is that tariff exemptions can be granted unilaterally: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-tariffs-trade-war-stock-market-04-03-2025/card/white-house-publishes-hundreds-of-tariff-exemptions-N7o4V7gxmuRUWOROnhqX https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-tariffs-trade-war-sto... so in a sense, the administration is holding both the disease and the cure unless Congress strips it of this power (unlikely). Crashing asset prices may also generate opportunities for rich people with large cash holdings to buy up assets on the cheap before inflation really takes hold. This is not directly related to tariffs necessarily, but one related theory I've thought about is how leaders stay in power in countries like Venezuela or North Korea. With hyperinflation and good shortages, your ability to procure basic necessities becomes more of a function of proximity to those in power with the ability to acquire goods through their monopoly on the use of violence. If you can't feed your family without being subservient to an authoritarian leader, you're probably less likely to help depose a dictator. I've thought about this a little in the context of the purging of top national security officials and how they're getting replaced with loyalists: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/us/politics/trump-meeting-laura-loomer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/us/politics/trump-meeting... I don't think we're there until we're there, but it feels like they're teeing things up for a 3rd term. If you have congress inept, friends in the highest court of the land, and functional control of the armed forces leadership, who is to stop you from declaring a national emergency and staying in power because of a crashing economy or a new war? The economic contagion of the Great Depression historically also preceded a huge change in the world order (WW2). If you're trying to change the world order irreparably or just scoop up some territory, you might try to do some economic decoupling first, as well. There was a small trade war about 5 years before real war broke out when Germany invaded Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Polish_customs_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Polish_customs_war