[link removed]
Good evening,

North Carolina agriculture has weathered hurricanes, droughts, and generations of well-meaning but clumsy regulation. What it cannot easily withstand is a trade war.

A new study ([link removed]) by economist Jeffrey Dorfman shows that tariffs carry real, measurable costs for North Carolina agriculture.

When the United States raises trade barriers, our trading partners respond in kind. And when they do, agriculture is usually the first target.

That matters here. North Carolina agriculture is deeply tied to export markets — about 32% of pork, 67% of tobacco, 49% of sweet potatoes, and more than 80% of cotton production is sold abroad, largely to major trading partners such as Mexico, Canada, and the European Union.

When those markets close or shrink, prices fall at home. That’s why, despite the rhetoric, Washington has again moved to send billions in federal payments to farmers coping with tariff-linked losses rather than seeing the underlying market problems resolved.

Dorfman estimates that retaliatory tariffs could cost North Carolina farmers nearly $700 million - roughly one-third of the state’s average net farm income.

The ripple effects are even worse. Lost farm revenue means fewer jobs, fewer equipment purchases, and fewer dollars circulating through rural communities. In total, the state could see 8,000 jobs disappear and $1.8 billion shaved off the economy.

These losses would not be evenly distributed. They would be concentrated in rural North Carolina. When farms suffer, small towns feel it first and longest.

Farmers can try to adapt; finding new export markets, expanding domestic demand, or creating value-added products. All of these strategies are sensible, and all of them take time. None can fully offset the damage of sudden trade retaliation, especially in the short run.

There is a simpler solution, one our founders would recognize.

Trade is not a favor granted by the government; it is a voluntary exchange between people. Free trade remains the best foundation for prosperity and a strong dollar. That does not mean tariffs, sanctions, or embargoes are never justified. They can be useful tools when targeted at bad actors. But when tariffs are imposed broadly and indefinitely ([link removed]) , they lose their leverage, invite retaliation, and push trading partners toward our rivals ([link removed]) .

North Carolina agriculture thrives when markets are open, predictable, and free. It falters when Washington decides to experiment.

You can read more about Locke’s advocacy for farmers and the dangers of trade wars here ([link removed]) , here ([link removed]) , and here ([link removed]) .

Esse quam videri,

Donald Bryson
CEO
John Locke Foundation

RSVP today for our School Choice Week poll lunch!
*PLEASE NOTE: ONLY A FEW TICKETS LEFT*. RSVP to attend our School Choice Week poll lunch and presentation! Have a bite, and chew on the latest poll results in our offices in Raleigh on Thursday, Jan 29 at 11:30AM.
[link removed]
REGISTER NOW ([link removed])
More from Locke

1) 🪪🪪🪪 When rate caps cut off credit ([link removed])
* A proposed federal cap on credit card interest rates (10%) is intended to lower costs but would likely reduce access to credit, not make it cheaper.
+ Because credit card debt is unsecured, interest rates reflect the risk of default.
+ Capping rates at 10% would prevent lenders from pricing that risk accurately, leading them to tighten standards and reduce credit availability.
+ Lower-income households, subprime borrowers, and those with thin credit histories would be the first to lose access to mainstream credit as lenders move toward only "safe" or affluent borrowers.
* With fewer local bank branches, rural residents rely heavily on flexible credit.
+ A rate cap could force distant or online lenders to withdraw from these markets, leaving families with fewer financial buffers.
* Retirees on fixed incomes often use credit cards for unpredictable expenses like medical bills.
+ Issuers might close these accounts if they are no longer profitable under the new cap.
* A one-year cap would likely cause lenders to pause lending or cut exposure entirely rather than re-engineer their long-term risk models for a short window of time.
+ Displaced borrowers may be forced to turn to more expensive or predatory options, such as payday loans, rent-to-own schemes, or informal debt.
+ While proponents estimate billions in consumer savings, these savings only benefit those who retain their credit.
* Protecting consumers should not mean pushing them out of the financial system altogether.

You can read the full article here ([link removed]) .

2) 🤔🤔🤔 How accountable are North Carolina’s public schools, really? ([link removed])
* “Public schools are accountable.” It’s a claim often repeated by lawmakers, teachers, administrators, and education activists. But are they?
+ Despite official accountability structures (like school letter grades), public confidence is low.
o A January 2025 poll showed 55% of North Carolinians are dissatisfied with public school quality, and many grade their local schools significantly lower than private or charter alternatives.
+ Having an "apparatus of accountability" (state boards, laws, and data) is not the same as being truly accountable to the public.
o Official per-pupil spending figures often exclude capital costs.
o Financial reporting focuses heavily on "inputs" (dollars spent) rather than "outcomes" (what that money actually achieves for students).
o Most financial data is provided at the district level, which obscures spending differences between individual schools.
* North Carolina’s school funding system is so complex that even school business officers often take years to understand it, making it nearly impossible for the public or legislators to track if money is being used effectively.
+ More than data is needed to ensure true financial accountability for North Carolina’s schools.

You can read the full report here ([link removed]) .

3) 🕵️🕵️🕵️ Fact-checking a “fact check” on solar and wind energy ([link removed])
* In response to a post from the U.S. Energy Department on X, PolitiFact challenged ([link removed]) the claim that solar and wind infrastructure is "essentially worthless" when it is dark or calm.
+ PolitiFact argued this was false because energy can be stored in batteries for later use.
+ PolitiFact ignored the practical limitations of batteries, which are typically only rated for up to four hours of discharge, making them insufficient for long periods without sun or wind.
+ Battery storage is not unique to renewables; any energy source can charge a battery.
+ Therefore, storage is not an "essential" part of the wind and solar infrastructure itself, but an external, costly addition.
* While advocates claim solar and wind are cheaper due to "free fuel" (sun/wind), these sources incur heavy secondary costs, including transmission, load balancing, and expensive storage systems required to handle intermittency.
+ PolitiFact’s own source material, a Washington Examiner article ([link removed]) , actually quoted Energy Secretary Chris Wright saying the infrastructure is worthless without proper battery technology.
* PolitiFact's "False" rating was intellectually dishonest because it relied on the presence of a separate technology (batteries) to validate an intermittent power source, while ignoring that the original speaker had already acknowledged that very caveat.

You can get the full breakdown here ([link removed]) .

Donate ([link removed])

============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Link ([link removed])
** LinkedIn ([link removed])
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.