When Trumpists start shouting "No taxation without representation" as they jack up tariffs on French cheese, Chinese batteries, and Canadian maple syrup, it's time for a reality check — preferably one steeped in actual history instead of Fox News talking points and Founding Father fanfic.

The latest round of Trump tariffs has unleashed a predictable chorus from MAGA economic theorists, aka guys with flags in their bios and supply-chain rage in their hearts. In April 2025, Trump announced a 10% universal tariff on virtually all imports, with rates climbing as high as 55% on Chinese goods. And wouldn't you know it — they're invoking the Boston Tea Party like it’s a sacred relic of nationalist trade policy. "The Founders threw tea in the harbor to protest unfair foreign trade! They were the original America Firsters! Tariffs are patriotic!"

Stop. No. Absolutely not.

The Boston Tea Party wasn’t a rejection of globalism. It wasn’t anti-trade. And it sure as hell wasn’t some powdered-wig prequel to MAGA. In fact, the colonists weren’t mad because British tea was too expensive. They were mad because it was about to get too cheap.

Let’s back up.

By 1773, the British East India Company (EIC) was drowning in unsold tea, financial mismanagement, and the kind of bloated inventory that would make a modern warehouse manager cry. Parliament's solution? The Tea Act of 1773: a bailout disguised as a discount.

Under the Act, the EIC was allowed to export tea directly to the colonies without paying British export taxes, meaning they could undercut both smugglers and local merchants. But they still had to pay the 3 pence-per-pound Townshend tax when the tea landed in colonial ports. So yes, technically, there was a tax. But functionally, the tea was cheaper than ever.

TL;DR: Parliament gave a massive tax break to a bloated corporation and handed them a monopoly on colonial tea sales. Sound familiar yet?

Enter the American merchant class, a.k.a. the "freedom-loving patriots" who also happened to be deeply invested in smuggling Dutch tea. Chief among them was John Hancock, Boston's wealthiest merchant and a man whose disdain for taxes was only matched by his love of dodging them.

Samuel Adams wasn’t necessarily a smuggler himself, but let’s just say he had an awful lot of smuggler friends. Like, "everyone at your birthday party has offshore accounts" levels of cozy.

Then there was Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson, a Crown loyalist whose sons were conveniently appointed as official tea consignees. Nothing says "conflict of interest" like enforcing a policy your kids profit from.

These weren’t salt-of-the-earth revolutionaries fighting for liberty. They were pissed-off businessmen watching their revenue streams go up in smoke because Parliament decided to hand the tea market to a British mega-corp.

Patriots tried legal channels first. They begged the consignees to resign. They organized mass meetings. They even asked the ships to turn back. But Hutchinson, protecting both imperial authority and his family’s side hustle, refused.

So on December 16, 1773, a hundred or so colonists, some dressed as Mohawk warriors (because 18th-century cultural appropriation was apparently part of the vibe), boarded three ships and dumped 90,000 pounds of tea into Boston Harbor. That’s about $1.7 million in today’s money, or roughly what Elon Musk loses when he sneezes near 卐itter.

It was clean, coordinated, and symbolic. They didn’t touch anything else on board. No looting. No fires. Just a highly specific, extremely pointed economic tantrum.

Parliament lost its mind.

In response, Britain passed the Coercive Acts (aka the "Intolerable Acts"), which effectively locked Boston down. The port was closed. The government was restructured. And suddenly, a bunch of moderate colonists who thought dumping tea was a bit much were now sympathetic to the cause.

The Tea Party didn’t start the Revolution, but it sure did grease the wheels. And ironically, it was Britain’s overreaction that unified the colonies far more than the protest itself.

Here’s where the wheels come off the pop-history wagon.

The Tea Party wasn’t about high taxes. It was about a corporate monopoly, cheap tea, and a backdoor tax that would set a dangerous precedent. Colonists feared that accepting the deal would legitimize Parliament’s right to tax them without representation.

It wasn’t about nationalism. It wasn’t about tariffs. And it absolutely wasn’t about economic isolation. If anything, the Boston Tea Party was an anti-tariff, anti-corporate protest led by smugglers and merchants trying to protect their turf.

As Benjamin Carp put it in his excellent book Defiance of the Patriots (Amazon), the Tea Act was a “corporate tax break” that lowered the price of tea and threatened to seduce colonists into selling out their principles for a cheaper brew.

That’s the real legacy of the Boston Tea Party: not populist trade wars or nationalist slogans, but a reminder that the fight was always about power, control, and who gets to write the rules of commerce.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Trump’s tariffs raise prices, hurt consumers, protect uncompetitive industries, and amount to economic cosplay for people who think "free market" means "whatever helps me win Facebook arguments."

The Tea Act lowered prices and enraged colonists because it tried to sneak imperial authority in through the discount aisle.

If anything, Trump is playing the role of Parliament here: backing cronies, manipulating markets, and selling it as patriotism. The MAGA right isn’t reenacting the Boston Tea Party. They’re reenacting the East India Company’s business model.

And if John Hancock were alive today, he wouldn’t be throwing tea in the harbor. He’d be buying it wholesale from Vietnam, labeling it "Patriot Brew," and selling it on Truth Social for $49.95 a tin.

Postscript:

The next morning, bits of tea were still floating in Boston Harbor. Some people tried to scoop up what they could, figuring if Parliament was handing out free brews, why not take a sip? The patriots weren’t having it. They came back with oars and beat the floating chests until they sank. Anything that washed ashore got burned. This wasn’t about feeding the poor or sticking it to the Crown with style. It was about making sure nobody, especially not some desperate townsfolk, got a free taste of empire. Petty? Absolutely. Revolutionary branding? Even more so.

Sources and Further Reading: