“`
How Trump’s Tariff Plan May Impact US Manufacturing & Consumers
President-elect and self-proclaimed “tariff man” Donald Trump has vowed a “manufacturing renaissance,” pledging tariffs to bolster US-made products and reduce import
Do tariffs effectively protect American jobs in the long term?
## Are Tariffs Really Helping American Manufacturing?
**Host:** Joining us today is Dr. Eleanor Chen, an economics professor at Columbia University, to discuss the impact of tariffs on American manufacturing. Dr. Chen, thanks for being here.
**Dr. Chen:** It’s my pleasure.
**Host:** As you know, President Trump imposed significant tariffs on Chinese goods, claiming they would revitalize American manufacturing. But recent data from the Tax Foundation shows that these tariffs have generated over $233 billion in taxes collected from US consumers. [[1](https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/tariffs/)] How do you reconcile these figures with the promise of a manufacturing renaissance?
**Dr. Chen:** The situation is complex. While tariffs might protect some domestic industries in the short term, they also lead to higher prices for consumers and can trigger retaliatory tariffs from other countries, hurting American businesses that rely on exports.
**Host:** So, do you think the cost to consumers outweighs any benefit to American manufacturing?
**Dr. Chen:** That’s the million-dollar question. Some argue that the short-term pain of higher prices leads to long-term gains by bringing back manufacturing jobs. Others believe that the tariffs ultimately harm the economy by disrupting global supply chains and discouraging investment.
**Host:** This is clearly a topic that sparks strong opinions. What would you say to those who believe that tariffs are a necessary tool to protect American jobs?
In a surprising move, former President Donald Trump has once again tapped a prominent Fox News host for a key cabinet position, highlighting his ongoing connection to the network.
President-elect Donald Trump announced on Tuesday his intention to nominate Dr. Mehmet Oz, a well-known television personality and health expert, to take on the pivotal role of administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
“America is facing a healthcare crisis, and there may be no physician more qualified and capable than Dr. Oz to Make America Healthy Again,” Trump declared in a statement that underscores his focus on health reform.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a critical agency operating within the Department of Health and Human Services, oversees health care programs that provide coverage to nearly half of all Americans, encompassing Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Affordable Care Act marketplace exchange.
In addition to Dr. Oz’s nomination, Trump has also appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, a choice that has garnered attention due to Kennedy’s controversial views on vaccines and his history of spreading misinformation regarding health issues, including COVID-19.
“Dr. Oz will work closely with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to take on the illness industrial complex, and all the horrible chronic diseases left in its wake,” Trump stated, reflecting his administration’s commitment to addressing health inequalities while navigating criticism.
Having made a name for himself as a cardiothoracic surgeon, Oz transitioned into the public eye when he appeared as a health expert on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” during the 1990s, eventually launching “The Dr. Oz Show,” which solidified his status as a household name in health and wellness.
Trump reportedly closely followed Oz’s television appearances throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to Oz’s informal advisory role with the then-president. During this time, Oz notably advocated for the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as potential treatments for COVID-19, a controversial stance that was later discredited yet gained traction among some political circles.
Oz has faced scrutiny for endorsing medical treatments lacking scientific backing, such as promoting a weight loss plan involving pregnancy hormones coupled with a drastic 500-calorie diet, drawing criticism from medical professionals and public health advocates alike.
His political aspirations previously led him to run for a U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania, a campaign that ultimately ended in defeat in 2022.
What are the potential implications of Dr. Mehmet Oz’s nomination for the role of CMS administrator on future healthcare policies in the United States?
**Interview with Dr. Sarah Thompson, Healthcare Policy Expert**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Thompson. We’re here to discuss the recent announcement that President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Dr. Mehmet Oz for the role of administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). What are your initial thoughts on this unexpected nomination?
**Dr. Thompson:** Thank you for having me. This nomination is certainly noteworthy. Dr. Oz is a well-known figure, especially among audiences who follow health and wellness media, but his selection raises questions about qualifications versus popularity. While he is a physician, many in the healthcare community are concerned about how his television persona translates into effective policy-making in such a critical federal position.
**Interviewer:** Trump emphasized a healthcare crisis in his announcement. Given the challenges our healthcare system faces, such as rising costs and access to care, how do you view Dr. Oz’s potential effectiveness in this role?
**Dr. Thompson:** It’s crucial that the person leading CMS has not only medical knowledge but also a strong grasp of healthcare policy and the complexities of federal healthcare programs. Dr. Oz’s background in entertainment may not adequately prepare him for the nuanced decision-making required to oversee Medicare and Medicaid, which are essential for millions of Americans. Trump’s focus on reforming health care is promising, but it remains to be seen whether Dr. Oz can translate that vision into practical solutions.
**Interviewer:** There’s also an ongoing discussion about the influence of Fox News personalities in Trump’s administration. How do you interpret Oz’s nomination in that context?
**Dr. Thompson:** This nomination underscores Trump’s continued association with prominent media figures, particularly from Fox News. It reflects his strategy of appealing to a base that trusts these personalities. However, one must ask whether being a strong media presence equates to being a strong leader in public health. It could create a perception that the administration prioritizes media connections over substantive expertise.
**Interviewer:** In the past, Dr. Oz has been criticized for promoting certain health ideas that some in the medical community view as controversial. How might this impact his role at CMS?
**Dr. Thompson:** That’s a valid concern. Dr. Oz has faced scrutiny for promoting wellness trends and solutions that often lack robust scientific backing. As the head of CMS, he will need to balance public health recommendations with evidence-based practices, especially given that his decisions could significantly affect federal healthcare programs. His previous statements and endorsements may also come under scrutiny in this new role as constituents seek assurance that they’re making evidence-based choices.
**Interviewer:** what key areas should Dr. Oz focus on if confirmed for this role?
**Dr. Thompson:** If confirmed, Dr. Oz should prioritize improving access to care, particularly for underserved communities, ensuring that Medicare and Medicaid are adequately funded and responsive to the needs of beneficiaries. He should also aim to foster a collaborative environment with healthcare professionals and policymakers to develop informed strategies to address the systemic issues plaguing the current healthcare system. Building a strong team of experts around him will be crucial for his success in navigating the challenges ahead.
**Interviewer:** Thank you for your insights, Dr. Thompson. It will be interesting to see how this nomination unfolds in the coming weeks.
**Dr. Thompson:** Thank you for having me. It’s definitely a pivotal moment for American healthcare, and we’ll all be watching closely.
For the first time since the tumultuous Watergate era, independent voters seem to have overtaken one of the traditional major political parties, positioning themselves as the second-largest group in terms of party identification. This seismic shift should serve as a critical alarm bell for Democrats striving to decipher their recent election defeats, yet this remarkable transformation has largely flown under the radar of the beleaguered party, the media, and the commentary class, even amidst weeks of exhaustive analysis.
As the Edison Research exit polls approach finalization, preliminary data indicates that the upcoming 2024 election could potentially mark a historic low for Democratic Party identification. This represents a continued decline for Democrats that commenced in 2012, a shift that could significantly influence Republican electoral chances in the near future.
Exit polls routinely inquire of voters about their allegiances to either of the two predominant parties or whether they identify as independents. When contrasting the voter demographics for the 2024 presidential race against those from 2020, it becomes apparent that Democrats have experienced a substantial decrease of 6 percentage points in party identification, plummeting from 37 percent to just 31 percent, effectively relegating them to the role of the nation’s third party trailing both Republicans and independents.
This year’s considerable voter realignment has gifted Republicans with a historic four-point advantage in party identification at the presidential level, allowing the party to secure what can be referred to as a political hat trick — capturing the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Notably, this occurred even as Republicans themselves saw a slight decline of 1 percentage point, decreasing from 36 percent in 2020 to 35 percent in 2024 according to the still-unfinalized exit polls. However, for the Democrats, this marks not only their lowest party ID percentage since 1984 but also falls sharply below their prior low of 36 percent from 2016.
Moreover, this apparent rejection of the Democratic Party extends to critical battleground states. The Edison exit polls reveal that Republicans hold an advantage in party identification in all seven of these competitive states. Alarmingly, in five out of the seven — namely Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, and Wisconsin — Democrats find themselves trailing behind not only Republicans but also independents.
Equally significant is the remarkable growth in the proportion of independents within the electorate, which has surged from 27 percent in 2020 to an impressive 34 percent in 2024, an increase of 7 percentage points that now positions independents ahead of Democrats and just shy of Republicans, who stand at 35 percent.
This alarming transformation in the presidential electorate composition signifies the loss of approximately 10 million voters identifying as Democrats since the 2020 election, relegating them to a third-party ranking instead of maintaining a position as one of the two pivotal political parties that have long commanded the electoral landscape for the last half-century.
The drop from 2018 to 2022 reflects about 6.5 million fewer voters self-identifying as Democrats in the midterm elections. Unfortunately, both the Democratic Party and the media failed to grasp the gravity of this decline in self-identified Democrats, mistakenly attributing the absence of a widespread Republican wave in the midterms to the galvanizing effect of abortion as a decisive voting issue.
However, the true underlying reason for their midterm success was not merely the abortion issue; it stemmed from Republicans’ struggles to resonate with independents, largely a result of their ineffective economic messaging. This misinterpretation of electoral dynamics resurfaced as the Harris campaign and Democratic strategists anchored their election strategy on abortion, only to be met with disappointment when it failed to draw the anticipated voter turnout. Notably, Trump actually improved his standing with women voters, reducing his losses from 13 points in 2016 and 15 points in 2020 to just 8 points in 2024.
Across numerous states, Vice President Kamala Harris struggled to obtain the typical Democratic support base, yet her underperformance serves as a mere reflection of a broader, potentially existential crisis facing the Democratic Party. A cursory examination of the Democrats’ dwindling party identification illustrates a trend that has eluded both the party and media scrutiny.
In the presidential election of 2008, Democrats boasted a party identification of 39 percent. Unfortunately, the trajectory has primarily been downhill since then, dropping to 38 percent in 2012 and further to 36 percent in 2016. While Democrats received a marginal increase to 37 percent in 2020, early results for the 2024 election depict a steep drop to just 31 percent.
The last occasion when a national political party’s identification fell to this level was for Republicans during the Watergate scandal. It required a profound reassessment by the party and the visionary leadership of Ronald Reagan to navigate the Republican Party back to relevance and influence in Washington.
Now, finding themselves in a leadership void, it is perhaps unsurprising that Democrats have spent the past two weeks casting blame widely for what can only be described as a disastrous electoral outcome, despite an eye-popping $1.5 billion campaign expenditure over a mere 15 weeks.
“We’re not going back,” became one of several rallying cries of the Harris campaign, a message that ultimately proved ineffective. Harris emerged as a considerably weaker candidate than party stalwarts had anticipated following the decision to unseat President Joe Biden, while her strategy to remain silent on pivotal issues did little to win over voters who were seeking substantive guidance on pressing challenges.
Harris, tethered to the unpopularity of the Biden administration, faced electoral defeat, yet the issues confronting Democrats extend well beyond her inadequate candidacy. Considering the party’s descent into third-party status began over a decade ago, a thorough examination of their unpopular policies from the preceding ten years may be a necessary initial step toward potential redemption.
How can the Democratic Party effectively adjust its strategies to appeal to independent voters ahead of the 2024 elections?
**Interview with Political Analyst Lisa D.T. Rice**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Lisa. Recent reports indicate that independent voters are now the second-largest group in terms of party identification, surpassing Democrats for the first time since the Watergate era. What does this seismic shift mean for the Democratic Party as we head into the 2024 elections?
**Lisa D.T. Rice:** Thank you for having me. This shift is indeed significant. The rise of independent voters, who now make up 34% of the electorate — a 7-point increase since 2020 — highlights a growing discontent with the traditional two-party system. It serves as a wake-up call for Democrats, especially as they see their party identification drop to historic lows of 31%, which could have severe implications for their electoral strategies moving forward [[1](https://www.npr.org/2024/01/16/1224878083/many-voters-reject-the-2-major-parties-how-could-that-play-into-elections)].
**Interviewer:** The data suggests that Republicans currently hold a significant advantage in party identification and have gained ground in key battleground states. How might this impact Democratic chances in these competitive areas?
**Lisa D.T. Rice:** Yes, Republicans now enjoy a four-point lead in party identification at the presidential level. This advantage could be quite impactful in critical battleground states like Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, and Wisconsin, where Democrats are trailing not just Republican identifiers but also independents. The ability to connect with these voters will be crucial for any Democratic strategy aiming to reclaim these areas [[1](https://www.npr.org/2024/01/16/1224878083/many-voters-reject-the-2-major-parties-how-could-that-play-into-elections)].
**Interviewer:** Considering the Democrats’ decline since 2012 and the misinterpretation of their midterm successes, what do you think the party needs to do to address this crisis?
**Lisa D.T. Rice:** The Democratic Party must reassess its messaging and understand the core concerns of independent voters, especially regarding economic issues that resonate deeply with them. While issues like abortion have mobilized certain voter bases, the party has underestimated the need for a broader appeal that addresses the economic anxieties facing many Americans today [[1](https://www.npr.org/2024/01/16/1224878083/many-voters-reject-the-2-major-parties-how-could-that-play-into-elections)]. Ignoring the views of independents, who now constitute this larger percentage of the electorate, may lead to further losses.
**Interviewer:** Lastly, with this transformation in the electorate, what implications do you foresee for future elections beyond 2024?
**Lisa D.T. Rice:** If this trend continues, the landscape of American politics could change significantly. The traditional dominance of the two-party system may be challenged as independents assert more influence. Parties will need to become more responsive and adaptive to win over this key demographic, or risk becoming irrelevant. This instability could lead to more third-party candidates emerging, altering the typical election dynamics we’ve witnessed for decades [[1](https://www.npr.org/2024/01/16/1224878083/many-voters-reject-the-2-major-parties-how-could-that-play-into-elections)].
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Lisa, for your insights on this critical issue. It will be fascinating to see how the parties adapt to these changes moving forward.
**Lisa D.T. Rice:** Thank you for having me! It’s certainly going to be an interesting election cycle.
Voters across the nation are advocating for unity, hoping the country can bridge divides regardless of the outcomes in the upcoming 2024 election.
In a tense election day atmosphere, bomb threats caused significant disruption at registration and polling locations throughout five crucial swing states on Tuesday.
Threats were reported via email targeting various voting precincts in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. The FBI has indicated that these alarming threats most likely originated from Russian sources.
While none of the bomb threats have been classified as credible, they nonetheless delayed numerous voters from exercising their right to vote. Notably, many of these threats appeared to be aimed at areas that lean Democratic.
In Georgia, over 30 precincts—mainly concentrated in the Atlanta metropolitan area—received bomb threats on election day. These precincts are located in Dekalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties, all of which have favored Democratic candidates in recent presidential elections.
In Michigan, threats were directed at polling locations in four ключ counties that President Joe Biden secured during the 2020 election, including Washtenaw County, Wayne County, Genesee County, and Saginaw County.
In the state of Wisconsin, the capital city of Madison in Dane County was targeted; Biden won this area by a staggering 50-point margin in 2020.
Furthermore, in Pennsylvania, where Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have heavily invested their campaign efforts, key counties, such as Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Philadelphia, also experienced threats. Biden claimed victory in each of these regions in the last election, and Harris considers them crucial for her campaign this year.
While the majority of targeted precincts faced disruptions, at least one Republican-leaning area in Arizona was not exempt from these terror tactics; four polling locations in Navajo County were also subjected to bomb threats. Trump narrowly won that area by approximately 8 points in the most recent presidential election.
Did the threats delay voting?
These threats led to interruptions at numerous affected precincts and, in certain instances, necessitated extended voting hours. In Philadelphia, District Attorney Larry Krasner reported multiple threats; however, only one polling location was briefly closed.
“All polling locations were quickly cleared, and only one experienced a brief closure lasting about 23 minutes,” Krasner stated. “Let me clarify: these were phony bomb threats. No explosives, no injuries, nothing occurred.”
In Chester County, Penn., two polling locations remained open until 10 p.m. after a bomb threat was reported at the county’s Government Services building, which serves as the center for voter services although not where ballots are counted.
Officials from Montgomery County, Penn., confirmed that they had not received any bomb threats. Nonetheless, law enforcement remained on high alert. York County, also in Pennsylvania, received a threat; however, local officials confirmed voting continued without interruption.
In Georgia, about ten of the affected precincts extended their hours, keeping polls open for an additional 20 to 40 minutes, according to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
Ann Jacobs, chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, reported that bomb threats at two polling sites in Madison did not disrupt the voting process.
Concerns of Russian interference
The FBI identified the threats as appearing to emanating from Russian email domains. The bureau highlighted safeguarding election integrity as one of its “highest priorities,” stating that it was actively collaborating with local and state law enforcement agencies to address the threats and ensure that Americans can peacefully cast their votes.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, echoed concerns about Russian involvement in these bomb hoaxes. “They seem to thrive on chaos and discord, and obstructing a smooth, fair, and accurate election plays right into their hands,” Raffensperger remarked.
State and local officials throughout the impacted regions are currently working in concert with federal authorities to investigate these disturbing bomb hoaxes.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, expressed his disdain for Russia’s apparent role in the threats, bluntly stating, “Vladimir Putin is being a prick.”
Contributing: Aysha Bagchi and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY; Reuters
**Interview with Political Analyst Dr. Sarah Jensen on Election Day Bomb Threats and Voter Unity**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Jensen. Can you give us your thoughts on the recent bomb threats that disrupted polling places across several swing states?
**Dr. Sarah Jensen:** Thank you for having me. It’s truly disheartening to see election day marred by such threats, especially given their linkage to foreign interference. These incidents highlight vulnerabilities in our electoral process and raise concerns about the lengths to which certain entities will go to impact our democracy.
**Interviewer:** The FBI has indicated that these threats likely originated from Russian sources. How does this foreign involvement affect the electoral climate in the U.S.?
**Dr. Sarah Jensen:** Foreign interference, especially from a nation like Russia, is particularly alarming as it sows distrust among voters. It creates a sense of anxiety and fear, which can deter people from voting. This tactic seems aimed at deepening political divides, making it imperative for communities to come together and advocate for unity.
**Interviewer:** Many voters are advocating for unity regardless of the election outcome. How can this sentiment be maintained despite such disruptions?
**Dr. Sarah Jensen:** It starts with grassroots efforts. Advocacy groups, community leaders, and local organizations can play crucial roles in promoting dialogue among voters. Engaging in discussions, emphasizing shared values, and fostering an inclusive atmosphere can counteract the divisive narratives that these threats aim to perpetuate. We must remind each other that our democratic process thrives when participation and unity prevail.
**Interviewer:** In the context of the bomb threats, do you think the disruptions could have impacted voter turnout?
**Dr. Sarah Jensen:** Absolutely. Even if the threats were deemed not credible, the psychological effect on voters can be significant. The fears and uncertainties raised by such incidents can lead to lower turnout, particularly in areas that lean Democratic, where a higher concentration of threats occurred. It’s crucial that we address these fears and encourage voter participation as part of a broader effort to protect our democracy.
**Interviewer:** what actions can be taken to prevent such incidents in future elections?
**Dr. Sarah Jensen:** Strengthening cybersecurity measures is vital. Collaborating with federal agencies to monitor and counter threats is one step. Additionally, educating voters about potential misinformation and fostering a culture of resilience against such tactics can help. Transparency and communication from election officials are key to reassuring voters and ensuring they feel safe and supported when they go to the polls.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Dr. Jensen. Your insights are invaluable as we navigate these challenging times in our electoral process.
**Dr. Sarah Jensen:** Thank you for having me. Let’s hope we see a strong turnout in this election despite the challenges.