President Trump, Treasury secretary Bessent, and Commerce secretary Lutnick are effectively teaching a course right now on the fundamentals of international trade. How many Americans previously understood that nations around the world use tariffs and other economic tools to keep American-made products from reaching their markets? Hasn’t the United States been spreading the gospel of “free trade” for centuries?
Doesn’t commitment to “free markets” separate the civilizational West from more authoritarian countries with “closed” economies? Shouldn’t a “rules-based international order” ensure that the rules are the same for all participating countries?
Or asked another way: How “free” can international trade be if its proponents depend upon a labyrinthine system of rules that requires thousand-page treaties and guidance from the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, central banks galore, the Bank for International Settlements, international standards organizations, law firms specializing in commercial and maritime law, more law firms specializing in the administrative law of specific nations, even more law firms specializing in the labor and environmental laws of each nation, and an ever-increasing number of national and international regulatory bodies to tell producers what they can and cannot produce, how and when to produce what they are permitted to produce, and whom to pay for the “privilege” of producing it — all while restricting which domestic consumers around the world are permitted to purchase what the aforementioned producers end up producing?
That long question only scratches the surface of the sheer complexity of international trade, yet even in its oversimplification, it smacks of coercion, extortion, overbearing micromanagement, government corruption, and blatant racketeering. It oozes the “command and control” odor we associate with a Soviet-type, socialist, or similarly centrally planned economy. Nothing about “free trade” in practice sounds remotely free.
With the Trump/Bessent/Lutnick tariff tutorial currently being broadcast from the White House, millions of Americans are learning for the first time that the United States operates within an international market system that does not impose reciprocal entry costs. That is to say, countries around the world collect fees from American producers before they are allowed to sell their goods in those markets, while the U.S. typically charges foreign producers much less — or nothing at all.
Since the conclusion of WWII, the United States has directly subsidized Europe through various forms of a Marshall Plan, originally meant to help Europe rebuild after the war by restricting American competitors from selling in Europe while encouraging European producers to sell in the United States. Was the Marshall Plan necessary to resurrect Europe’s economy? Perhaps — although many economists have argued that it so distorted market incentives that Europe’s economy is much less strong today than it otherwise would be. Regardless, most Americans have been intentionally kept in the dark that this two-tiered system of trans-Atlantic trade has persisted for eighty years.
Europe is not alone in benefiting from “rules-based” trade advantages with the United States. The U.S. handcuffs its producers in numerous ways. If some country within America’s sphere of influence depends upon a particular agricultural crop or mineral export to sustain its national standard of living, then there is almost certainly a paragraph tucked away in the thirteenth section of the fifty-ninth chapter of some fourteen-hundred-page international treaty making it more difficult for American producers to grow, mine, ship, or sell that product to the other country’s detriment.
That’s one form of what foreign policy snobs like to call “soft power.” It’s a way for the United States to exert influence by effectively saying, “If you do what we say, we’ll prop up your nation’s economy. And if you’re really obedient, the U.S. Agency for International Development or the National Endowment for Democracy will throw a little cold, hard cash at your political leaders.”
Now, if you’re building empires, that might be a splendid tactic. It is an inexpensive way to expand American power around the world. It fosters the image that the United States respects the sovereignty of individual nation-states while creating the conditions for the U.S. government to hold a nation’s economic future in its hands. No doubt many of the countries that have flourished under America’s security umbrella are far better off today than they would have been had they become vassal states to the Soviet Union last century or communist China this century. Nonetheless, this kind of manipulation of international trade comes at a cost to any American farmer or entrepreneur who is hamstrung due to the State Department’s “soft power” games.
There is a strange — and perhaps quite dangerous — disconnect between the way most Americans see their country and the way the U.S. government actually operates. A reasonable, patriotic American believes that the United States is a great and powerful country with unique influence on the world stage. Yet citizens still see it as a nation with distinct borders, a distinct culture, distinct interests, and a distinct Constitution that limits federal powers while ensuring that the American people are ably represented in their government.
The U.S. government, on the other hand, sees itself as the international headquarters of a global empire that has no borders; includes all cultures; pursues competing interests; acts without constitutional constraint; and represents international banks, corporations, and institutions with no allegiance to the political culture, historical inheritance, or territorial sovereignty of the United States.
The result of this disconnect is striking: While the American people expect their government to do what’s best for them and their country, the U.S. government does what’s best for itself and the expansion of its empire. If international companies can profit from illegal immigration, then the federal government will ignore its own immigration laws and even fly illegal aliens into the United States. If international banks can profit from slave labor manufacturing in communist China, then the federal government will outsource entire industries to its geopolitical enemy. If the European Union and the World Economic Forum can use U.S. military and economic support to create totalitarian systems of control across the continent, then the federal government will spend itself to financial death in order to sustain the “New World Order’s” globalist hegemony.
Americans didn’t vote for open borders, endless wars, forty trillion dollars of debt, or a hollowed out economy dependent on overseas slave labor. The U.S. government ignored their wishes and the limits of its constitutional powers and constructed a global empire anyway.
In truth, the American empire hasn’t been interested in “free trade” since at least WWI. The Great War, coincidentally enough, started roughly six months after the Federal Reserve System was forced upon the American public in a corrupt congressional vote two days before Christmas 1913. The creation of a “central bank” was a dead giveaway that markets would henceforth be controlled. Nothing that is centralized can be said to operate according to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” From that point on, central bankers chose the “winners” and “losers” in the American economy, and “free trade” became a euphemism that global oligarchs whispered to the American people while stealing every last cent from their pockets.
Before the Federal Reserve, Americans had gold-backed currency, owned real property, paid little in taxes, and moved up the social ladder faster than anywhere else in the world. Since the imposition of a central bank, fiat dollars have lost most of their value, banks own most Americans’ homes, American tax obligations have exploded, and indebted workers are less well off than their parents.
President Trump’s tariff policy is only the beginning. He is setting the stage for the end of the income tax, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve. Getting there requires unshackling the American economy and unleashing Americans’ entrepreneurial spirit.
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.