Contradictory statements can often reveal a lack of understanding or even cognitive dissonance. However, they may also serve as the foundation for a theory that attempts to resolve the inconsistency. A particularly striking case can be observed in the recent declarations of President Donald Trump.
On one hand, Trump proclaimed that rejecting a $400 million aircraft, offered by a foreign autocrat, would be the act of a “fool.” He emphasized this sentiment on his social media platform, asserting:
“Only a FOOL would not accept this gift on behalf of our Country.” During an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, he further labeled the proposed gift “a beautiful gesture,” dismissing critics as “stupid.”
Conversely, Trump has simultaneously restricted American citizens’ freedom to import goods from China, arguing that their production is excessively subsidized by the Chinese government. He imposed high tariffs on these imports, which, although he later softened his stance, still linger at significant levels. A notable example is his stance on dolls, which he cited during both his first term and more recently:
“Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls… and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”
Chinese electric vehicles also illustrate this contradiction. Once dominating the European market with a 50% share, their presence has been curtailed to 30% due to newly imposed tariffs (“Chinese Carmakers Reset European Ambitions as EU Tariffs Bite,” Financial Times, April 28, 2025). For instance, BYD’s Seagull is expected to retail in the UK for ÂŁ18,000, inclusive of mandatory safety upgrades and a 10% tariff (along with the VAT of 20%). If the U.S. did not impose such prohibitive tariffs and other barriers, the Seagull could potentially be priced at $24,000 here, appealing to many average American consumers. In this light, one might argue that only a “fool” would turn down a vehicle partially funded by Chinese taxpayers.
Interestingly, BYD is a private entity traded on the Hong Kong stock exchange, where Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway held an 8% stake as of 2023. The company benefits from the Chinese state’s robust industrial policies, which arguably exceed the interventions typical of both the Biden and Trump administrations (“How China’s BYD Played Catch-Up with Tesla,” Financial Times, July 6, 2022).
While there is a compelling moral argument against the purchase of stolen goods, this principle seemingly does not extend to taxpayer-subsidized items. If it did, countless goods—even those produced domestically—would be off-limits for purchase. In instances involving dolls and other products from small-scale Chinese manufacturers, it’s likely that such production subsidies are nonexistent.
Moreover, the assertion that foreign government subsidies create “unfair trade” merits scrutiny. Free trade, in essence, fosters efficiency, regardless of whether the importer receives any governmental assistance. In a free society, individuals should possess the autonomy to trade based on mutual agreement. The disappointment of some competitors is no more objectionable than acknowledging that each purchase implies another consumer has been outbid. Thus, Americans ought to be free to import subsidized Chinese goods without facing tariffs or other barriers. To echo Trump’s own rhetoric, only a fool would refuse an automobile partially gifted by the Chinese taxpayer. (See also my post “Taking Comparative Advantage Seriously.”)
It raises an intriguing contradiction: a nation where public officials can accept potentially corrupting gifts from foreign leaders, yet where private citizens are restricted from engaging in trade seems fundamentally misaligned.
So what explains Trump’s contradictions? Ignorance or cognitive dissonance could certainly be factors. A habitual liar often becomes entangled in contradictions simply because they cannot remember their previous fabrications and lack regard for truth. Alternatively, Trump might embody solipsism—the belief that only one’s own existence is certain. Another interpretation could be his underlying populism: by representing “the people,” any gift to him is essentially a gift to the populace.
******************************
A little contradiction to be explained
