The problem with the 'progressive' case for tariffs

is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine.
Or at least, they are bitterly bickering over what their party's stance on trade should be.
Last week, as 'Liberation Day' unraveled global markets, House Democrats defended several aspects of Trump's trade ideology on social media. In a video posted by the caucus's X account, Rep. Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania explained that Washington's failed 'free trade' consensus — the steady lowering of tariff barriers over the past 80 years — had constituted a 'race to the bottom' that 'hollowed out our industrial power' and 'cost us good jobs.'
Nevertheless, Deluzio argued that Trump's 'trade strategy has been chaotic' and 'inconsistent.' America did need tariffs — but ones that were carefully targeted and paired with pro-union policies and government subsidies.
This story was first featured in The Rebuild.
Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz.
Some progressives, on the other hand, appreciated Deluzio's nuance. In their account, acknowledging the failings of free trade — and the necessity of supporting domestic manufacturing — was a precondition for persuading working-class voters to trust Democrats on the issue.
This debate collapses together two distinct questions:
1) Is Deluzio's analysis right on the merits?
2) Is his message a politically optimal one for Democrats at the national level?
I think the answer to both of these is 'mostly, no.'
Free trade did not hollow out American industry
Deluzio's case for moderate protectionism can be broken down into (at least) three different claims:
Free trade agreements hollowed out America's industrial capacity.
Free trade has been bad for American workers.
Tariffs are a useful tool for advancing economic justice, since they help prevent a global 'race to the bottom,' in which corporations search for the world's cheapest and most exploitable labor.
I think these claims are all largely — though not entirely — wrong. Let's examine each in turn.
It's not clear precisely what it means for a nation's 'industrial power' to be 'hollowed out.' But presumably, Deluzio means that trade has sapped America's power to produce industrial goods.
And it's certainly true that foreign competition and offshoring have shuttered many US factories, depressed manufacturing employment, and reduced domestic production of some goods.
Still, Deluzio's rhetoric is misleading on two levels. First, trade has not been the primary cause of falling manufacturing employment. Rather, this is mostly attributable to economic development: When countries get richer, consumers spend a smaller share of their incomes on goods, and a higher share on services (people only need so many dishwashers, while their appetite for better health or longer lives is nearly inexhaustible). Which means that, over time, the economy needs fewer people to work in factories, and more to work in hospitals, nursing homes, child care centers, and other service-sector industries.
Meanwhile, automation has progressed more rapidly in goods production than in services. Together, these two forces have dramatically reduced manufacturing's share of employment in all wealthy countries, including those with the most protectionist trade policies.
Second, although US manufacturing employment has fallen precipitously, US manufacturing output has not. In fact, such output is much higher today than it was in the 1980s, according to Federal Reserve Economic Data.
Courtesy of Federal Reserve Economic Research
And America remains the No. 2 manufacturing power in the world: Despite being home to only 4.2 percent of the global population, the United States is responsible for roughly 16 percent of global manufacturing output.
One can quibble with these figures, which conceal major shifts in the types of goods that America produces. But I don't think most people would look at this data and conclude that America's industrial power had been 'hollowed out.'
Free trade has benefited US workers as a whole
Deluzio also implies that free trade has been bad for American workers. And there is little doubt that some US communities have been devastated by trade-induced factory closures. But evidence suggests that globalization has been beneficial for American workers as a whole. Even the famous 'China shock' paper — which alerted economists to the concentrated harms of trade liberalization with China — found that most Americans benefited from such liberalization, as access to cheaper goods increased their real wages.
In fact, the median US worker's real personal income — in other words, their annual income adjusted for inflation — was about 18 percent higher in 2023 than it had been when America normalized trade relations with China in 2000, and 38 percent higher than when NAFTA took effect in 1994.
This reality cuts against many popular narratives. But it is intuitive. One hundred percent of Americans consume goods, while less than 10 percent produce them. Even in the 1990s, less than 20 percent of Americans worked in manufacturing. Therefore, trade policies that reduced prices of goods were always likely to materially benefit the vast majority of US workers, even if they did take a toll on American manufacturing.
Tariffs aren't a great tool for making the global economy more just
Deluzio, like many progressives, suggests that tariffs can advance economic justice. After all, free trade enables corporations to 'exploit their workers' abroad, while eliminating good jobs in the United States. Sen. Bernie Sanders recently put the point more explicitly, arguing that America must stop large corporations from moving jobs to 'low-wage countries.'
There may be some circumstances in which trade restrictions — or at least, the threat of them — can yield progressive outcomes. For example, during Trump's first term, the US threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico if it did not agree to a new version of NAFTA, which included enhanced labor rights for Mexican workers. Mexico ultimately embraced this new trade agreement, and its workers have seemingly benefited.
But as a general rule, putting tariffs on goods from 'low-wage countries' does not save poor workers abroad from exploitation so much as it condemns them to more severe poverty. Wages in Vietnam and Bangladesh are extremely low by American standards. Yet they are much higher than they were before those countries became major exporters. In fact, as Vietnam and Bangladesh have become more integrated into the global economy, their poverty rates have fallen dramatically. As the progressive economist Joan Robinson once quipped, 'The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.'
We should aspire to a world with higher baseline labor standards. Workers in poor nations should not have to choose between hyper-exploitation and impoverishment. But slapping high tariffs on goods from low-wage countries will not change the fundamental dynamics of global capitalism. Rather, such a policy would simply increase global poverty, while raising consumer prices in the United States, thereby reducing the real wages of almost all American workers.
It is hard to see a progressive case for prioritizing the interests of some small subset of US workers (such as those facing low-wage, foreign competition in manufacturing) over the interests of both the global poor and the American working class, especially since there are other ways of improving blue-collar Americans' economic fortunes, such as expanding collective bargaining rights and social welfare benefits. There is no reason in principle why working-class Americans can't earn good salaries in service-sector jobs. As policy analyst Matt Bruenig notes, McDonald's workers in Denmark earn higher wages than autoworkers in Alabama.
Tariffs are increasingly unpopular
Even if Deluzio's argument is substantively misguided, it could still be politically wise.
And there is a case for Democrats to signal skepticism of free trade, even as they oppose Trump's approach to curtailing it. Voters have often expressed sympathy for protecting US industry and skepticism of trade's benefits. In a 2024 Pew Research survey, 59 percent of Americans said the United States has 'lost more than it has gained from increased trade with foreign nations.'
And yet, around the same time, a Gallup poll showed 61 percent of American adults saw 'foreign trade' as more of 'an opportunity for economic growth through increased U.S. exports' than as 'a threat to the economy from foreign imports.'
The public's apparently contradictory sentiments about trade had a simple explanation: Most people simply did not have strong opinions about trade policy. In Pew's polling, trade ranked near the bottom of Americans' 2024 priorities.
But Trump's tariffs have changed this. In the last few weeks, America's average tariff rate has jumped from historically low levels to the highest mark since 1909. It would not be remotely surprising if a policy change this gigantic rapidly shifted public opinion on trade. And the available survey data suggests that it has.
In Gallup's current polling, the percentage of Americans who see trade primarily as 'an opportunity' has jumped to 81 percent. Meanwhile, a new survey from Navigator Research shows that Americans disapprove of tariffs by a 28-point margin; last August, they had disapproved by only 11 points. And even before Trump's 'Liberation Day' announcements, the Wall Street Journal's polling showed support for his tariffs falling sharply.
If Trump persists with his current policies, America will likely see both a recession and surge of inflation. And this economic pain will be directly attributable to tariffs. In that scenario, we should expect Americans' weakly held ideological sympathy for protectionism to erode even further.
Related America may be headed for this rare type of economic crisis
For these reasons, Democrats likely don't need to caveat their criticisms of Trump's tariffs, at least at the national level. The party would probably be better off with a more focused message. This doesn't mean defending the ideological abstraction of 'free trade,' but rather, emphasizing that a Republican president has just enacted a historically large middle-class tax hike, which is increasing prices and risking recession.
Ultimately though, I'm not sure that Democrats need to sweat the details here. Swing voters tend to be more politically disengaged than partisans, and are not hanging on every word posted from the House Democrats' X account. For them, rising prices and falling 401(k) values are likely to make the case against Trump's trade policies more eloquently than any Democrat ever could.
Deluzio's argument might still be the right one for his district. But at the national level, his hyperbolic claims about free trade's costs do not look politically necessary. And since such hyperbole arguably helped bring about today's economic woes, Democrats shouldn't needlessly engage in it.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

24 minutes ago

• USA Today

Live updates: Iran calls US airstrikes on nuclear sites 'outrageous,' says it 'reserves all options'

America's move comes after Iran and Israel have been engaged in aerial strikes and Trump had been pondering US involvement for the past week. The United States joined Israel's war with Iran after President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on three nuclear targets, winning praise and condemnation from members of Congress and new defiance from Tehran. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated," Trump said in a live address after 10 p.m. ET on June 21, threatening further U.S. strikes if Iran failed to accept a diplomatic solution. Bombs and missiles launched from U.S. warplanes hit nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. No U.S. personnel were injured in the operation, which struck Iran well after midnight on June 22 local time. With 40,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region, the United States faces potential Iranian reprisals in the days ahead. Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, warned that the country "reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people," saying America's strike was "outrageous and will have everlasting consequences." "Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior," he said on social media. Trump's move was assailed by some conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats in Congress as illegal, while others praised the move after more than a week of Israeli airstrikes on Iran and retaliatory missile fire wreaking havoc in Israel. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' Trump said. More: U.S. hits Iran nuclear facilities, braces for counterattack Israel says Iran launched another round of missiles Multiple explosions were heard in central Israel, including over Tel Aviv, in the early hours of June 22. Israel's military said sirens that sounded across the region were "due to another Iranian missile launch." USA TODAY could not immediately confirm any information on potential fatalities or injuries in the strikes. Iran says it 'reserves all options' to defend itself Iran reserves all options to defend itself after U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities, Araqchi shared on X, saying the attacks were "outrageous and will have everlasting consequences." "Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior," he said. What's the risk of nuclear fallout from the Iran attacks? The U.S. attacks against three of Iran's nuclear facilities, following Israeli attacks over the previous week, prompted questions about the potential risks of radiological or chemical releases. Both "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" and the International Atomic Energy Agency have previously stated the offsite risks are low from attacks at Fordow and Natanz. But in a June 20 post, François Diaz-Maurin, an associate editor for nuclear affairs at the atomic bulletin, termed the offsite risk at Isfahan 'moderate,' because it's one of the 'most important sites for Iran's nuclear program.' The International Atomic Energy Agency began posting updates on the new attacks on June 21. The nuclear complex in Isfahan, a key site of the Iranian nuclear program, has repeatedly been attacked and extensively damaged before June 21, said Rafael Mariano Grossi, agency director. 'Based on our analysis of the nuclear material present, we don't see any risk of off-site contamination," Grossi said. -Dinah Pulver Attack used bunker-buster bombs The Pentagon's attack on Iran's nuclear facility employed its most powerful bunker-buster bomb as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from submarines, according to a U.S. official. Pentagon planners coordinated the attack with Israel to enter Iran's airspace, said the official who had been briefed on the mission but was not authorized to speak publicly. B-2 bombers dropped GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, the first time they have been used in combat. The stealth bombers were accompanied by other aircraft, the official said, though it was unclear the type of warplane. The Pentagon's most sophisticated fighter, the F-22, was a likely candidate. President Donald Trump declared the attack a success, saying Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities had been completely 'obliterated.' The official, however, said battle-damage assessments had not reached a firm conclusion. −Tom Vanden Brook AOC condemns Trump's attacks, calling it a constitutional violation Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is the latest lawmaker to take to social media in the hours after President Donald Trump's strikes on Iran to weigh in on the move, calling it 'grounds for impeachment.' 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers,' she said in the post on X, formerly Twitter, published shortly after Trump's White House address. Congress is the only branch of government that has the power to declare war, however, presidents have engaged in foreign conflicts in recent decades under the executive authority to authorize defensive strikes 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations,' Ocasio-Cortez said. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' −Kathryn Palmer Will Iran counterattack? Tehran could respond to Trump's strikes by launching counterattacks on U.S. military bases in the Middle East, current and former U.S. officials say. American bases in Gulf countries and Iraq and Syria could become targets, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro told USA TODAY before Trump attacked Iran. Iran could also target regional energy facilities and block oil and gas shipments from crossing the Strait of Hormuz, said Shapiro, the former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East in the Biden administration. Roughly 40,000 American troops are stationed in the region. Trump warned in a Truth Social post of 'far greater' force against Iran if it pursues retaliation. −Francesca Chambers Muslim civil rights group condemns U.S. strikes on Iran The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, blasted President Trump's attack as an 'illegal and unjustified act of war' that favors the wishes of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu over the American people and threatens to drag the United States into a wider conflict. 'We condemn President Trump's illegal and unjustified act of war against Iran,' CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said in a statement. 'This attack, carried out under pressure from the out-of-control Israeli government, took place despite the longstanding conclusion by our nation's intelligence community that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons.' 'Just as President Bush started a disastrous war in Iraq pushed by war hawks, neoconservatives, and Israeli leaders like Netanyahu, President Trump has attacked Iran based on the same type of false information put forward by those who consistently seek to drag our nation into unnecessary and catastrophic wars,' Awad said. -Josh Meyer Pete Hegseth to hold a press conference from the Pentagon Hours after the U.S. military launched strikes against three nuclear sites in Iran, President Trump addressed the nation from the White House calling the operation a 'spectacular military success.' He said Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will hold a press conference at 8 am on July 22 at the Pentagon. Trump said the mission's objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the 'world's number one state sponsor of terror.' 'If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,' said Trump. 'Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.' -Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy Iranian retaliation could happen anywhere, ex-official says Terror alert levels should be elevated in the near term, even in major cities outside the Middle East and anywhere Iran may have sleeper cells, said Andrew Borene, a former senior official at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Counterterrorism Center. 'What happens next is largely going to be driven by Tehran's next moves. Their shadow wars have never been confined to missiles, drones, and cyber attacks,' said Borene, who is now executive director for Global Security at private intelligence firm Flashpoint. Borene said in an analysis that there is 'a real risk of further spillover if Iran resorts to its historical use of asymmetric means through proxy terrorism.' Offensive cyber operations on critical infrastructure, or terrorist attacks by Iranian proxies, also could rapidly derail hope for de-escalation and diplomacy in the near term, Borene said. -Josh Meyer Peace or tragedy, Trump tells Iran 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' Trump said. He noted that there are many other targets in Iran. 'If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes,' he said. -Sarah Wire Trump says 'future attacks' could be worse 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' Trump said in his address to the nation. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' He then described tactics of the regime. 'For 40 years, Iran has been saying, 'Death to America,' 'Death to Israel,'' he said. 'They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs with roadside bombs. That was their specialty.' The president appeared to be referring to attacks launched by Iran-backed militants in the years after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. -Erin Mansfield Netanyahu congratulates Trump on Iran bombing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised President Trump for bombing three Iran nuclear sites, saying the decision could lead the Middle East toward a future of 'prosperity and peace.' 'America has been truly unsurpassed,' Netanyahu said in a video statement. 'It has done what no other country on earth could do. History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime the world's most dangerous weapons.' -Erin Mansfield What is Fordow? Fordow is an Iranian underground uranium enrichment facility located about 80 to 90 meters deep inside a mountain, according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. More: US bombs Iran: What to know about possible weapon, the 'bunker buster' It is located 20 miles north of the Iranian city of Qom. Fordow was one of three nuclear sites, including Natanz and Isfahan, that were struck by US military operations on July 21 to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. "A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow," Trump wrote on Truth Social. -Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy Bomb-carrying B-2 stealth fleet launched from Missouri base B-2 bombers took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri in the early morning hours of June 21. The warplanes are known not only for their stealth technology, but also for their ability to fly long-range and carry the big 'bunker buster' bombs used in the June 21 mission. With design and materials that limit its ability to be detected by enemy radar, the B-2 is thought to be the only aircraft equipped to carry the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or GBU-57, known as the "bunker buster." The entire fleet of B-2 stealth bombers is based at Whiteman, southeast of Kansas City, with the 509th Bomb Wing, part of the Air Force Global Strike Command. Fox News reported six bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Iran's Fordow nuclear site. -Dinah Pulver Democrats in Congress erupt at Trump Democratic members of Congress expressed outrage over the strikes, which they said they learned about from social media. 'According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop,' said Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, in a post on X. Virginia Rep. Eugene Vindman said Trump's handling of the situation was 'disgraceful." He asserted in a post that the U.S. was now at war with Iran. 'And so the United States goes to war with Iran without so much as a by your leave to the American people,' he said. 'No statement, other than on social media; no notice to Congress; no serious deliberation.' He added: 'This is the stuff of autocrats. Disgraceful.' War is something only Congress can formally declare. Lawmakers have also passed resolutions that authorized the use of military force like when the U.S. invaded Iraq. Trump has not said whether he plans to continue the bombing campaign, which he described as a "military operation" in a post on the attack. At least one Democrat came to Trump's defense, however: Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. "As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS. Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world," Fetterman said. Democratic Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement that was critical of Trump that Congress should "fully and immediately" be briefed in a classified setting. – Francesca Chambers Can the president bomb a country without Congress? The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. The president is the commander in chief of the military, which means he carries out wars that Congress approves. However, presidents of both political parties have perennially used the U.S. military to bomb or invade countries without formal approval from Congress. There have even been allegations that the Korean War and the Vietnam War were illegal. Congress attempted to limit presidents from using this type of power when it passed the 1973 War Powers Act. Trump was most recently criticized for potentially violating the War Powers Act when he bombed the Houthis in Yemen, notoriously discussed on the SignalGate chat that embarrassed top officials in his administration. -Erin Mansfield B-2 bombers conducted strikes on Iranian targets B-2 bombers conducted a series of strikes on targets in Iran, according to a senior Defense Department official. There were no casualties. Measures to protect the nearly 40,000 U.S. troops in the region have been incrementally increased over the last two weeks, said the official who was not authorized to speak publicly. The Army has been at third of four levels of alert at most places in the region, the official said. -Tom Vanden Brook More: U.S. hits Iran nuclear facilities, braces for counterattack Trump to address nation at 10 pm ET President Trump posted on Truth Social that he will be speaking to the nation at 10 p.m. ET on June 21. "I will be giving an Address to the Nation at 10:00 P.M., at the White House, regarding our very successful military operation in Iran," Trump wrote. "This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!" -Swapna Venugopal Republican lawmaker says Iran strike is 'not constitutional' Trump's decision came under immediate criticism from at least one Republican in Congress: Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie. The lawmaker shared Trump's post on social media with the message, 'This is not Constitutional.' Massie had previously introduced a bill to prevent Trump from going to war with Iran without congressional authorization, which drew cosponsors that included progressive Democrats such as Rep. Ro Khanna of California. The GOP lawmaker was one of two members of Trump's political party who voted against his tax bill in the House of Representatives last month. Trump called him a 'grandstander' ahead of the vote and said he should be 'voted out of office.' Far-right GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, an ally of Trump's, publicly pushed for the U.S. to stay out of the war, a half hour before Trump announced the attack. 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war,' she said in a post on X. Greene has been one of the most outspoken opponent's within MAGA of American military involvement in the conflict that exploded on June 13 when Israel attacked Iranian nuclear sites. 'There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first,' she said on June 21. 'Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.' –Francesca Chambers State Department evacuations from Israel Earlier in the day, the State Department began evacuating American citizens and permanent residents from Israel and the West Bank, U.S Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee announced on social media. 'The Department of State has begun assisted departure flights from Israel,' Huckabee wrote in a post on X on June 21 asking people seeking government assistance to fill out a form. -Swapna Venugopal How the war started The strikes followed days of Israeli bomb and drone strikes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aimed at disrupting Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon, to which Iran responded by launching missiles at Israeli civilian targets. Netanyahu had been pressing President Donald Trump to enter the war, knowing the Pentagon possesses the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear enrichment capability. In his first term, Trump pulled out of the Iran deal brokered by President Barack Obama in 2015, saying it did not do enough to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. As the war between Iran and Israel has spiraled in recent days, he has repeated that Iran "cannot" get a nuclear weapon. Iran has threatened that the U.S. would suffer "irreparable damage" if it becomes directly involved in the conflict. The U.S. "should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage," Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on June 18. Only US warheads could penetrate Iranian nuclear site The U.S. Air Force has the unique capability to destroy deeply buried, fortified structures like those that house Iran's nuclear facilities. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or GBU-57, has a 'high-performance steel alloy' warhead case that allows the weapon to stay intact as it burrows deep into the ground, according to Pentagon documents. In 2012, the Air Force conducted five tests of the weapon at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Data and visual inspections showed that each bombing run 'effectively prosecuted the targets.' More: Israel wants to demolish Iran's nuclear facilities. Does it need US military help? There's only one warplane in the Air Force that can carry the bomb. Each B-2 Spirit stealth bomber based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri can hold two of the penetrators. Israel had sought the Pentagon to drop the bombs because their penetrating weapons cannot reach the depth necessary to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. -Tom Vanden Brook

The Onion

41 minutes ago

• The Onion

Congress, Now More Than Ever, Our Nation Needs Your Cowardice

Published: Who will stand up for our democracy? This question, fraught in even the most peaceful times, has only grown more pressing as our country approaches its 250th anniversary. Each passing day brings growing assaults on essential liberties like freedom of speech and due process. Meanwhile, our delicately assembled legal system faces a constant barrage of threats. Even as this issue reaches publication, the U.S. military has been deployed against peaceful protestors. We teeter on the brink of collapse into an authoritarian state. That is why, today, The Onion calls upon our lawmakers to sit back and do absolutely nothing. Members of Congress—now, more than ever, our nation desperately needs your cowardice. Our republic is a birthright, an exceedingly rare treasure passed down from generation to generation of Americans. It was gained through hard years of bloody resistance and can too easily be lost. Our Founding Fathers, in their abundant wisdom, understood that all it would take was men and women of little courage sitting in the corridors of power and taking zero action as this precious inheritance was stripped away—and that is where we have finally arrived. Now is not the time for bravery or valor! This is the time for protecting your own hide and lining your pocket. Now is not the time for listening to your idiotic constituents drone on about what's happening to their precious democracy. This is the time for getting down on all fours and groveling. Now is not the time to say, 'Enough is enough,' and have the tough conversations about resisting the ongoing assaults on American liberty. This is the time to let the wave of apathy and indifference roll over you as you think about getting a really nice renovation to your house in Kalorama. But what can I, one coward, do alone? you might ask. It's true. As a solitary person, your fecklessness will make little impact. But if you join together with the most craven senators and representatives in the Capitol, the impact will be immense: The corruption, the disregard for the rule of law, the shipping of residents to foreign gulags, the attacks on judges, the censorship and chilling of speech, the punishment of any and all dissent—it can be made that much worse if you just find it in yourself to clutch your head in your hands, wet the bed, and cower in the hope of being spared from the White House's wrath. It won't be easy, but you must search deep within yourself and muster up every ounce of gutlessness you have. Then, bend over and lick the president's boots. Why? Because ultimately none of this matters. Democracy? Equality? The U.S. Constitution? These are hollow phrases. They mean nothing. But money—delicious money? That is solid. You can hold it in your hands. You know this. We know this, too. Only our infantile citizenry fail to appreciate how much you stand to gain by kissing the ring. In our nation's darkest moments, the public often looks to Congress for profiles in meekness. We search for men and women much like yourselves, emotional weaklings who are afraid to meet their own glance in the mirror, insignificant do-nothings who quake in their boots at the mention of the slightest exertion. Many of you have already distinguished yourselves as such individuals. To them, our country's oligarchs can only offer their boundless thanks. Take solace knowing you are not alone in this endeavor. Over the grand expanse of American history, there have been countless lawmakers who managed to summon up their complete lack of backbone and do the easy thing. Think of the members of Congress who turned a blind eye to Japanese American internment, McCarthyism, or the horrors of the Holocaust, all because doing something seemed a little too hard, a little too inconvenient. These men should be your inspiration. Never forget: You stand on the shoulders of spineless giants. But we have not descended entirely from a nation of fearful men, have we? Let this be the moment to make amends for any missteps of American bravery and valor. Congress, we are asking, nay, demanding: This coming Independence Day, don't wave the Stars and Stripes, that enduring symbol of liberty and rebellion. Instead, wave the white flag of surrender. Tu Stultus Es, The Onion Editorial Board

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Trump says US airstrikes 'obliterated' Iran's key nuclear sites

STORY: The U.S. struck three key nuclear sites in Iran, President Donald Trump said on Saturday. He warned that Tehran would face more attacks if it didn't agree to peace. "Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Trump's decision to join Israel's military campaign against Iran represents a major escalation of the conflict. :: Tel Aviv, Israel It comes after more than a week of aerial combat between the two, with death and injuries in both countries. "There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember there are many targets left. Tonight's was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump: "History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime the world's most dangerous weapons." While an Iranian official cited by Tasnim news agency confirmed that one of the nuclear sites was attacked by 'enemy aistrikes'. :: June 13, 2025 :: Tehran, Iran Israel launched attacks on Iran earlier this month, saying it wanted to remove any chance of Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Diplomatic efforts by Western nations to stop the hostilities have been unsuccessful. CBS news reported that the US reached out diplomatically to Iran on Saturday... ...to say the strikes are all the U.S. plans and that it does not aim for regime change.