A Thomistic Defense of Trump’s Economic Policies10 min read

The method employed in this analysis follows the Thomistic dialectic, a form of structured reasoning developed by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), a Dominican friar, philosopher, and theologian. Aquinas is best known for synthesizing Aristotelian logic with Christian theology, particularly in his monumental work, the Summa Theologica.

Aquinas’ dialectical method involves:

• Presenting objections—acknowledging opposing viewpoints in their strongest form (steel man). ¹
• Recognizing partial truths—identifying elements of validity within those objections.
• Refuting objections with a higher synthesis—showing how the objections, though containing some truth, fail to grasp the full picture.
• Providing a final argument (corpus)—integrating the responses into a cohesive defense of the main position.

This approach does not dismiss opposing views outright but rather refines and incorporates elements of truth from all sides to construct a more comprehensive argument.

Trump’s Controversial Economic Approach

President Donald Trump’s economic policies have been the subject of intense debate, with critics arguing that they have led to trade wars, rising national debt, labor market disruptions, and risky monetary strategies. However, using the Thomistic dialectic, we can systematically engage with these objections, acknowledge their partial truths, and demonstrate why Trump’s approach to economic policy ultimately presents a coherent and beneficial strategy for American economic strength.

Objection 1: Tariffs and the Risk of Trade Wars

Critics argue that Trump’s imposition of tariffs on Chinese and other foreign goods incite trade wars, increase consumer prices, and lead to retaliatory tariffs that harm American exporters. This, they claim, undermines economic stability rather than fostering it.

Response: While tariffs can indeed escalate tensions and prices in the short term, that is not their goal, but merely a phase in their long term goal – to restore trade balances. They serve as a strategic tool to protect domestic industries from unfair foreign competition and to encourage the renegotiation of trade agreements on terms more favorable, or at least equitable, to the U.S. economy.

The successful replacement of NAFTA with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) during the previous Trump administration (deemed impossible by many) illustrates how these measures led to more balanced trade relations, benefiting American manufacturers and workers. ² The short-term costs of tariffs were offset by their long-term benefits in securing stronger domestic production and fairer trade practices.

Objection 2: Tax Cuts and Rising National Debt

Some argue that Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, particularly the reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, drastically decreased federal revenue, exacerbating the national debt.

Response: While tax cuts do reduce immediate government revenue, they are designed to stimulate economic growth, leading to greater investment, job creation, and ultimately, higher tax revenues over time. The post-tax-cut economic boom of Trump’s last administration saw record-low unemployment rates and wage increases, particularly benefiting working-class Americans. The Laffer Curve principle suggests that lower tax rates can, under the right conditions, lead to a broader tax base and increased revenue in the long run. ³ Additionally, the argument assumes that government spending must remain constant rather than being adjusted to match revenue.

Of course, there are many who argue that the Laffer Curve is inaccurate, but Trump’s previous administration, all other parameters being roughly equal, proved that the Laffer principle works.

Objection 3: Immigration Policies Disrupt the Labor Market

Opponents contend that Trump’s policies on illegal immigration, including mass deportations and stricter border controls, disrupted industries reliant on immigrant labor, leading to potential economic contractions.

Response: The focus of these policies was not on economic harm but on restoring the integrity of the labor market and ensuring that wages are not artificially suppressed by an oversupply of illegal labor. By enforcing immigration laws, these policies aimed to create opportunities for American workers and legal immigrants, reducing both unemployment and underemployment. Critics often overlook the costs of illegal immigration on social services, healthcare, and public education, which Trump’s policies sought to mitigate. ^{4 5 6}

Objection 4: Currency Devaluation and Financial Instability

Critics warn that proposals such as the so-called “Mar-a-Lago Accord”, which suggested devaluing the U.S. dollar to address trade imbalances, could result in capital flight and reduced global confidence in the U.S. economy.

Response: A carefully managed currency strategy can enhance trade competitiveness by making American exports more affordable in global markets. While a drastic devaluation would indeed pose risks, a strategic adjustment in monetary policy can reduce trade deficits and bolster domestic production. Trump’s administration sought to balance currency valuation with trade policies to create a more favorable global economic position. ^7 5​ ⁶

Objection 5: Tariffs as a Means to Balance Trade

Critics argue that implementing tariffs to balance trade is counterproductive, as it can lead to increased costs for consumers, strained international relations, and potential retaliatory measures from trading partners. They contend that such protectionist policies disrupt the principles of free trade, ultimately harming the global economy.

Response: While it’s true that tariffs can introduce short-term challenges, they serve as one of several strategic tools to address trade imbalances.

There are primarily three methods to attempt balancing trade: ⁸

• Currency Manipulation: Adjusting the value of a nation’s currency to make exports cheaper and imports more expensive.
• Domestic Policy Adjustments: Implementing policies that encourage savings over consumption to reduce import demand.
• Tariffs: Imposing taxes on imported goods to protect domestic industries and reduce trade deficits.

Among these, tariffs are a direct approach to protect domestic industries from unfair foreign competition and to encourage the renegotiation of trade agreements on more favorable terms. As noted by Jon Gray of Blackstone:

“While tariff diplomacy may initially cause discomfort among investors, patience is crucial as the long-term objective is to rebalance trade and defense responsibilities among nations.” ⁹

Additionally, tariffs can serve as a negotiation tool to address unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft, aiming to establish a more equitable global trade environment.

Objection 6: Gold Card Visas Favor the Wealthy and Undermine Immigration Principles

Critics contend that the introduction of the “Gold Card” visa program, which offers permanent residency to individuals willing to invest a significant sum (e.g., $5 million), creates an immigration system that favors the wealthy. They argue that this undermines the principles of merit-based immigration and equal opportunity, potentially leading to social inequality and public resentment.

Response: While concerns about equity are valid, the “Gold Card” visa program can be viewed as a strategic initiative to attract substantial foreign investment, thereby stimulating economic growth and job creation. By offering residency to high-net-worth individuals who invest in the economy, the program can generate significant capital inflows.

Reports indicate that the program has seen considerable interest, with claims of 1,000 ‘Gold Cards’ sold in a single day ($1B!). ¹⁰

Moreover, the funds generated through this program can be allocated to public services, infrastructure projects, and social programs that benefit the broader population. It’s also important to note that the “Gold Card” visa operates alongside existing immigration pathways, complementing rather than replacing merit-based systems. This multifaceted approach allows for both the attraction of immediate financial investment and the continued admission of individuals based on skills and qualifications, thereby balancing economic benefits with the principles of equal opportunity.

Incorporating these objections and responses into the Thomistic dialectical framework provides a more comprehensive analysis of the economic policies in question, acknowledging valid concerns while highlighting the strategic intentions and potential benefits underlying these initiatives.

Final Argument (Corpus)

Trump’s economic approach is fundamentally rooted in economic nationalism, prioritizing domestic industry, employment, and trade fairness. While tariffs may raise costs temporarily, they serve as leverage for fairer trade negotiations, as seen with the USMCA. Corporate tax reductions, though initially reducing federal revenue, were designed to stimulate investment and long-term economic growth. Immigration restrictions, rather than solely disrupting labor markets, aimed to protect American workers and ensure fair wages. Strategic monetary adjustments, such as controlled currency valuation, sought to enhance trade competitiveness without undermining financial stability.

Additionally, the use of tariffs as a trade-balancing tool was part of a broader set of strategies that included currency management and domestic policy adjustments to reduce dependence on foreign goods and protect key industries. The “Gold Card” visa program, while controversial, aligned with a pragmatic approach to economic growth by attracting foreign investment that could be channeled into public infrastructure and social services. Rather than undermining merit-based immigration, it supplemented other pathways by bringing in capital that benefited the broader economy.

In conclusion, Trump’s economic policies form a coherent system focused on reasserting American economic sovereignty, fostering long-term investment, restructuring global trade relations, and leveraging immigration policy for economic benefit. While critics highlight potential short-term disruptions, these measures were part of a necessary recalibration to secure the long-term stability and strength of the U.S. economy.