Weren’t Republicans supposed to be the anti-tax, pro-free trade party in American politics? 

Judging by the sheer lack of widespread GOP outrage over the Trump administration’s massive tariffs on Canada and Mexico, it’s obvious that’s no longer the case — and that it is going to directly cost Nevadans. 

Opinions certainly vary over the efficacy of tariffs as a way to micromanage international trade imbalances, but one thing isn’t in dispute among serious economists: Tariffs are nothing more than taxes levied on imports. And like any tax placed upon a business or a good, it is a cost that is borne not by disembodied corporate entities, foreign governments or antagonistic prime ministers — it’s a burden carried by U.S. businesses and consumers. 

A recent United States International Trade Commission report indicated that almost the entire cost of President Donald Trump’s tariffs from his first term were passed on to U.S. importers, businesses and consumers. There’s little reason to believe the far larger tariffs being implemented in his second term will play out any differently. 

Nevada imports about $1.5 billion in goods from Canada and about $1.4 billion from Mexico annually, according to various trade organizations. Those are a lot of goods at risk of being taxed.

Even beyond the direct impact such taxes will have on local industries, the risk of retaliatory actions and a broader economic downturn nationally should be of the utmost concern for Nevadans. After all, we’ve seen before that the Silver State is often hit especially hard during economic recessions. 

Nonetheless, Republicans in this state don’t seem all too concerned about the potential impact of the president’s self-declared trade war against Canada and Mexico. Indeed, they have remained remarkably defensive of his penchant for tax-hiking trade policy. 

It’s a silence that would have been unimaginable in the era of Reagan Republicanism or even the more recent tea party movement. And yet, here we are in the age of Trump, where party loyalty is apparently more politically profitable than ideological consistency.  

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV), for example, has proven himself to be an otherwise outspoken and fiscally conservative representative for Nevada. And yet, he recently told The Nevada Independent he’s fine “going with the flow” and letting the president play a “game of chicken” on trade with the nation’s northern neighbor — at least for another month or so. 

The otherwise conservative state Sen. Ira Hansen (R-Sparks) went even further, suggesting back in February that much of what we stand to lose in a potential trade war would be easily replaced by domestic sources. 

“We have a tremendous lumber industry in the northwest,” Hansen said in response to concerns that tariffs on Canadian lumber would strain lumber supplies and hike housing costs. “We don’t need to import lumber.”

Hansen’s confidence in the U.S. market, however, doesn’t quite line up with reality. 

As robust as certain sectors of the American lumber industry might be, it still falls far short of being able to operate without dependence on at least some Canadian imports. Indeed, even if production capacity was maxed out in the U.S. and a workforce was magically raised overnight to run every available mill around the clock, domestic sources would be inadequate for meeting current needs, let alone future needs when demand grows. 

In fact, this basic supply challenge is precisely why the Trump administration delayed tariffs on Canadian lumber at the last minute. 

That delay might offer the construction industry temporary relief — not to mention the consumers who would like to purchase some affordable homes in the near future — but it’s not all good news. The last-minute delay of certain import taxes demonstrates the capricious nature of the Trump administration’s policy toward international trade. It’s an uncertainty that is quickly leading to recession risks in the broader economy. 

And that alone should be as worrisome as any eventual tax levied against goods from either nation. After all, the ability for any president to unilaterally impose massive taxes on a whim, without congressional input, is a dangerous expansion of executive authority — regardless of which party is in power. 

Outrage from within the GOP, however, has been sparse with Trump at the helm. Certainly, such silence, apathy and even support for Trump’s plan to tax our way into an international trade utopia demonstrates a shift within the party. It represents an uncomfortable willingness among many Republicans to unthinkingly conform to the whims of a populist leader, even when it means abandoning long-held party platforms and policy positions. 

Unfortunately, such populist conformity isn’t merely some harmless political phenomenon. It’s resulting in harmful economic mismanagement as well. 

Trump’s tax on Canadian and Mexican imports comes with countless direct and indirect costs, and those costs aren’t going to be paid for by foreign governments or faceless international corporations. Instead, those costs will burden businesses, consumers and workers in all sectors of the economy throughout the entire nation — including right here in Nevada. 

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him on Twitter @schausmichael or on Substack @creativediscourse.