Ag Tribes Report: Ag is all over the place on tariffs with @Charles_Benoit

About this episode

In a departure from the usual Ag Tribes Report format, Vance brings on Charles Benoit, a trade attorney with the Coalition for Prosperous America, for an unusually dense historical deep-dive into US tariff policy just as the Trump administration's 2025 tariffs are unfolding in real time. Benoit argues that "nothing is new under the sun" in trade policy, drawing an extended parallel between 2025 and the 1816-1824 period when British and French trade restrictions forced early American industrialization, and walks through a counter-narrative of tariff history: that the 1920s prosperity followed the 1921 Emergency Tariff Act restoring protection (not Smoot-Hawley causing the Depression, which he attributes instead to debt and monetary crisis), and that 1934's transfer of tariff authority from Congress to the president marked "year zero" for a steady decline in protected industries and rural America. He makes the striking claim that the current 10% universal tariff, structured via Section 232 national security authority (already applied to autos, steel, aluminum, with copper, lumber, and pharmaceuticals coming), could generate roughly $300 billion annually — enough to eliminate income tax for 60-80% of filers — while agriculture remains conspicuously untouched by the protective side so far. He systematically dismantles the "free trade helps farmers via exports" narrative using historical export data (corn exports down in volume over 20 years despite a dozen trade agreements, sugar tariffs unchanged since 1824), reframes Canadian dairy protectionism as the "right attitude" rather than cheating, and argues tariffs shouldn't be about "fighting for exports" but about protecting the home market. A striking historical detour covers the 1875 Hawaii sugar reciprocity treaty and its role in Hawaii's eventual annexation. Vance pushes back on the political-power-concentration risk of tariffs and awards Benoit an unusually high 9/10 (his highest ever) on the Peter Thiel paradox for the free-trade-within-sovereign-borders-only argument. Benoit's worthy adversary pick, Gavin Newsom, is notable for being praised purely on competence/ambition grounds despite total substantive disagreement.

“The historical analogy to where we are in 2025 is the 1816 to 1824 time period... Britain and France taking turns, cutting us off from trade and forcing us to learn to be self-reliant. The kind that was it that kind of spawned the industrialization of the United States.”

“The amount of gaslighting is, you know, gaslighting being like, just like telling people a fake story over and over again until like they're forced to believe it or, yeah, it's, it's actually insane.”

“The president campaigned on a 10% universal tariff. And we got that... that should bring in 300 billion a year maybe... we could already, with that 300 billion, we can, you know, wipe out income tax for like the bottom 60, 70%.”

Key moments

• Benoit's 1816-1824 historical parallel, arguing British/French wartime trade restrictions forced early US industrialization the same way current tariffs might now.
• Benoit's revisionist claim that Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the Great Depression — citing Ben Bernanke — and that 1934's transfer of tariff-setting authority from Congress to the president marked the true turning point for American industrial decline.
• The claim that the current 10% universal tariff could generate roughly $300 billion annually — enough to potentially eliminate income tax for 60-80% of filers.
• Corn export volumes are lower today than 20 years ago despite a dozen trade agreements, undercutting the "free trade helps farmers via exports" narrative.
• Benoit's blunt reframe that processors pushing "fight harder for exports" rhetoric actually want the cheapest input costs and don't want farmers prosperous or able to pass farms to their children.