Reflections on Economic Direction

I’ve often heard President Donald Trump claiming he’s working to save the country, especially in Alabama. He presents himself as a champion for the greatness of working Americans. It’s an impactful narrative, and for many, it resonates with the enduring principles of capitalism. This implies that, ideally, it’s the open market—not government—that should dictate prosperity.

But there’s a pressing question we can’t ignore: Are we truly living in that system anymore?

Since taking office again, Trump has rapidly moved to reshape the U.S. economy through various means—tariffs, executive orders, and increased government oversight. His administration has raised import duties on virtually all trading partners, pushed for state-supported cryptocurrency reserves, and set up a federal efficiency team, known as DOGE, to gain control over employment, spending, and regulations.

This was all framed in the name of strength—putting America first. Yet, what he’s constructing doesn’t reflect a free market. Instead, it resembles an economy ruled by central command. This doesn’t signal a return to smaller government; rather, it suggests a government intent on deciding which industries succeed and which voices are silenced.

This should give us pause for thought.

Ronald Reagan, whose beliefs were rooted in economic freedom, famously stated that “the most frightening word in the English language is ‘I’m from the government.'” That wasn’t meant to be taken lightly. Reagan recognized that as government authority grows over the market, it’s the competition that dictates the outcome rather than encouraging competition.

Milton Friedman made a clear point when he said, “What underlies most debates about the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” Free markets don’t rely on strongmen; they thrive on level playing fields. What we see today from the White House is an environment that rewards allies, punishes critics, and favors entities based on loyalty instead of merit.

Independent institutions have come under significant pressure. The Federal Reserve has felt it. Contracts have been threatened, and opponents faced boycotts. This isn’t just an invisible hand of the market; it’s a very visible hand of political power, firmly in control.

This isn’t the first time a leader has tried to fuse nationalism with economic dominance. Juan Perón in Argentina achieved this through tariffs and subsidies to maintain political allegiance. Benito Mussolini referred to it as corporatism, a blend of state power and private enterprise. He didn’t abolish capitalism; he simply rebranded it for the nation’s benefit, justifying his actions in the name of national greatness.

Even Franklin Roosevelt, although less familiar with the extent of federal authority, emphasized that the presidency is a place for hard-working moral leadership. For Roosevelt, that leadership involved safeguarding lasting institutions and principles—moral leadership necessitates limits, especially when the market and intellect are directed from above.

Friedrich Hayek noted, “The more national plans that exist, the tougher it becomes for individuals to plan.” If we are headed toward an economic system based on executive orders and loyalty, we must question—who truly holds the power? The people, or just the planners?

This isn’t about targeting a single individual; it’s about safeguarding the system.

For two centuries, American greatness emerged organically, not imposed from above. It was forged by small business owners, factory workers, innovators, and immigrants. They were given a chance; they didn’t seek special treatment. Capitalism offered them that opportunity. Sure, it was messy, often unequal, and incomplete, but it functioned because no one had full control over it.

Supporting individuals doesn’t mean we should blind ourselves to the path we’re on. You can rally behind a cause while still critically examining where it leads us. If capitalism is no longer the foundation of our prosperity, what could replace it might not lead to prosperity at all. History teaches us that when economic freedom gives way to political oversight, the outcomes rarely result in greatness.

A nation grounded in freedom can’t flourish under a cloud of fear. An economy that prioritizes loyalty over liberty may benefit a select few, but it won’t foster the broader progress of America.