CEA Chairman Steve Miran Hudson Institute Event Remarks
The speech offers a forceful and revisionist interpretation of the United States’ global role, centered on the claim that America has long shouldered the burden of maintaining both international security and the financial infrastructure of the global economy—essentially providing the world with what economists call “global public goods.” The speaker, identifying as an economist rather than a military strategist, argues that the U.S. has delivered two such goods: a global security umbrella sustained by its military presence, and a stable financial system anchored by the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Crucially, however, these goods are portrayed not as instruments of power or leadership, but as costly services provided at the expense of the American taxpayer, worker, and soldier, with minimal reciprocal contribution from foreign beneficiaries.
This framing represents a sharp departure from traditional understandings of American hegemony. The U.S. dollar—typically considered a symbol of strategic and economic advantage—is here reimagined as a liability. According to the speaker, global demand for the dollar keeps the exchange rate artificially strong, undermining the competitiveness of American exports and contributing to chronic trade deficits. Far from being a “privilege,” the dollar’s reserve status is blamed for the deindustrialization of the U.S. economy and the erosion of its manufacturing base. In this light, the rise of foreign powers such as China is not merely a geopolitical shift but the result of an unfair economic arrangement in which America has funded the prosperity of others at the expense of its own people.
From this diagnosis emerges a doctrine of burden sharing. If other countries wish to continue benefiting from the U.S.-backed international order, the argument goes, they must contribute materially to its costs. This could take the form of accepting tariffs on exports to the U.S. without retaliation, purchasing more American goods, investing in U.S. factories, increasing defense spending—especially through procurement from American companies—or even making direct fiscal transfers to the U.S. Treasury. The notion of “burden sharing” thus becomes a transactional demand: global peace and financial stability are not to be granted unconditionally but must be compensated for, much like any other public service.
The speech also forcefully defends the use of tariffs, rejecting mainstream economic orthodoxy which views protectionism as inherently counterproductive. Traditional economic models, it is argued, wrongly assume that trade deficits are self-correcting through currency adjustments. In reality, the U.S. has run persistent current account deficits for over five decades, even as the dollar has appreciated—contradicting standard predictions. By this account, tariffs are not only justifiable but effective: they generate revenue, protect domestic industry, and shift the economic burden onto foreign exporters who are disproportionately dependent on access to the U.S. market.
This perspective raises significant questions from the standpoint of international law and multilateral economic governance. Global public goods, such as security and monetary stability, are conventionally understood as shared responsibilities, grounded in principles of cooperation and institutional frameworks—not as commodities to be traded for bilateral gain. The speaker’s transactional logic risks undermining the postwar liberal order, particularly the structures built around the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization. The selective use of tariffs, especially when framed as punitive or retaliatory, challenges the foundational norms of nondiscrimination and reciprocity in international trade law.
At a deeper ideological level, the speech reflects a sovereigntist and transactional worldview, in which international engagement is valued only insofar as it yields immediate and tangible benefits to the national interest—defined primarily in economic and industrial terms. Leadership, in this vision, is not a moral or strategic imperative but a service rendered—one that must be paid for by those who benefit from it. This is a rhetorically powerful, internally consistent position, but also one that is deeply contentious and polarizing, especially in light of ongoing tensions between protectionist instincts and the principles of multilateralism.
Follow