this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
980 points (99.7% liked)
Political Memes
9057 readers
1907 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Its wild, Biden was like "I'm saving the world" and then slapped tariffs on cheap EVs rather than match subsidies, ensuring the survival of gas cars and destruction of the planet, for the benefit of American manufacturing.
Trump is like "I'm saving America" and just fucking over everyone.
Trump might contribute more to saving the world by downsizing the US economy in the end.
Not that he would do so intentionally.
Subsidies would have been great, but the practice appears to be much different. The tariffs you are talking about stemmed from a US trade representative investigation request that was initiated in 2018. As part of the 1974 Trade Act (section 301) retaliation measures are are allowed by the executive branch and comically tariffs are never mentioned as a retaliatory measure by name until 2018 really. For example tariffs are mentioned 24 times in the Congress.gov section 301 overview. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11346
Tariffs were never mentioned in 301 prior to that. https://usinfo.org/law/majorlaws/301.htm
Using section 301 in the format we have it now in my interpretation is that "retaliatory" measures can be taken globally or against an individual country as per the reviewed and debated investigations findings... But subsidies aren't a form of retaliation, and therefore would fall outside section 301 and require legislative approval. Which is what Biden should have faught. If he could have substantiated an argument that subsidies are a form of retaliation, maybe he could have performed them without congressional approval. It's a hard maybe though.
He should have had the executive branch conclude no retaliatory action was necessary as tariffs would have potentially caused further damage to the U.S. economy and trade. Thereby ending the USTRs investigation/fundings as something that shouldn't be addressed by the executive branch and forced the legislative branch to address it by encouraging such subsidies. They probably weren't going to go anywhere do to Congress being split but it may have helped stifle tarrifs being a standardized retaliatory act in our current era of trade agreements.