Since resuming office, President Donald Trump has not for one minute parted from his promise to leverage tariffs to ignite a new “golden age.” At times, he seems to be working continually to stimulate major trading partners into arrangements that make America great again.

However, anyone attempting to follow the bouncing tariff proposals may get dizzy. What is the president trying to do, and why does it seem so hard to make final decisions?

To whatever degree the tariffs are about controlling access to America’s economy and securing something in return, a fluid situation will result. Trump’s expensive bargaining chip may also require him to navigate a strange political alliance — one that frequently forms when the government puts its thumb on the scale of business matters.

In February, Trump announced 25 percent tariffs on all goods from Mexico and Canada and a 10% added tariff on China. Days later, after outcries, the tariffs were delayed and coverage modified. More recently, we were told that tariffs would be expanded to more nations — perhaps all nations — with each border tax charged equal to what they charge America.

A “sauce for the goose is good for the gander” approach might spur agreements to bring down tariffs, which could be positive. However, there are more questions to consider before drawing that happy conclusion.

Is this primarily an effort to leverage trade partners to reduce the entry of fentanyl and other illegal drugs? To protect U.S. industries from low-cost foreign competition? To re-industrialize America? To garner revenues that help balance the budget? All this and more?

These things matter, but let’s consider another possibility: The tariff movement is mainly about Trump, a modern colossus who stands empowered and athwart U.S. entry points. One who, rattling the keys to the world’s largest legally safe consumer market, uses tariffs as a lever to change how the world works. Perhaps tariffs are, in a sense, tribute.

Economic theory can reveal a lot about political behavior, including how a president enjoys enough support to wield a policy that, all things equal, costs Americans quite a bit of money.

In the case of federal regulations like these, my 1983 Bootlegger-Baptist theory of regulation has been called on by regulatory scholars to explain features of the NAFTA trade deal and the Clean Air Act; OSHA safety standards, interstate trucking regulation, and the Pure Food and Drug Act; regulation of genetically modified organisms; gambling legislation; blood donation; the 1990s tobacco settlement; and pending AI regulation.

The theory gets its name from regulating the Sunday sale of alcohol in American states and cities. This tends to occur when two distinct groups join the cause: Bootleggers (who enjoy a day without legal competition) and traditional Baptists (who have argued that consuming alcohol is immoral). Both favor Sunday closing laws but for decidedly different reasons.

Time and again, when a regulation is proposed, one group takes some moral high ground. The other — maybe bootleggers, legal businesses better positioned to navigate a new regulation than their competitors, or industries protected by tariffs — laughs all the way to the bank.

Meanwhile, politicians can appeal to moral sympathies with a sincere smile while caring for well-heeled bootleggers.

In today’s tariff conversation, “Baptists” may make strong and sympathetic moral arguments about reducing drug deaths, improving federal revenues, and generating a more level international playing field. Each point is richly supported by public interest groups.

The obvious candidates for the “bootlegger” camp are the industries tariffs protect. Tariffs reduce their competition and enhance their profits. Others might include wealthy taxpayers who see their future bills lightened by an alternative form of government revenue. Some bootleggers might even put on Baptist clothing, perhaps sincerely, as they call for higher tariffs — but the profit motive remains.

Finally, there’s Trump, the politician-broker who, as gatekeeper, gains tribute — call it political currency — from both groups. The president may believe tariffs are a moral imperative and see himself playing a major Baptist role. Like countless politicians before him, he is also the chief enabler of the bootlegger.

To secure a position that is not in the immediate best interests of U.S. consumers, Trump can lean on an invisible network of bootleggers and Baptists.

Bruce Yandle is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and dean emeritus of Clemson University’s College of Business & Behavioral Science. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Last fall, when initial data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed a surprising drop in drug overdose deaths, the universal response was relief. We were finally getting something right in addressing the opioid epidemic, which accounted for most of the decrease and has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

That progress has been hard-won and should be celebrated. Addiction specialists are hopeful we can push the still-too-high numbers of opioid deaths even lower in 2025.

But we also shouldn’t miss the trees for the forest. So much more work is needed to understand what’s behind the decline and how to ensure everyone who needs help gets it. And the Trump administration, which made tackling the opioid crisis a priority during the president’s first term, should more carefully consider how some of its proposed policy and funding changes could upend all of this.

Let’s start with the general themes that appear to be responsible for the improvement on a national level. People working on the ground and studying interventions all agree that making naloxone (Narcan), which can reverse an overdose, widely available and increasing access to treatments like buprenorphine and suboxone have been critical to saving lives. There also seems to have been a change in the quality of the fentanyl on the streets that might be weakening its appeal to users. Some experts point to the depressing possibility that many of the most at-risk people succumbed to an overdose earlier in the epidemic.

With opioids, though, it’s essential to look beyond the macro trends. For example, state-level data makes clear that the crisis didn’t start to abate all at once last year (a situation that would have suggested the change was driven by a sudden change in policy or supply), but instead, declines in deaths were staggered, state-by-state, over three years, says Nabarun Dasgupta, an epidemiologist at the UNC Injury Prevention Research Center who studies drugs and infectious diseases.

Trends that point to where to invest future resources are buried within that state-level data. It reveals, for example, that graphs showing the epidemic is improving don’t reflect everyone’s experience. Scott Weiner, an emergency and addiction medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Massachusetts, says that all of the decline in opioid deaths in his state came from white drug users; meanwhile, the rate of deaths among Black opioid users increased. That disparity has grown among Black, Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Natives in many states, and resources should be focused on interventions that have been shown to work.

Philomena Kebec, a judge and attorney who belongs to the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, described what that looks like in tribal communities in Wisconsin, where opioid deaths began to abate in 2023.

They’ve taken multiple tacks to get naloxone to everyone who might need it, including a mail-order program where orders are assessed and filled by someone with lived experience with addiction. There is also an emphasis on community engagement, which saves lives. “I think there’s a greater awareness of the need to watch out for people,” she says. Fewer people are using alone, so “when somebody goes down, there’s someone there who handles it.”

Meanwhile, Arizona has also seen a significant drop in opioid deaths over the past two years, but Dasgupta’s group noticed a consistent spike in deaths during July. That suggests the extreme heat is playing a role in overdose deaths, something public health officials could factor in as they map out prevention strategies.

Amid attempts to unpack the nuances of the progress, there is a cautiousness when talking about what comes next. Everyone believes the numbers should continue to decline so long as current efforts stay on track.

However, several potential developments could easily send the U.S. overdose rate soaring again. The Trump administration is seeking steep cuts to Medicaid, which could have a devastating effect on access to treatment for opioid use disorder. The current proposal calls for the committee overseeing Medicaid and Medicare to extract $880 billion from its budget over the next decade — cuts that would fall squarely on Medicaid.

Potential cost-saving strategies include instituting a work requirement, an approach that a recent analysis published in Health Affairs found could jeopardize insurance access for some 4.56 million people with substance use disorder. Another approach being floated would eliminate the matching federal funds that states receive under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion.

A recent Brookings Institute report found that more than half of those treated for opioid use disorder in 2021 fell under Medicaid expansion — and getting rid of those matching funds would cut anywhere from $5.4 billion to $14.1 billion in treatment funding.

Another potential risk to maintaining the progress might sound paradoxical. But if the Trump administration cracks down too harshly on synthetic opioids, it could open the door to other, even more dangerous drugs. “A sudden clamp down on illicit fentanyl and xylazine is going to lead to the emergence of more potent synthetic opioids, which are waiting in the wings,” Dasgupta says.

He points to the situation in Europe, where the arrival of a powerful class of opioids called nitazenes has led to a rise in deaths in several countries. The problem isn’t just its potency but that we lack the kind of tools that have helped reduce deaths from fentanyl — like easy detection in blood and urine samples or test strips for users.

The first Trump administration is credited with initiating the work that has gotten us to this point. To keep that legacy intact, the current one should carefully consider the unintended consequences of its actions.

Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, health care and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News.

As America’s capricious trade war rolls on, the European Union may be Washington’s next target. The EU’s instinct to retaliate is understandable — but a tit-for-tat escalation is exactly the wrong response.

Although details are murky, the White House plans to announce what it calls “reciprocal” tariffs on April 2 — with rates that factor in everything from value-added tax to subsidies to regulation. It should go without saying that this idea would harm everyone involved. About one-third of EU goods exports to the U.S. could suddenly face tariff rates of 20%, almost certainly throwing Europe into recession. The EU has prepared duties on as much as $28 billion in U.S. products in return; Americans would see prices soar on (among other things) prescription drugs, manufacturing machinery and inputs for a slew of industries.

One hopes that sanity will still prevail. If not, Europe’s response to this reckless provocation will determine just how damaging it will be.

European officials are justifiably outraged. Yet moral arguments are lost on the current U.S. administration. Moreover, trade wars are costliest for the side with the surplus. Europe can, as it did during Donald Trump’s first term, absorb the cost of targeting a list of symbolically important items — such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles — but broader retaliation would amount to self-harm. In particular, the bloc should avoid countermeasures against U.S. financial, tech or other services companies, all of which benefit European companies and consumers.

Europe also has carrots to offer, many in its own interests. Encouraging companies to boost imports of U.S. liquefied natural gas would meet a key White House demand while also cementing independence from Russian energy. Likewise, more U.S. weapons purchases are inevitable as the EU plugs holes in its military preparedness and builds up its defense industry.

Europe should also fix its own trade distortions. Slashing its 10% tariff on cars to match the U.S.’s 2.5% (and extending it globally per World Trade Organization rules) is overdue, even if it stings for European carmakers. A clearer, less antagonistic approach to tech regulation might ease relations with the U.S. while also boosting growth and aiding homegrown innovation.

Beyond damage limitation, Europe needs to muscle up, both militarily and economically, for the longer term. Germany’s decision to bypass debt limits to increase defense spending is welcome. A similar proposal from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, intended to mobilize some €800 billion ($867 billion) for an EU-wide military buildup, also holds promise.

Finally, Europe needs to strengthen its economic resilience. A proper financial-markets union — something the EU has long promised and is considering anew — would better allocate capital and spur innovation. Streamlining energy markets, harmonizing services regulation and fast-tracking digital integration would further harden the bloc against shocks. These aren’t new ideas, but pressure from the U.S. should add a sense of urgency.

A tariff war would harm both sides — bringing higher prices, broken supply chains and weaker alliances — without fixing any of the problems the U.S. administration is preoccupied with. But Europe isn’t helpless. It can wield its size as the world’s second-largest economy, shore up its defenses and reform smarter. In doing so, it might ensure that at least some good comes from this otherwise pointless undertaking.

— The Bloomberg Opinion Editorial Board