Politics Department Sponsors Student Debate on Tariffs -

Image Courtesy of Patrick D. Lewis

By Anthony Curioso

Do tariffs help or hurt the United States economy? The CUA College Republicans, with the Department of Politics’s sponsorship, hosted a debate on February 20 in Great Rooms A and B at the Pryzbyla Center. Students on both sides of the issue turned out in large numbers, seemingly captivated by what the College Republicans’ Instagram page described as “two titans” engaging in friendly debate.

The debate featured two sophomore students who have become widely known on campus for their respective political views and impact on the campus community. Jack Hermes, a finance and theology major who serves as Vice President for Membership in CUA’s College Republicans chapter, argued that tariffs benefit the US economy. Austin Janssen, a business and politics major who serves as Treasurer for the College Democrats, argued that tariffs burden the US economy and its citizens.

The February 20 debate was the second between Hermes and Janssen; the first occurred on November 4, 2024, one day before the United States presidential election.

Professor Gustavo Santos, a clinical assistant professor in the CUA politics department, moderated the debate. Owen Lee, a sophomore politics major who serves as President of the College Republicans, and Joseph Shagoury, a junior politics major who serves as chairman of the College Republicans, served as emcees to introduce Janssen, Hermes, and Santos at the beginning of the debate.

Professor Santos began by providing a brief context for the debate and a short synopsis of the agreed-upon ground rules for the evening.

In his opening statement, Janssen briefly outlined his history of political activism. He described himself as a “Ned Lamont Democrat,” a reference to the current governor of his home state of Connecticut. He believed that state taxes should be lower but that everyone should pay their fair share at the federal level. Janssen explained that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration would have a devastating effect on the United States’ gross domestic product (GDP) and the economy as a whole.

Hermes’ opening statement began by thanking the facilitators and crowd for the success of this event so far and reassuring the audience that he and Janssen remain close friends. He argued that tariffs allow companies to return their labor to the United States. Hermes explained that this benefits the United States by increasing the government’s revenue. Despite raising the prices of goods, he argued that tariffs still pass savings along to the American people in other ways. Hermes also explained that tariffs help reduce the massive national debt in the United States, emphasizing that “deficits matter.” He concluded his opening remarks by explaining that tariffs help to increase the United States’ bargaining power, citing the recent responses from Canada and Mexico to President Trump’s threatened tariffs. Ultimately, Hermes argued that tariffs are a great way “for America to finally be put first.”

Janssen’s rebuttal focused on President Trump walking back on his previous policies through his recent tariffs after being instrumental in creating the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) during his first term. The USMCA replaced the earlier North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the USMCA “aims to create more balanced, reciprocal trade supporting high-paying jobs for Americans and grow the North American economy.” Janssen argued that the Trump administration was undermining the principles of the USMCA by implementing tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico.

Additionally, Janssen stressed the importance of communicating with China regarding intellectual property to avoid a situation in which China profits from American technological advancements.

Hermes’ first rebuttal argued that no President has been more diplomatic in negotiation with other countries than President Trump and the fact that the studies that Janssen cited fail to take into account the revenue gains that tariffs have secured in bringing jobs back into America.

Hermes also emphasized that although there might be short-term economic pain for American citizens, the economy will benefit in the long run. He compared this to going to the doctor for an infection: Although taking the medicine might be unpleasant initially, the patient will ultimately benefit from it.

Janssen’s cross-examinations included questions about where the money raised from tariffs would go. Hermes responded that the money would be “wasted” on Social Security, Medicare, etc. Janssen also raised allegations that Republicans mindlessly follow President Trump, to which Hermes responded by reminding Janssen and the crowd of his staunch opposition to Trump’s comments and policy actions surrounding the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict.

Hermes’ cross-examination included questions about NAFTA and why President Biden expanded upon the tariffs initially implemented by President Trump. Hermes also accused Janssen of opposing the possibility of Americans saving money on their expenses by opposing the tariffs.

After the debate, Hermes commented on why he thought this was his best argument of the night.

“I think my strongest point tonight was that there really is no response by the ‘free traders’ to the argument that we can no longer afford to rely on foreign countries for essential goods,” Hermes said. “We saw this in 2020 with the KN-95 masks, where they basically threatened to withhold these essential goods from us in times of struggle with them.”

The debate then moved on to audience questions. In this segment, multiple audience members asked Hermes to clarify his stances on allegations that the US government is funding China, what happens when American families cannot afford necessities, and how he expected the US government to use tariffs to lower taxes. Meanwhile, one audience member asked Janssen how jobs could return to the United States without using tariffs to force companies’ hands, and another asked him about his level of concern about another economic depression as a result of the tariffs.

Professor Santos encouraged the audience members to conduct further research on the issue of tariffs.

Hermes commented on his thoughts on how the debate went.

“I think it went well, and I think I came out on top, but the biggest winners tonight were the people in the audience who got to enlighten themselves on this issue,” Hermes said. “I have to give credit to Austin, though, because he presented a great case, and I’m sure he would say he won tonight; however, that is for the people to decide.”

Janssen offered a similar perspective on his performance.

“I was coherent, and my points seemed to land, and I actually memorized statistics for the first time,” Janssen said. “I was combative with [Jack], but it was at the right time.”

Only time will tell who won the second Janssen vs. Hermes debate in the eyes of the CUA students who were present.

Additional images by Patrick D. Lewis: