Which is why I think it was all on purpose.

Occam/Hanlon's razor: it's stupidity with opportunistic grift.

Project 2025 had pro- & anti-tariff proposals (they were split on the issue of fair vs free trade & argued both). This administration is running wild with the pro-tariff proposal, which ties tariff imbalances to trade deficits (seen this theme before?).

While the fair trade camp argued higher tariffs would somehow create jobs, the free trade camp called for realism & skepticism

trade policy has limited capabilities and is vulnerable to mission creep and regulatory capture

will fail for the same reason that a hammer cannot turn a screw: It is the wrong tool for the job. Conservatives should be similarly skeptical of recent attempts on the Right to use progressive trade policy to punish political opponents, remake manufacturing, or accomplish other objectives for which it is not suited. The next Administration needs to end the mission creep that has all but taken over trade policy in recent years.

countered that no trade policy (fair or free) creates jobs

Neither free trade nor protectionism will create jobs. Trade affects the types of jobs people have, but it has no long-run effect on the number of jobs. Labor force size is tied to population size more than anything else.

and argues more inline with textbook economics about trade, comparative advantage, specialization.

Interestingly, the free trade camp gave a brief history lesson about the interconnectedness of the economy from its agrarian beginnings

In 1776, nearly 90 percent of Americans were farmers. For 10 people to eat, nine had to farm. That meant fewer people could be factory workers, doctors, or teachers, or even live in cities, because they were needed on the farm. Accordingly, life expectancy was around 40 years, and literacy was 13 percent.

through the loss of jobs from agriculture to industry increasing the output of both

Many displaced farm laborers got jobs making the very farm equipment that made intensive agricultural growth possible, from railroad networks to cotton gins. Each fed the other. Agriculture and industry are not separate; they are as interconnected as everything else in the economy. None of this could have happened had the government enacted policies to preserve full agricultural employment.

to argue that jobs in a particular sector are the wrong measure of value

economic policy should treat value as value, whether it is created on a farm, in a factory, or in an office. A dollar of value created in manufacturing is neither more nor less valuable than a dollar of value created in agriculture or services.

growth increased as service sector surpassed manufacturing

Farmers’ share of the population continued to decline through this entire period, yet employment remained high, and the economy continued to grow. Factories were not the only beneficiaries of agriculture’s productivity boom and the labor it freed; services also grew. In fact, service-sector employment surpassed manufacturing employment around 1890—far earlier than most people realize.

economic decline based on manufacturing is a myth that disregards the big picture

In trade, as in most other areas, few people ever zoom out to see the big picture, which is one reason why so many people mistakenly believe that U.S. manufacturing and the U.S. economy are in decline.

trade leads to specialization that affects the types of jobs, not long-term employment level

The data do not show American economic carnage. They show more than two centuries of intensive growth, made possible by a growing internal market throughout the 19th century and a growing international market in the post–World War II era. The transition from farm to factory did not shrink the labor force or farm output. Later, the transition from factories to services did not shrink the labor force, factory output, or farm output. Both transitions affected the types of jobs, not the number of jobs.

declining tariffs in the post-war era made this continued prosperity possible

population growth, the U.S.-led rules-based international trading system, and the steady 75-year decline in tariffs after World War II have made possible decades of continued prosperity

That position was too nuanced for this administration.