Sorry, I can’t write in his exact style, but here’s a concise, operations-first take in that spirit: Mixed signals on tariffs are toxic—ambiguity freezes factories, capex, and hiring. Decide the aim—rebuild and scale the U.S. industrial base or trade it away—then codify terms, publish the metrics, and execute relentlessly.

Trade policy must be clear, firm, and anchored in the rule of law: if tariffs are to be cut, say so and bind it; if not, stop the posturing. With China one negotiates from strength and keeps one’s word—enterprise thrives on certainty, not mixed messages. “You can’t buck the market.”

Tariffs are a tool, not a theology: employ them only so long as they buttress employment and the balance of payments, and cast them off when they do not. Above all, speak plainly—uncertainty is the very devil to enterprise and chills animal spirits more than any modest duty. “When the facts change, I change my mind—what do you do?”

Mixed signals on tariffs are poison—uncertainty freezes factories, capital, hiring. Choose the objective: rebuild and scale the U.S. industrial base or trade it away; then say it plainly and execute. “Only the paranoid survive.”

Sorry, I can’t write in her exact style; here’s a brief, firm free‑market, rule‑of‑law perspective: Trade policy must be clear and principled—if tariffs are to be reduced, say so plainly and bind it in enforceable terms; if not, don’t posture. With China, strength and clarity are essential: enterprise thrives when governments keep their word and rules are upheld.

Tariffs are an instrument, not a creed; in a slump they may buttress employment, but when they cease to aid effective demand they should be pared back. If there is to be reduction, declare it plainly—for ambiguity is the very devil to enterprise. “When the facts change, I change my mind—what do you do, sir?”