As he expressed support for President-elect Donald Trump’s tariff proposals, Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) paused to inspect his jeans, produced by the Maine company Origin USA.
“I bought these in like 2019, and they’re just starting to show signs” of wear, Golden said in an interview in his House office. “Three pair of these at Walmart are all worn-through – the wallet pocket, the knees, the hem around the bottom – within a couple years.”
Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post.
Most Democrats are poised to bash Trump over any price increases that follow new tariffs in his second administration, especially on inexpensive consumer goods like clothing. But Golden is embracing Trump’s maximalist trade vision – and saying his own party needs to rethink theirs.
That stance reflects one end of the emerging debate among Democrats over how to respond to one of Trump’s central economic policies. On Thursday, the fourth-term congressman from northern Maine will introduce legislation to codify Trump’s campaign proposal to enact tariffs of at least 10 percent on all goods imported to the United States, according to a copy obtained by The Washington Post.
While economists of both parties say tariffs of that size would hurt consumers by raising the costs of imports, Golden is pitching what he characterized as a broader reconception of the U.S. economy. He said he recognizes that tariffs could result in higher prices, but argued Americans should be willing to pay more for higher-quality goods produced domestically because they would boost jobs and investment at home.
Even though Golden’s legislation reflects Trump’s signature economic policy, not a single House Republican has agreed to co-sponsor his bill, Golden said. Not a single House Democrat has, either – and Golden says that the rest of his party should join him to push for measures that are tough on trade, too. A veteran of the Marine Corps, Golden has earned a reputation in Washington for defying his Democratic colleagues. Trump won Golden’s district by 9 points in last year’s election; Golden won reelection by less than 1 point.
“It wasn’t that long ago that I thought the Democratic Party was literally the party of protection and economic policies, tariffs, against free trade deals, and pro-union,” said Golden, 42. “Why are [Democrats] ceding our ground to him? This is ours, or it should be, and if it isn’t anymore, than I would suggest the party’s wrong.”
Golden’s approach could hardly diverge more from that of most of his colleagues. On Wednesday, Democratic Reps. Suzan DelBene (Washington) and Don Beyer (Virginia) held a call with reporters to unveil legislation aimed at limiting unilateral presidential authority to impose tariffs – essentially the opposite of Golden’s move to codify Trump’s policy. Vice President Kamala Harris, during her 2024 presidential campaign, characterized Trump’s universal tariff plans as a “national sales tax.”
Democratic critics of Trump’s tariff plans make both political and substantive arguments. In an analysis last year, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington-based think tank, found one of Trump’s tariff proposals would cost the typical household $2,600 per year; the Yale Budget Lab estimated the annual cost could be as high as $7,600. The tariffs would disproportionately cost poorer Americans as a share of their incomes, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank.
Many Democratic lawmakers and pollsters argue they should stand opposed to these policies. Boosters may claim protective barriers promote domestic production, but economists of both parties point to research showing they also hurt U.S. exports by raising the costs of production, making national industries less productive globally.
“This is going to raise prices – there’s no two ways about it. Why on Earth Democrats would think it’s a clever political strategy to support higher prices – you got me, maybe that sells in Maine, but nowhere I’ve been recently,” said Dean Baker, an economist at the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Trump imposed more than $300 billion in tariffs during his first administration, primarily on China. Most of those tariffs were extended by President Joe Biden – who also imposed new ones, primarily on China’s clean energy exports. Biden characterized those measures as necessary to protect certain sectors, such as energy production, that are critical to national security.
Trump’s exact tariff plans for his second term remain unclear. On the campaign trail, he promised a 10 or 20 percent universal tariff, applied to all imports from every U.S. trading partner. But numerous reports, including in The Post, have said his team is considering dialing back these measures, particularly for the beginning of his administration. Trump has also separately said he’d order 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico and an additional 10 percent tariff on China, on top of existing ones, unless those countries curb migration and drug trafficking into the United States.
Critics have argued that Trump’s proposal to impose tariffs on all imports would raise prices for some goods that simply cannot be produced in sufficient quantities domestically. Joseph Politano, an economic analyst who has written on the subject on Substack, pointed out that the United States does not even have the climate necessary to produce foods such as bananas, avocados and coffee at levels that could come close to meeting U.S. demand.
Golden, however, said he hopes Democrats welcome even these protectionist measures.
“Avocados are nice, right? They have some omegas in them? But do we need to eat avocados? Do we need to eat them year-round?,” he said. “Is there something grown here in America that delivers – I don’t know, American fish … We can get omega-3s and 6s through American-harvested food.”
Most Democrats are unlikely to go along with that argument. But Golden has pointed to numerous industries in his state, including lumber, that he said would benefit from tariffs that shield domestic production. Wall Street firms and economists in Washington, he argued, are out of step with what the country wants. The Coalition for a Prosperous America, which supports higher tariffs, has projected that a 10 percent universal tariff would generate 3 million additional jobs and lead to a surge in U.S. manufacturing output, while bringing in trillions of additional revenue to federal coffers.
“I guess the argument I’m trying to put forward here is that we have become the victim of our own political spin about free trade,” Golden said. “Maybe it’s time to start questioning the entire model.”
Related Content
Actually, Sarah McBride does have an agenda
‘There was nothing you could do’: The two days when fire swallowed Los Angeles
