Readers Write: Tariff uncertainty, political cowardice, DOGE

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I have listened to President Donald Trump as he blamed previous administrations for the unfair trade we have with most countries in the world. Did he forget that he led one of those?

Steve Holm, Mahtomedi

•••

As a person who has spent his whole life in manufacturing, I think it odd that Trump thinks that manufacturing jobs are created quickly — jobs like machinists, welders, electricians, plumbers. My 45 years in manufacturing shows that it takes several years to train and develop those skills, both in the classroom as well as on the production floor. This is much different that the couple of days it apparently takes to learn to be the president of the United States. But, as we have seen, without training, his mistakes show up quickly.

Ron Ray, Laporte, Minn.

•••

Trump’s economic and immigration policies seem internally contradictory and to make no sense. Any remaining tariffs will most likely drive up costs for consumers, leading to inflation. The current immigration policy decreases the available labor pool, which will drive up the cost of labor according to well-understood laws of supply and demand. This will increase manufacturing costs and cause inflation. Bringing manufacturing back on shore will increase costs as it is more expensive to manufacture in the United States than in many (most?) developing economies, which will lead to inflation. Keep in mind that can take a decade or more to bring manufacturing on shore.

This won’t lead to a little pain — it will lead to a great deal of pain for far longer than the few years of post pandemic demand-push inflation.

David Abrams, Minnetonka

•••

Trump’s goal of replacing imported goods with more products made in America is not, in itself, a bad goal, but he is going about it all wrong. The economics writer Jane Jacobs showed how “import replacement” is best done through research investment and innovation, not through tariffs, and yet the Trump administration is doing the opposite: disinvesting in university research and development while putting up enormous trade barriers. If we want to be less dependent on steel from Asia or lumber from Canada, we should innovate our way out of that dependence by, say, 3D-printing our cars and houses, technology that university research has shown to be both achievable and cost-effective.

Thomas Fisher, St. Paul

•••

Regarding apparent tariffs on Scotch whisky: Someone should tell Trump that you cannot make Scotch whisky in the United States.

Scott Wende, St. Paul

•••

Tariffs for dummies: A widget made in the U.S. costs $10 vs. a widget import costing $5. Trump screams, “200% tariff on imported widgets.” Now the imported widget costs $15, but people still need widgets. So, the maker of U.S. widgets boosts its price to $14.99 (maximizing profit and padding CEO pay and shareholder accounts with no pay raise for workers).

Regular people take it on the chin; CEOs and their ilk just get richer. Are we great yet?

Gordon Abel, Minneapolis

I have noticed that rebranding has been all the rage over the past couple of years in sports — the new Twins logo and collection of different uniforms, the Wild’s North Star-like sweaters and Gophers football’s many outfits. Because of this trend it might be time to rebrand our political party mascots.

We had a visitor in our yard last week that may be the perfect animal for either the Democrats or Republicans. With both of them afraid to speak up much against some of the idiotic national agency appointments, the silly threats to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal, not to mention the musical-chair tariff game, I am offering my mascot idea on a first-come, first-serve basis: the animal sometimes referred to as a “living fossil,” the opossum.

Bruce Lemke, Orono

As alumni of the University of Minnesota Medical School and the members of its alumni board, we write to express our deep concerns about the proposed cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. These reductions would have devastating consequences for medical research, patient care and the health care workforce in Minnesota.

The University of Minnesota Medical School is the backbone of our state’s health care system. It trains 70% of Minnesota’s physicians, delivers over 1 million patient visits annually, and secures 70% of the university’s total NIH funding, fueling innovations that improve lives nationwide. The medical school’s legacy includes pioneering contributions such as the cardiac pacemaker, organ transplantation and advances in childhood cancer treatment. Over the past seven years, the medical school has significantly strengthened its research standing, ranking among the top 25 of all medical schools nationally and 11th among public institutions. It also boasts the nation’s top-ranked family medicine department, uniquely excelling in both primary care and research activities.

The proposed severe reduction in NIH indirect payments will result in an estimated $100 million annual loss for Minnesota. These funds are not discretionary overhead; they are essential for maintaining research infrastructure, supporting clinical trials, ensuring data security and upholding ethical research standards. NIH-funded research at the U medical school extends far beyond the university — it fuels economic growth, drives medical breakthroughs, improves patient care and sustains a world-class medical education that attracts top-tier faculty and students. Cutting these funds will undermine Minnesota’s ability to train the next generation of physicians — particularly impacting rural areas, where U graduates play a critical role in addressing health care shortages.

With an aging population, increasing medical complexity and ongoing physician shortages, the stakes could not be higher. Slashing NIH funding would not only weaken the U medical school but would leave a lasting legacy of diminished health care access, stalled innovation and preventable suffering. We have already urged our members of Congress to protect NIH funding and the invaluable benefits it provides to Minnesotans. The members of the alumni board invite Minnesotans to contact their representatives to prevent this economic devastation and ensure continued high-quality patient care.

This letter was submitted on behalf of the University of Minnesota Medical School Alumni Board by board president Dale Ray.

•••

As chair of the board of directors for the Minnesota Humanities Center (MHC), I’ve seen firsthand the power of the humanities to bring people together. That’s why the recent actions by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are so concerning.

By placing nearly all staff at the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) on administrative leave, terminating contracts with partners like MHC, and rescinding awarded grants, DOGE is jeopardizing initiatives that support communities and enrich lives across our state.

MHC is one of 56 state and territorial humanities councils supported by NEH. In Minnesota, that support translates into essential educational and cultural programming in every corner of the state — urban, rural and tribal communities alike. If these decisions stand, MHC could lose $1.2 million annually. That loss would jeopardize programs that serve people of all ages, professions and political beliefs.

The humanities are not a luxury. They help us answer fundamental questions: Who are we? What do we value? How do we build a future rooted in justice and mutual respect? At MHC, we do this work through storytelling, exhibits, community conversations and partnerships that amplify diverse voices across Minnesota by bringing those voices together.

This decision risks undoing decades of work in education, culture and community connection. Our federal delegation must take action to restore NEH.

Josh Ney, Minneapolis

The writer is board chair at the Minnesota Humanities Center.