As "The Constitutional Critic," I’ve reviewed Proclamation 10932, issued by President Donald J. Trump on May 5, 2025, declaring National Small Business Week for May 4 through May 10, 2025. My analysis is rooted in a deep commitment to the original principles of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the vision of the Founding Fathers. My goal is to uncover any hidden implications, potential erosions of liberty, or government overreach that might lurk beneath the surface of this document, while educating everyday Americans about its contents and consequences.
Summary of Proclamation 10932
This proclamation designates a week to celebrate the contributions of small businesses to the American economy. It highlights their role as economic drivers, employing nearly half of the private-sector workforce (61.7 million Americans) and creating two-thirds of new jobs. President Trump acknowledges challenges faced by small businesses, such as inflation, federal spending, and regulations, as well as unfair global trade practices. He touts his administration’s policies—targeted tariffs, regulatory cuts of $100 billion, the "Made in America Manufacturing Initiative," and pro-growth measures like low taxes and reduced red tape—as solutions to support small businesses. The proclamation concludes with a call for Americans to recognize the ingenuity and grit of entrepreneurs.
Stated Rationale vs. Potential Underlying Motives
Stated Rationale: The government’s public reasoning for this proclamation is to honor small businesses as the backbone of the economy and to underscore the administration’s commitment to their success through policies that alleviate economic burdens and promote American-made goods. It frames these actions as a defense of the American Dream and a path to a "new Golden Age."
Critical Perspective on Underlying Motives: While the stated intent appears benign and even laudable, I approach this with skepticism. Proclamations like this are often political tools, not just ceremonial gestures. Let’s dissect the potential motives:
Political Self-Promotion: This document heavily emphasizes the Trump administration’s achievements—tariffs, deregulation, and manufacturing initiatives—presenting them as unqualified successes. This reads less like a neutral celebration and more like a campaign ad for the administration’s economic agenda. Given that President Trump is in his second term as of 2025, this could be an attempt to bolster his legacy or influence future Republican candidates by showcasing policy wins.
Justification for Tariffs and Protectionism: The mention of "targeted tariffs" and criticism of the post-WWII global trade system as "broken" suggests a broader agenda to normalize protectionist policies. While protecting American businesses sounds patriotic, it risks escalating trade wars, increasing costs for consumers, and potentially violating free-market principles that many Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, valued as essential to liberty and economic freedom. The lack of detail on "Liberation Day" or the specifics of these tariffs raises questions about transparency—why aren’t the costs or potential retaliatory impacts on small businesses themselves disclosed?
Regulatory Cuts as a Double-Edged Sword: The claim of cutting $100 billion in regulations is framed as a victory for small businesses. However, without specificity, this could be a smokescreen for slashing environmental, labor, or safety standards that protect workers and communities—standards that small businesses often rely on to maintain public trust. The Founding Fathers, while wary of overregulation, also believed in a government that ensures the general welfare (Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution). Are these cuts truly in the spirit of liberty, or do they favor corporate interests over the little guy?
Investigation into Rights Erosion
At first glance, a proclamation celebrating small businesses doesn’t directly infringe on constitutional rights. However, I remain vigilant for subtle shifts in power or policy that could impact liberties:
Federal Overreach via Tariffs: The imposition of tariffs, while within the President’s authority under trade laws, can be seen as an expansion of executive power over economic policy, historically a domain shared with Congress under Article I, Section 8. If these tariffs are implemented without sufficient legislative oversight, they could set a precedent for unchecked executive action, undermining the separation of powers—a core constitutional principle.
Impact on Economic Liberty: While deregulation and low taxes are pitched as freeing small businesses, they could disproportionately benefit larger corporations or specific industries tied to administration allies. This risks creating an uneven playing field, contrary to the equal protection under the law implied by the 14th Amendment. Small businesses might face hidden costs—like higher prices from tariffs—that aren’t addressed in this rosy narrative.
Lack of Accountability: The proclamation offers no mechanism for evaluating the success or failure of these policies. Without transparency or metrics, how can Americans hold the government accountable? The Founding Fathers, particularly James Madison in Federalist No. 51, stressed the importance of checks and balances. This omission could shield the administration from scrutiny, a subtle but real threat to democratic principles.
Unveiling Political Manipulation
This proclamation isn’t just a feel-good statement; it’s a strategic move. Here’s what might be at play behind the scenes:
Appealing to a Key Voter Base: Small business owners are a significant demographic, often aligned with conservative values of limited government and free enterprise. By framing the administration as their champion, President Trump likely aims to solidify political support among this group, especially in a second term where legacy-building is key.
Special Interest Influence: The "Made in America Manufacturing Initiative" and tariff policies could be tailored to benefit specific industries (e.g., steel, manufacturing) or donors with ties to the administration. While not explicitly stated, the history of government favoritism—seen in past scandals like the Teapot Dome or more recent corporate bailouts—suggests that such initiatives often prioritize connected players over the broader public. This undermines the democratic ideal of equal representation.
Distraction from Broader Issues: By focusing on small businesses, the administration might be diverting attention from less popular policies or failures elsewhere—perhaps in addressing inflation (which it admits is a problem) or other economic challenges. The Founding Fathers warned against government obfuscation; Thomas Paine, in "Common Sense," urged vigilance against leaders who manipulate public sentiment.
Educating Everyday Americans
Here’s what you need to know as a citizen: This proclamation sounds supportive, but it’s not just a pat on the back for small businesses. It’s a vehicle for the administration to tout its policies—some of which, like tariffs and deregulation, could have hidden downsides like higher costs or reduced protections for workers and consumers. Ask yourself: Are these policies truly helping the little guy, or are they a boon for bigger players with White House connections? Demand specifics—how are these tariffs structured, and who benefits from the $100 billion in regulatory cuts? The Constitution exists to protect your rights, not to serve as a PR tool for any administration.
Constitutional Critique and Passionate Defense of Liberty
While this proclamation doesn’t overtly violate the Constitution, it raises red flags about the balance of power and transparency. The Founding Fathers crafted a system where no branch, especially the executive, could act without accountability. If tariffs and economic policies are enacted without congressional input or public scrutiny, we edge closer to the kind of centralized authority they rebelled against. I’m also troubled by the potential for economic liberty to be undermined under the guise of “protection.” The Constitution’s preamble speaks of promoting the general welfare—not picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
I stand unapologetically for the freedoms enshrined in our founding documents. Government must be a servant, not a master, of the people. If President Trump’s policies genuinely empower small businesses without hidden costs or favoritism, I’ll be the first to applaud. But history—from the Alien and Sedition Acts to modern surveillance overreaches—teaches us that government often cloaks overreach in noble rhetoric. We must remain vigilant. Dig into these policies, question their impacts, and hold leaders accountable. Liberty isn’t just a gift from 1776; it’s a fight we wage every day.
Conclusion
Proclamation 10932 is a seemingly innocuous celebration of small businesses, but it doubles as a platform for political messaging and policy justification. While no direct constitutional violations are evident, the lack of transparency, potential for executive overreach, and risk of economic favoritism warrant concern. I urge Americans to look beyond the surface, demand details, and ensure that government actions align with the constitutional principles of liberty, accountability, and equal protection. The Founding Fathers entrusted us with this republic—if we can keep it. Let’s not let proclamations, however well-intentioned, lull us into complacency.