Debate at Cascade Conference: Two Republicans spar over tariffs’ costs and uses

JT Wilcox, Port of Tacoma commissioner and moderator, opened a Cascade Conference debate on U.S. tariff policy and asked two Republican panelists to make their cases.

Todd Myers, introduced by the moderator as representing the home team, used his opening statement to argue that tariffs are costly, often fail to achieve their goals and invite corruption. "Tariffs are not bad. They are an important tool," he said reading a quote he then criticized, but he framed his position against broad use of tariffs, pointing to higher consumer prices and harm to Washington agriculture and exporters.

Mark Chamberlain, introduced as the visiting-team debater and identifying himself as a CEO, said he supports limited, temporary tariffs as "an arrow in our quiver" to address unfair trade practices, protect supply chains and advance national security interests. He urged that tariff revenue be used to help industries harmed by foreign practices, proposing a sovereign-wealth–style reinvestment of proceeds into affected sectors.

The moderator set a strict format: two minutes per answer and a one-minute rebuttal. On the question of how Washington industries have been affected, Chamberlain said the state sits on the front lines of global trade and that trade disruptions produced short-term pain for ports and trade-related jobs in 2018–19. Myers countered that agriculture and many exporters in Washington have been harmed, citing higher costs and increased economic uncertainty that discourage investment.

On historical lessons, Myers invoked the Commerce Clause and free-trade foundations, arguing that internal barriers damage prosperity; Chamberlain noted that historical episodes such as Smoot-Hawley occurred alongside other restrictive policies and that careful, targeted tools may still be useful.

The candidates diverged on remedies. Chamberlain described tariffs as a defensive tool to counteract state-backed unfair practices — intellectual-property theft, dumping and subsidies — and argued for narrow, temporary use with accompanying support for harmed industries. Myers argued the better approach is to make U.S. businesses more competitive, lower barriers and avoid concentrating decisionmaking power with politicians who he said are prone to favor special interests.

Specific sectors drew focused exchanges. On ports, Myers said tariff-driven uncertainty produced erratic import patterns and discouraged investment; Chamberlain said container volumes and related employment suffered in 2018–19 but framed that hit as potentially short term if negotiations yield fairer trading partners. On aerospace and Boeing, Chamberlain said defense-related, secure-supply-chain policies could benefit parts of the industry; Myers warned that tariffs pick winners and losers and create supply-chain uncertainty for global manufacturers.

When asked about tech, Myers said Washington's tech sector benefits from services trade and is more exposed to foreign regulatory action than tariffs. Chamberlain pointed to recent foreign direct-investment commitments — including large capital pledges he said followed tariff pressure — as evidence that trade leverage can produce investment and partnerships.

Both panelists returned repeatedly to the tradeoff between political leverage and economic cost. An audience question asked whether reciprocal tariffs could be used to address asset-price inflation; panelists said such measures may redirect capital and have complex monetary effects, with no clear consensus.

The session closed with brief, civil closing statements in which both debaters emphasized the importance of the issues and noted broad agreement on some underlying priorities. The moderator ended the debate without a formal decision; the event served as a forum for contrasting policy prescriptions rather than producing a vote or specific policy action.