In a sharply insightful piece titled “JD Vance is Wrong: The Market Isn’t a ‘Tool’” published in the Wall Street Journal on May 26, 2025, Matthew Hennessey, the deputy editorial features editor, critiqued Vice President Vance’s perspective on the role of markets in politics.
During a recent podcast, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat inquired about how Mr. Vance’s Catholic beliefs influence his political stance. Rather than referencing the usual conservative Catholic agenda—such as abortion or immigration—Mr. Vance directed his fire at the market itself. He stated, “Well, I think one of the criticisms that I get from the right is that I am insufficiently committed to the capital-M market. The market is a tool, but it is not the purpose of American politics.”
In a later segment of his editorial, Hennessey elaborated:
Markets, whether they pertain to affordable consumer products or government bonds, are not easily swayed by political agendas. They operate under the immutable laws of economics, akin to how gravity governs the physical universe. One can grumble about market demands or lament the constraints they impose, but these realities cannot be ignored or simply wished away. No amount of political fervor or ink shed can nullify these economic principles. Supply and demand remain undefeated.
Note: Due to my contractual obligations with the Wall Street Journal, I am restricted from quoting more than two paragraphs from an article until 30 days post-publication. However, you can access a more extensive excerpt from Hennessey’s editorial here.
In response, Vice President Vance penned a rebuttal, to which I also replied. Here are two paragraphs from my three-paragraph response:
Mr. Vance claims that President Trump has “leveraged access to America’s markets” to secure “fairer treatment from foreign partners” regarding trade, illegal immigration, and drugs. However, this does not illustrate the market as a tool; rather, it depicts an effort to coerce market operations to yield desired political outcomes. On a related note, do Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance truly believe that the Canadian government can significantly curb the flow of fentanyl across its border with the U.S., which, in fiscal 2024, represented a mere 0.2% of the volume seized at the U.S.-Mexico border?
Mr. Vance questions whether we should permit large quantities of Mexican produce or Chinese automobiles to undermine American industries, suggesting that tariffs and trade measures are necessary for protection. Yet allowing Chinese electric vehicles into the U.S. market wouldn’t necessarily devastate domestic manufacturing, particularly if Mr. Trump ends EV mandates, enabling U.S. companies to focus on their strengths: gas-powered and hybrid vehicles. Furthermore, restricting access to more affordable foreign produce disproportionately impacts lower-income families. The vice president inadvertently reveals the crux of the issue: tariffs, not markets, are the real instruments at play.
For my complete response, you can find it here.
