White Paper Series Title: "Reviving America: A Supply-Side Blueprint for Economic Freedom"

Part 3:
Trump's America First Economic Strategy: A Supply-Side Analysis of Tariffs, Market Reactions, and Global Trade Realignment

Author: the Conservative TAKE contributor
Date: April 10, 2025
Prepared for: Advocates of Free Markets, Economic Nationalism, and American Sovereignty

Executive Summary

President Donald Trump's economic policies have been characterized by a bold commitment to America First principles, emphasizing fair trade, domestic industry revitalization, and strategic tariff implementations. On April 9, 2025, the financial markets responded emphatically to two pivotal developments:

Introduction: Reclaiming American Soil from Foreign Control

If the federal government can seize the private property of American citizens under eminent domain for a highway or a commercial development, then there is no constitutional or moral reason it cannot reclaim farmland from entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party. The Founders gave us tools to defend our nation, not just with armies, but with common sense. Foreign adversaries owning U.S. soil (especially near our military bases, critical infrastructure, and food production) is not merely a policy concern; it is a clear and present danger.

This white paper presents a constitutional and legal framework to expedite the reclamation of American farmland from Chinese control. It leverages the foreign commerce power, national security statutes, and the President’s emergency authorities to ensure that America’s enemies do not hold our land under our flag. This is not a question of partisanship; it is a question of sovereignty, security, and survival.

A Constitutional Strategy for Immediate Federal Action

I. Executive Summary

Foreign ownership of U.S. farmland by adversarial powers, chiefly the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and state-backed corporations, poses a growing national security threat. This paper outlines a rapid federal strategy, rooted in the Constitution, to reclaim such land without delay, drawing from the Foreign Commerce Clause, national defense powers, and historical precedent.

II. Constitutional Foundations

1. Foreign Commerce Clause – Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

• Congress has exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

• Includes transactions such as land purchases by foreign entities.

2. National Security and Executive Power – Article II

• The President, as Commander-in-Chief, is charged with protecting the homeland.

• Land owned by adversaries near sensitive infrastructure justifies direct executive action.

3. Takings Clause – Fifth Amendment

• Applies only when property is taken for public use and from persons under U.S. protection.

• Foreign adversaries are not entitled to constitutional protections where national defense is implicated.

III. Immediate Federal Tools & Pathways

A. Executive Orders Under IEEPA

Legal Basis: International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1707

• Allows the President to block, freeze, or seize property of foreign entities during a national emergency.

• Past uses: Freezing Iranian, North Korean, and Russian assets.

Recommended Action:

• Declare a National Emergency under IEEPA.

• Issue an Executive Order targeting all farmland held by:

  • Chinese government-affiliated entities.

  • Corporations with substantial CCP ownership or direction.

• Immediate asset freeze, pending investigation and divestment orders.

B. Legislative Expansion of CFIUS

Legal Basis: Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA, 2018)

• CFIUS reviews foreign acquisitions affecting national security.

• Can already block land purchases near military bases.

Legislative Proposal:

• Amend FIRRMA to:

  • Mandate review of all past farmland acquisitions by Chinese entities.

  • Authorize retroactive divestment.

  • Criminal penalties for concealment or shell company evasion.

C. Emergency Use of the Defense Production Act (DPA)

Legal Basis: Defense Production Act of 1950

• Authorizes the federal government to prioritize resources for national defense.

• Includes infrastructure, agriculture, and logistics.

Proposal:

• Amend to classify U.S. farmland as critical infrastructure.

• Allow for emergency federal acquisition or forced divestment.

IV. Legal Precedents: Supreme Court Support for Federal Takings

1. Berman v. Parker (1954)

• Government may seize private property for public use under broad definitions of "public interest."

2. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)

• Redistribution of land ownership deemed a valid public use.

3. Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

• Controversially upheld taking private property for economic development.

• Though not favored by conservatives, it affirms broad federal takings power.

Implication: If liberal justices upheld Kelo, a national security-driven seizure from a foreign adversary is even more defensible.

V. Strategy for Compensation

• No automatic compensation for foreign adversaries under national security exceptions.

• If Congress chooses to offer payment:

  • Must be discretionary.

  • Based on strategic calculus, not constitutional requirements.

VI. Summary of Recommendations

VII. Constitutional Rationale: Why the U.S. Can Reclaim Farmland from Foreign Adversaries

Eminent Domain and the Fifth Amendment

Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the government may take private property for public use, provided just compensation is paid. This doctrine has been upheld in cases like:

• Berman v. Parker (1954)

• Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

In these cases, the government was allowed to take land from American citizens for purposes like economic development or public improvement, even when those purposes were indirect.

So the Question Must Be Asked:

If the U.S. government can take farmland from its own citizens for something as vague as "public benefit"... then why should it hesitate to take land from entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party (our geopolitical rival) for the defense of the nation?

This is not just a legal justification—it's a national imperative.

Foreign Adversaries Have No Greater Rights Than American Citizens

Foreign state-affiliated corporations do not enjoy greater constitutional protection than American citizens. In fact, they enjoy fewer protections when:

• They are operating under foreign influence,

• Their actions pose a national security risk,

• Or their property is subject to emergency wartime or national defense powers.

Precedents for Seizing Enemy Property

• World War II: The U.S. seized German and Japanese-owned property under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

• Iran (1979) and Russia (2022): The U.S. froze and seized assets of foreign governments and oligarchs involved in hostile actions.

Bottom Line:

The Constitution allows us to take land from Americans under strict conditions. But when it comes to land controlled by hostile foreign powers, the bar for action is lower, not higher. This is especially true under emergency powers and national defense doctrine.

VII. In the end: the Founder's Take...

The Founding Fathers feared foreign influence as a threat to liberty and sovereignty. As Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 68, we must guard against "the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." Reclaiming American farmland from CCP hands is not only prudent; it is constitutionally imperative.

This is not a partisan issue. It is a question of sovereignty, security, and survival. The Constitution was not written to tie our hands in the face of foreign aggression; it was written to empower us to defend this nation. We cannot allow our farmland, our food supply, our infrastructure, our very soil to be owned or controlled by those who seek our decline. Now is the time for bold, lawful, and decisive action. Reclaim the land. Protect the Republic. And remember: no enemy has the right to what generations of Americans have fought and died to preserve.

White Paper Series Title: "Reviving America: A Supply-Side Blueprint for Economic Freedom"

Part 2:
Reaganomics: The Supply-Side Revolution That Rescued America from Stagnation

Author: the Conservative TAKE contributor
Date: April 10, 2025
Prepared for: Constitutional Conservatives, Supply-Side Advocates, and American Patriots

Executive Summary

The 1980s were a turning point in American economic history. After a decade of Keynesian chaos, runaway inflation, and stagnation under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter, Ronald Reagan brought a bold, unapologetic return to supply-side economics. Through massive tax cuts, deregulation, sound money, and restoring business confidence, Reagan ignited one of the greatest economic expansions in U.S. history.

This paper analyzes how Reagan reversed the exact same mistakes made by Hoover, FDR, and other central planners during the Great Depression—and how his policies vindicated the free market, disproved Keynesian myths, and laid the groundwork for long-term prosperity.

I. The Economic Crisis Reagan Inherited

When Reagan took office in January 1981, America was in a deep crisis:

• Inflation: Over 13%

• Unemployment: 7.5% and rising

• Interest rates: Over 18%

• Growth: Negative GDP in 1980–82

• Morale: National despair, declining productivity, and a “malaise” economy

This was stagflation—a toxic mix of inflation and stagnation that Keynesian models said was impossible. But it was real, and it was devastating.

II. Reagan’s Supply-Side Strategy

Reagan knew the answer wasn’t more government—it was unleashing the private sector. Guided by classical economists like Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer, Jude Wanniski, and Jack Kemp, Reagan implemented a four-part strategy.

A. Major Tax Cuts: Incentivizing Work, Saving, and Investment

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA)

• Cut top individual tax rate from 70% to 50%

• Across-the-board income tax cuts of 25% over three years

• Introduced Accelerated Cost Recovery System (ACRS) to promote capital investment

• Indexed tax brackets to inflation (ending “bracket creep”)

Results:

• Private investment surged

• Job creation exploded

• Revenues eventually increased, despite lower rates (Laffer Curve in action)

Contrast with FDR: While Roosevelt raised taxes on businesses and individuals, Reagan cut taxes to unleash the supply side of the economy.

B. Monetary Discipline: Fighting Inflation Without Killing Growth

While Reagan’s team handled fiscal policy, Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, supported by Reagan, slammed the brakes on inflation with tight monetary policy.

• High interest rates were painful (recession in 1981–82), but short-lived

• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 3.2% by 1983

• Reagan stood firm and let the market adjust

Contrast with the 1930s Fed: Instead of shrinking the money supply like the Great Depression era, Reagan supported tight but rational monetary policy—short-term pain, long-term gain.

C. Deregulation: Restoring Free Market Competition

Reagan slashed regulations that stifled industry:

• Airlines, trucking, energy, and telecommunications were freed from decades of red tape

• Reduced the top marginal capital gains tax

• Ended price controls and wage controls from the Nixon-Carter era

Impact:

• Lower costs

• More innovation

• Greater productivity and competition

Contrast with the New Deal: Reagan dismantled the bureaucratic grip on the economy, while FDR expanded it through agencies like the NRA, AAA, and SEC.

D. Rebuilding Business Confidence

Reagan knew that entrepreneurs are the engine of the economy. His policies and rhetoric signaled clearly: America was open for business again.

• No more demonizing “the rich” or “profits”

• Emphasized private enterprise, family values, and self-reliance

• Reagan restored economic optimism, and confidence fueled growth

Contrast with Hoover/FDR: Reagan didn’t create “make-work” jobs—he freed the market so real jobs could flourish.

III. Economic Results of Reaganomics

The results were undeniable—and historically unmatched:

And let’s not forget: Reagan rebuilt the military, defeated communism, and restored American pride. His economic success laid the foundation for the tech boom of the 1990s, driven by the investment climate he created.

IV. Addressing Keynesian and Leftist Critiques

Claim: Reagan created deficits.
Truth: Congress kept spending. Reagan cut tax rates, but revenues rose. The problem was spending, not tax cuts.

Claim: Reaganomics helped only the rich.
Truth: Middle-class incomes rose, inflation fell, and unemployment dropped. Wealth creation helped everyone—especially those who work.

Claim: Trickle-down doesn’t work.
Truth: It's not “trickle-down”, it's supply-side. When you let producers produce, the whole economy grows.

V. In the end... A Blueprint for Revival

Reagan didn’t guess. He learned from the past. He looked at what failed in the 1930s—high taxes, big government, central planning—and did the opposite.

He proved:

• Freedom works

• Lower taxes = higher growth

• Stable money = sound economy

• Deregulation = innovation

• Confidence in capitalism = jobs and prosperity

The legacy of Reaganomics is clear: when America returns to limited government and economic liberty, it thrives.

Key Sources

• Friedman, Milton. Free to Choose (1980)

• Laffer, Arthur. The End of Prosperity (2008)

• Reagan, Ronald. An American Life (1990)

• Wanniski, Jude. The Way the World Works (1978)

• Gilder, George. Wealth and Poverty (1981)

• Stockman, David. The Triumph of Politics (1986)

• Moore, Stephen and Laffer, Arthur. Return to Prosperity (2010)

• U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Historical Tables

• Heritage Foundation Economic Policy Archives

• Cato Institute, “Reaganomics at 40” symposium (2021)
  
  

Tomorrow, we conclude with Part 3 which reveals how Trump used tariffs strategically, calmed markets, and turned the world against China, fueling a market surge and reaffirming America's dominance in global trade. Title: Trump’s America First Economy: Beating China and Boosting Markets