Brace yourself for a Capitol Hill exodus that’s shaking up the political landscape as a staggering 36 House members pack their bags and call it quits ahead of next year’s midterm elections, Fox News reported.
This wave of retirements, spanning both Democrats and Republicans, signals a deeper frustration with the toxic partisanship and gridlock that have come to define Congress,
The retirements kicked off with announcements earlier this year, including from notable figures like moderate Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a retired Air Force general who’s battled through nine tough races in his Omaha district over the past decade.
Bacon, who revealed this summer he won’t seek a sixth term, summed up his disillusionment with a blunt confession to Fox News Digital: "The fire wasn’t there anymore."
Let’s unpack that—when a seasoned fighter like Bacon, who’s weathered countless political storms, admits the spark is gone, it’s a glaring red flag about the state of our legislative arena.
He’s not alone; with 21 Republicans and 15 Democrats bowing out, the tally reflects a bipartisan discontent, though the GOP feels the heavier hit as they scramble to defend a slim House majority.
While some departing Democrats, like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at 85, carry decades of service, the majority of retirees are surprisingly younger, fed up with the nastiness that’s infected Capitol Hill.
Take Republican Rep. Jodey Arrington of Texas, just 53 and chair of the House Budget Committee, who told Fox News Digital he views public office as "a temporary stint in stewardship, not a career."
That’s a refreshing nod to the Founding Fathers’ vision, but it also stings—when even rising stars see more value outside Congress than in it, what’s left for those still grinding through the partisan muck?
Then there’s Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, only 43, who penned a raw op-ed in the Bangor Daily News lamenting the "increasing incivility and plain nastiness" pervading politics.
Golden’s words cut deep, especially for those of us who long for a return to principled debate over petty name-calling, but they also highlight how progressive and far-right agendas have turned compromise into a dirty word.
Former Democratic Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire echoed this, noting to Fox News Digital that working across the aisle became "much more difficult" over her 12 years, as moderate GOP allies vanished.
Even major legislative victories, like the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer—a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s second-term domestic agenda—haven’t convinced some Republicans to stay.
David Wasserman of The Cook Report pointed out that many GOP members feel they’ve made their mark with this bill and now see "opportunities to be more impactful elsewhere," a sobering take on Congress’s diminishing allure.
Yet, amidst the gloom, Bacon offers a flicker of hope, telling Fox News Digital, "When folks move on, new people move in, and I know there’s good people out there," a reminder that fresh faces might just shake off the partisan cobwebs.
In a jaw-dropping display of economic partnership, Saudi Arabia has pledged to ramp up its investment in the United States to a staggering $1 trillion, signaling a massive vote of confidence in American growth, Newsmax reported.
This historic commitment unfolded during a high-stakes meeting at the White House between President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, where an initial $600 billion investment plan was dramatically elevated to a trillion-dollar promise.
The meeting, held on a Tuesday, started with Trump expressing gratitude for the already substantial $600 billion investment package that Saudi Arabia had agreed to over four years, spanning energy, infrastructure, technology, and defense.
Not content with the initial figure, Trump pressed for more, showcasing his knack for deal-making with a personal touch.
"Because he's my friend, he might make it a trillion, but I'm gonna have to work on him," Trump quipped, blending charm with his relentless focus on maximizing benefits for the U.S. economy, as reported during the exchange.
Let’s be real—while some might scoff at this as showmanship, it’s hard to argue with results when foreign leaders are nudged into doubling down on American jobs and innovation.
The crown prince didn’t hesitate, responding with a firm commitment to escalate the investment to $1 trillion, a figure that could reshape economic ties between the two nations.
"We will announce an increase in our investments in the United States to reach approximately one trillion dollars," bin Salman declared, as reported by Al Jazeera, confirming the seismic shift in plans.
Trump, ever the closer, double-checked the pledge, asking, "You’re telling me now the $600 billion will be $1 trillion?" to which bin Salman replied with a confident "Definitely," sealing the moment with clarity and resolve, also per Al Jazeera.
This trillion-dollar promise isn’t just numbers on a page; it’s a lifeline for U.S. manufacturing, energy, construction, and tech sectors, building on recent deals for weapons and cutting-edge AI hardware with American firms.
Saudi-backed companies are already forging partnerships with U.S. chipmakers and cloud providers for data centers and AI hubs, proving this isn’t empty rhetoric but a tangible plan to fuel growth on both sides of the Atlantic.
While progressive critics might grumble about foreign influence, let’s not ignore the obvious—thousands of American jobs and a stronger economy aren’t exactly a bad trade-off for a handshake in D.C.
Saudi officials attribute this bold move to their trust in Trump’s deregulatory policies and tax reforms, which they believe will turbocharge U.S. growth and create fertile ground for their sovereign and private sector funds.
The crown prince also framed this as part of his Vision 2030 initiative to diversify Saudi Arabia’s oil-dependent economy, though the bulk of the benefits seem poised to supercharge American innovation and infrastructure—a win for pragmatism over ideological hand-wringing.
Yet, questions linger about the timeline for this massive investment and how much will come from public versus private Saudi sources, a detail that deserves scrutiny even as we celebrate the potential windfall.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Another scientific study, published at the direction of President Donald Trump, is breaking ground because now it's been peer-reviewed, and the potential critics were unable to find anything significant to criticize in the results that found there's almost zero medical evidence to support the agenda of putting chemicals in children, or offering them body-mutilating surgeries, when they claim to be transgender.
In a report from the New York Post, it was confirmed that the study, done by the Department of Health and Human Services after Trump issued an executive order that charged U.S. doctors with "maiming" teens with such treatment, was found by experts to have no significant failings or errors.
There were nearly a dozen critics who took on the job of commenting on the study's findings, and none was able to identify a deficiency.
"They were given the chance to show mistakes, show errors. And they were not able to identify any," Dr. Leor Sapir, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and one of the project researchers, confirmed in comments to the Post. "They had some minor comments here and there, but nothing that gets to the main findings about evidence and ethics."
Sapir pointed out that includes a former president of the Endocrine Society, a group that has been a chief proponent of the radical treatments for children.
When the report first was released by Trump last summer, it charged that gender-affirming "treatment" must be brought to an end.
"The subsequent report found that many of the studies that proponents of gender-affirming care use to back their treatments were of 'very low quality,' and that little is really known about the long-term psychological and quality-of-life effects of treatment, along with how often patients regret about undertaking them. The report also noted the UK has banned the use of puberty blockers and other treatments for minors altogether," according to the Post.
The report pointed out, "Exactly what the Trump administration will do with the report remains to be seen, but Sapir said he hopes that the medical community will take a step back from the culture war debate over gender-affirming care and look at the science. 'Let's reassess. At minimum, let's allow for open debate. Let's listen to dissenting perspectives. Let's do rigorous analysis.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Amid the ongoing wars over the failing Obamacare – the stratospheric costs, the huge co-pays, the high deductibles, the general lack of market competition and the huge and invasive government spying on procedures and patients, one state is working on something unique.
BearCare.
At least that's what officials in Wyoming are calling their plan to provide catastrophic coverage for events like an attack from a bear.
It is the Cowboy State Daily that explained the odds of getting attacked by an angry grizzly, or hit by a bus or some other rare event are low.
But they do happen.
The report cited the problems for Shayne Patrick Burke, 35, who was attacked by an angry momma grizzle in Wyoming's Grand Teton National Park. On social media he said it was the most violent experience of his life.
The new "BearCare" now is part of a series of proposals from the state department of health turned over to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The idea comes from people who need the coverage.
"More than 1,300 Wyoming residents responded to an online survey addressing the health care priorities of rural communities," Cowboy State reported.
And Miranda Hinkle, of the state department, said there were concerns over accessibility, costs and such.
Also, about "BearCare," which isn't a replacement for routine health insurance but would kick in for catastrophes, like the one experienced by Burke, or the one for Celia Easton.
She was in elk hunting country when, because of a wet morning, pulled on her "muck" boots.
She saw a mama grizzly charging about three seconds before impact, the report said.
But when the bear chomped on her foot, the boot came off and the bear scampered.
The state plan covers things besides bears, such as "necessary medical services in an episode of care beginning with an emergency anchor event."
President Donald Trump has persuaded Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to increase his pledged $600 billion investment in the U.S. to almost $1 trillion, Breitbart reported. The president wooed the Saudi prince with a banquet and a White House flyover featuring American military planes, including three F-15s and three F-35s.
Trump pulled out all of the stops for the crown prince. The president held an Oval Office meeting with the Saudi royal for the press after showing him the "Presidential Walk of Fame," which includes framed pictures of past presidents save for the autopen in place of former President Joe Biden.
The official White House account shared footage of the flyover to X on Tuesday. "JUST NOW: U.S. military jets fly over the White House as President Donald J. Trump welcomes Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the White House," the caption read. It was punctuated by emojis of the American and Saudi flags.
JUST NOW: U.S. military jets fly over the White House as President Donald J. Trump welcomes Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the White House. 🇺🇸🇸🇦 pic.twitter.com/hnsk1N0yMx
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 18, 2025
The crown prince was eager to share the announcement with the reporters gathered at the White House. "I believe, Mr. President, today and tomorrow, we’re going to announce that we are going to increase that $600 billion to almost $1 trillion of investment, real investment, and real opportunity by details in many areas," bin Salman said.
"And the agreement that we are signing today in many areas of technology, [artificial intelligence], and materials, magnets, etc, that will create a lot of domestic opportunities," the crown prince added. Trump expressed his gratitude for the change that came just after he said he would like to see the original investment number increased.
"I appreciate that. That’s great. We’re doing numbers that nobody’s ever done," Trump said. "And in all fairness, if you didn’t see potential in the U.S., you wouldn’t be doing it….You don’t want to lose money," the president added.
The crown prince complimented the U.S. as the "hottest country on the planet," bin Salman said, adding it was because of Trump. He also noted that Trump was steering the U.S. towards prosperity and further investment interest.
"It’s about also long-term opportunity in United States of America to effect American economy positively in the next coming decades, preparing the…foundation of emerging technologies that’s a game changer for America in a good way. And want to be part of it," bin Salman said.
Of course, with such good news abounding, the establishment media was eager to bring up the fact that bin Salman's visit was the first since Jamal Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018, CBS News reported. Khashoggi was a human rights activist and Washington Post reporter, and the CIA claimed that bin Salman allegedly ordered the hit.
For his part, bin Salman has denied any connection to the crime but did say that he felt responsible for Khashoggi's death because it was "committed by individuals working for the Saudi government," he admitted in a 2019 interview. A reporter asked the crown prince about the crime during Tuesday's Oval Office meeting, and Trump chided them for asking.
Trump chimed in that "a lot of people didn't like that gentleman [Khashoggi]" and that bin Salman "knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that." The president also took the opportunity to smooth things over with the crown prince after that question by praising him.
"We have an extremely respected man in the Oval Office today, and a friend of mine for a long time, a very good friend of mine. I'm very proud of the job, what he's done is incredible in terms of human rights and everything else," Trump said.
World politics is complicated and often requires a delicate touch with people who aren't the most moral. Trump seems to handle this expertly, and has proven that by getting what's best for the U.S. from the crown prince, even if it makes the establishment media angry.
Hold onto your hats, folks—President Donald Trump just dropped a bombshell that’s got everyone from tech geeks to policy wonks buzzing.
Trump’s recent comments on the need for H-1B migrant workers to bolster the returning U.S. microchip industry have ignited both support and sharp criticism from his conservative base, with Republican leaders pushing back hard against the visa program, the Daily Caller reported.
Let’s rewind to Trump’s interview with Fox News’s Laura Ingraham on November 10, where the H-1B visa topic first came up. He didn’t mince words, arguing that America lacks the skilled workforce needed for certain high-tech roles. It’s a tough pill to swallow for a nation that prides itself on innovation.
On Monday, Trump doubled down, telling reporters that the microchip industry’s return to American soil demands talent we currently don’t have. He pointed out that expertise in chip-making has slipped away, largely to Taiwan, due to past leadership failures. It’s a stark admission from a leader who’s all about putting America first.
Trump didn’t just stop at diagnosing the problem; he painted a vision of revival. He predicted that within a year, the U.S. could claim a hefty slice of the global chip market—if we can train our people fast enough. That’s a big “if” in a world where tech moves at lightning speed.
Here’s Trump in his own words: “For instance, if you’re going to be making chips — we don’t make chips too much here anymore, but we are going to be in a period of a year, we’re going to have a big portion of the chip market. But we have to train our people how to make chips, because we didn’t get — we used to do it, and then foolishly, we lost that business to Taiwan, very, very foolishly, because if they had a president that thought like I did, they would not have let that happen,” he told reporters. Now, while his passion for bringing jobs back is clear, banking on foreign labor to kickstart this engine raises eyebrows among his staunchest supporters.
Trump didn’t hold back on blasting previous administrations for losing the chip industry in the first place. He called the Chips Act a disaster, claiming it handed billions to foreign nations while failing to secure American dominance. That’s a zinger aimed straight at the bureaucrats who thought throwing money around was the answer.
He also tied the industry’s decline to a lack of belief in tariffs, arguing that smarter trade policies could have kept nearly 100% of chip production from shifting to Taiwan. It’s a fair point—why did we let a cornerstone of modern tech slip through our fingers?
Trump’s optimism shines through when he notes that chip manufacturers are already returning to the U.S. He believes that in a short time, America could lead the world in chip production again. That’s the kind of bold prediction his base usually cheers—minus the H-1B curveball.
But not everyone in the conservative camp is clapping. Trump’s remarks have sparked a firestorm among his political base, who see H-1B visas as a threat to American jobs. It’s a classic clash between economic pragmatism and the “hire American” ethos.
On November 13, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis fired back with a pointed challenge to Congress. “Republicans have a majority in Congress and could legislate elimination of H1B (and any programs designed to import cheap foreign labor). Deeds, not words, are what matter,” DeSantis declared. That’s a polite but firm nudge to turn rhetoric into action.
Not to be outdone, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced on X that same day that she’s introducing legislation to phase out the H-1B program entirely. Talk about drawing a line in the sand. It’s clear some GOP leaders aren’t buying Trump’s temporary fix.
Let’s not forget the irony here: the microchip itself was born in the U.S., thanks to American innovators like Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce. Yet somehow, we’ve outsourced the very industry we pioneered. That’s not just a policy failure; it’s a national embarrassment.
Trump’s argument for H-1B workers isn’t without merit—rebuilding an industry overnight requires talent, wherever it comes from. But leaning on foreign labor risks alienating the very Americans who want those jobs and the training to do them. It’s a tightrope walk between quick results and long-term loyalty.
So, where does this leave us? Trump’s vision of a resurgent chip sector is inspiring, but the path he’s chosen has conservatives split down the middle. Maybe it’s time for a serious debate on how to balance immediate needs with the promise of “Made in America”—without losing sight of who we’re building this future for.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A handful of Democrats in Congress who served in the U.S. military and intelligence community are raising eyebrows with a new video encouraging current service members to refuse to follow "illegal orders" issued by the administration of President Donald Trump.
"We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe," the lawmakers say, taking turns in brief clips. "We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now."
"This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence-community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
"Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
"We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical and know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution and who we are as Americans."
The video concludes with the message: "Don't give up the ship."
Democrats featured in the video are Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former CIA officer; Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, a former Navy captain and astronaut; Rep. Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, a former Navy officer; Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, a former intelligence officer in the Navy Reserve; Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, a former Air Force officer; and Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, a former paratrooper and Army Ranger.
Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security, says: "Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for insurrection."
LibsofTikTok commented: "Elected Democrats just released a video encouraging members of the military to commit treason and DEFY orders from Trump and Hegseth."
Others noted:
"This is seditious conspiracy. Arrest every one of them."
"That's a helluva way for the Dems to advocate for military members ending their careers."
"Every attempt to take over this country has failed. Now the Epstein documents are coming out. And coincidentally you're asking our military to commit treason, just as you all probably have. How fitting."
"Who's going to charge them with treason? No one. And they know it, so they feel totally free to break the law."
"I notice they didn't mention what, specifically, the danger is. In what way is our laws and constitution being challenged? In fact, they didn't even vaguely state this. Just more nonsense."
"Is this unlawful? If so, arrest them. If not, ignore them."
"Looks like some treason indictments are needed. @FBI @DOJCrimDiv."
"The Democrat party was built on treason."
"Haha, these are the same people who voted against our military personnel and federal employees receiving compensation for their work."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The federal food stamp program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, has been victimized by millions, probably hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars in abuse.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said there's already evidence of 185,000 dead people registered to get benefits, and more than 500,000 are getting benefits twice. One person had registered the same Social Security number for benefits in six states
And the solution will involve, at least in part, a new program to have beneficiaries reapply for the program.
That cash handout was what was at risk by the Schumer Shutdown, the Democrats' agenda to shut down the government to force Republicans to reach into taxpayers' pockets for $1.5 trillion for the Democrats' specific agenda points.
That didn't happen, but SNAP resumed operations when the Democrats eventually caved in and allowed the government to reopen.
Now according to a report originally in the Washington Stand, the requirement to reapply is coming.
When Rollins took office, letters were sent to state governments requesting information on the program's use of money. Only 29 states responded, mostly from Republican administrations, but even that confirmed there's "a lot of fraud," Rollins said.
She said the stunning results included hundreds of thousands of recipients who are dead, many more getting paid twice.
"Here's the really stunning thing: This is just data from those 29 mostly-red states. Can you imagine when we get our hands on the blue-state data, what we're going to find?" she said.
She continued, "The president has made this a priority. We will fix this program."
And that includes people reapplying for benefits to "make sure that everyone who's taking a taxpayer-funded benefit through SNAP or food stamps that they literally are vulnerable, and they can't survive without it. That's the next step here."
She said, "I do think what the Democrats did not include in their calculation, in their insane government shutdown, was the fact that this spotlight was going to [shine] upon one of their favorite government welfare programs that, under Joe Biden, increased 40%. All of this money that the federal government, the taxpayers are paying for food stamps, we don't even know where it goes, what happens, what they're doing with it."
In fact, four in five recipients are "able-bodied Americans" who could work.
"They don't have small children at home, they're not taking care of an elderly parent, they can work and they choose not to work, of course, because they're getting significant benefits from the taxpayer. … So this … is perhaps one of the most corrupt, dysfunctional programs in American history that—we are working now… We are cracking down. We now have a plan to fix it."
A researcher for the Heritage Foundation told the Stand there's probably $9 billion in SNAP overpayment errors for just 2024.
"Individuals commit SNAP fraud by: providing false information on their SNAP applications to increase their benefit amount (e.g., claiming they have lower income and/or higher costs than they actually do or claiming more people live in the household than actually do), stealing another person's identity to claim benefits, selling SNAP benefits for cash or other goods, or running up a balance on their SNAP card and then reporting the card stolen so they can receive more benefits," the researcher explained.
Other parts of the resolution may be to have states fund part of the costs, so they have "skin in the game."
President Donald Trump announced Monday that he will make good on a promise to return money collected from tariffs back to the American people, Fox News reported. The president has promised to distribute "hundreds of millions of dollars in tariff money" by the middle of next year.
When Trump was elected and began imposing tariffs, the left was apoplectic about the president's use of this measure against foreign nations. They claimed that it would worsen inflation and make Americans pay more for everything if Trump imposed tariffs on China and other nations during his "Liberation Day" rollout in April.
However, Trump stayed the course and promised that the payoff would be better trade deals for America and a better economy. It also means the government will be able to issue $2,000 rebate checks to all but the highest earners.
"We've taken in hundreds of millions of dollars in tariff money. We're going to be issuing dividends probably by the middle of next year, maybe a little bit later than that," Trump said in the Oval Office to reporters.
Trump gave the first indication of his plan last weekend. In a post to his Truth Social on Nov. 9, the president shared about the success of his tariffs and called out his naysayers.
He also shared that he planned to give back some of the funds earned from those tariffs. "People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS!" Trump wrote in his post.
"We are now the Richest, Most Respected Country In the World, With Almost No Inflation, and A Record Stock Market Price," Trump wrote. "401k’s are Highest EVER. We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion," the president noted.
"Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone," Trump promised.
While Trump is eager to get the money back into Americans' hands, CNN reported that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that it wouldn't be that simple. According to Bessent, a move like that would require congressional approval rather than a presidential fiat.
"We will see. We need legislation for that," Bessent said Sunday on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures program, though he acknowledged that they "could go out" next year.
There's also a chance that the Supreme Court could eliminate Trump's tariffs that the president put into effect using an emergency provision. The court is currently examining the issue of how those tariffs were imposed and whether he had the authority to do so, though Bessent believes the administration is safe from a reversal, considering the impact it would cause.
"I don’t think this ruling is going to go against us, but if it does, what’s (the Supreme Court’s) plan for refunds? Because how is this going to get to consumers? Are they just going to hand some of these importers big windfalls?” Bessent said. "I don’t think the Supreme Court wants to wade into a mess like that," he added.
Trump has attempted to restore domestic manufacturing through tariffs while ensuring trade imbalances are corrected. He promised to do all of that and to return the dividends to the American people, and it looks like he will do just that to keep another promise.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The common claims about tariffs, used liberally by President Donald Trump to bring about a more fair international trading platform for Americans, have been exploded by a new study that assesses the impact of those programs over 150 years.
In fact, the claims by Kamala Harris during her failed 2024 presidential campaign, are "in tatters" and the Fed has been shown to be doing exactly the wrong thing.
"The study removes the most potent intellectual weapon from the free-trade arsenal: the claim that tariffs inevitably raise consumer prices. For generations, this assertion ended policy debates before they could begin. Policymakers considering tariffs faced the accusation that they were imposing a regressive tax on consumers. Kamala Harris, in her failed bid for the presidency last year, repeatedly described Trump's tariff proposals as a national sales tax that would increase consumer prices. Now that idea lies in tatters," explained a report from Breitbart.
"With the consumer price argument dismantled, the debate over tariffs can proceed on grounds better rooted in economic history and national purpose. Policymakers can weigh the benefits of protecting domestic industries, rebalancing trade relationships, and rebuilding manufacturing capacity against the effects on economic activity and employment. They can consider whether tariffs might encourage productive investment and industrial development, questions that have been largely off-limits in mainstream economic discourse. The paper's findings also call into question the Fed's response to tariffs. If the main effects are lower inflation and higher lower employment, monetary theory would suggest that the Fed should cut interest rates when tariffs are imposed. Instead, the Fed this year took the opposite course, holding interest rates steady and only cutting hesitantly—moves that now look like a major policy mistake."
The assessment, from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco considered the "150 years of tariff policy in the U.S. and abroad."
"A careful review of the major changes in U.S. tariff policy since 1870 shows no systematic relation between the state of the cycle and the direction of the tariff changes, as partisan differences on the effects and desirability of tariffs led to opposite policy responses to similar economic conditions. Exploiting this quasi-random nature of tariff variations, we find that a tariff hike raises unemployment (lowers economic activity) and lowers inflation. Using only tariff changes driven by long-run considerations—a traditional narrative identification—gives similar results. We also obtain similar results if we restrict the sample to the modern post World War II period or if we use independent variation from other countries (France and the UK). These findings point towards tariff shocks acting through an aggregate demand channel."
The study found "when countries raise tariffs, prices actually fall, not rise."
Authors Regis Barnichon and Aayush Singh found, "We find that a tariff hike raises unemployment and lowers inflation. … This goes against the predictions of standard models, whereby CPI inflation should go up in response to higher tariffs."
The Breitbart report noted the conclusion was released at a "politically charged moment" since the Trump administration has imposed tariff increases averaging 18% on U.S. imports in 2025."
That resulted in legacy economists claiming that is inflationary.
Federal Reserve officials have joined, claiming they don't want to cut interest rates because they expect tariffs to push up prices.
That agenda, the report said, reveals those are "theoretical foundations" that are "shaky" and are not "backed by evidence," the report said.
Overall, "A roughly 4 percentage point increase in average tariffs lowered inflation by about 2 percentage points while raising unemployment by about 1 percentage point, they found," the report said.
That "contradicts" standard economic assumptions, the report said.
The study found, "We provide suggestive evidence that an aggregate demand channel can be at play, but an important avenue for future research is to understand the theoretical reasons for these surprising yet robust findings, which are central to the appropriate monetary response to tariff shocks."
Political parties long have held opposing views, with Republicans favoring tariffs and Democrats opposing them.
The authors found that "since recessions did not favor one party over another, there was no general relation between the direction of tariff changes and the state of the economy."
They then looked at a long list of tariff actions, from the McKinley Tariff of 1890 to President Trump's recent actions.
The report commented, "What emerges is a picture of tariffs far different from what opponents have typically portrayed. Rather than a crude tool that raises prices and harms consumers, tariffs appear to operate through sophisticated demand and supply mechanisms that reshape economic activity in ways economists are only beginning to understand."