In the midst of the opening salvos in Trump's worldwide trade war, Axios just uncovered a very interesting story. Apparently, President Trump is now considering backing out of the World Trade Organization, one way or another. He feels constrained by its restrictions, he (of course) feels it is unfair to America, and he would much prefer realigning all of America's trade into bilateral agreements that he will personally negotiate with each country on the planet. But what was most amusing was one of the ways the White House is considering achieving this. They've drafted a piece of legislation that would give Trump full control over tariffs (removing Congress completely from the equation) and also allow Trump to essentially ignore the W.T.O. and all their pesky rules. Pretty much par for the "I alone can fix this country" course, really. But whichever Trump policy flunky put this legislation together needs a quick refresher course on creative acronyms, because the proposed bill is currently named the "United States Fair and Reciprocal Trade Act." Yep, that's right, the "U.S. FART Act" (or, if you want to be pedantic, the "U.S. FaRT Act"). Either way, it's a ripe and fetid stinker of a proposal.

The Trump White House is certainly already known for its noxious emissions of gaseous offensiveness. So it was perhaps inevitable that sooner or later they would just start bragging about it. Even so, it's notable that almost a year and a half into Trump's presidency, they are still so clueless about the basics of political branding. The rule of thumb is to start with an acronym you like, and then work backwards to torture a phrase into fitting your chosen acronym (see: the USA PATRIOT Act, for example, or perhaps the DREAM Act). Working it the other way around means occasionally falling flat on your face (as when George W. Bush announced the military campaign to invade Iraq would be called "Operation Iraqi Liberation," which then had to be quickly renamed). But no White House has, to the best of my knowledge, ever come up with anything quite as laughable as the U.S. FART Act. Indeed, if the bill had any chance of passing Congress, Democrats might be tempted to have some fun by introducing competing legislation called something along the lines of the "HE WHO SMELT IT DEALT IT Act."

The White House is already walking back the proposal, and that's before anyone has pointed out the obvious acronym problem to them. Their position is that "no legislation has been introduced" and what was leaked to Axios was merely a "draft" of an idea they are considering, nothing more. One would hope that if they got to the stage of actually asking Congress to pass it, someone will have hastily edited the title of the proposal.

All kidding aside, though, the idea itself is pretty much as big a stinkeroo as its sulfurous title. Trump wants free reign over all tariffs and trade agreements, because he is still convinced that negotiating with the world's countries is no harder then closing a real estate deal in Manhattan. So far, this hasn't noticeably led to any new bipartisan trade deals; what it has instead led to is the quite predictable escalation of tit-for-tat tariffs with China, Mexico, Europe, and Canada. Canada unveiled its new tariffs on American goods this past weekend, and China is likely to do the same by the end of the week.

Trump is supremely confident in his own dealmaking abilities, so his response is to ratchet things up even further. According to his point of view, the world's tariffs against the United States are so patently unfair that he has had to levy new tariffs everywhere just to catch up, and these other countries should really realize this and just accept the new Trump tariffs without retaliating. That's what his economic advisors promised would happen, even though it is the sheerest fantasy. Now that the pie-in-the-sky predictions are proving to be so wrong, as other countries retaliate left and right, Trump's impulse is to double down and hike the American tariffs even higher. As any entry-level economics student could tell you, what will follow is the other countries matching Trump's trade war dollar-for-dollar.

This is already making some Republicans in Congress very nervous. Virtually all the retaliatory tariffs other countries have announced have been pretty obviously targeted to do Trump and the Republicans the most domestic political harm possible, from targeting farm products to industries in Mitch McConnell's and Paul Ryan's home states (Kentucky bourbon and Harley-Davidson motorcycles). Soybean prices are already down, and they'll likely sink even further when China formally announces their agricultural tariffs later in the week. There are a lot of soybean farmers in Trump country, to state the obvious. So far, they appear to be sticking with their faith in Trump's dealmaking abilities, confident that everything will work out for the best in the end; but while one harvest season's losses might be (painfully) absorbed by farmers, two in a row might put them out of business. So the longer this goes on without any resolution, the more it is going to hurt the GOP politically. It's one thing to love Trump when other people's ox is being gored, but it's quite another when your own livelihood is being destroyed by Trump's trade war.

Some congressional Republicans are already beginning to push back. A handful of GOP senators are trying to pass legislation that would remove the ability of Trump to use "national security" as a flimsy excuse for levying tariffs on friendly nations like Canada. Such a bill would have to get a veto-proof majority in both houses to become law (it's hard to imagine Trump signing such a bill, in other words), but the bill's mere existence shows that Trump's trade war is already becoming unpopular within his own party. And now Trump wants plenipotentiary power to slap tariffs on any country he chooses, without having to clear anything with either Congress or the W.T.O. So it's clear he envisions future tariffs to come, and doesn't want anyone jostling his elbow while he is striking "the best trade deals ever," with everyone.

Democrats should be jumping all over this one, because it is an issue which makes congressional Republicans so queasy. It's an election year, so they are forced to face their own constituents and make the attempt at explaining what Trump's grand plan is, and why it hasn't magically happened yet. Trump just announced that he won't be unveiling his proposal to replace NAFTA until after the midterm elections, so whatever it contains, it obviously isn't going to help vulnerable Republicans out politically (if it did, Trump would unveil it in October instead, for maximum political effect).

The case against the U.S. FART Act is pretty easy to make, politically. How about: "Trump's trade war is already like a fart in an elevator -- it stinks so bad it makes your eyes water." Or maybe: "It's impossible for Trump to blame the U.S. FART Act on the dog, because he doesn't have one." Snarky-but-deadly slogans aside, though, the case is even easier to make on the merits: "Trump is already trying to say that using Canadian steel and aluminum is somehow a national security crisis, so why on Earth would anyone vote to give him unlimited power to slap more tariffs on America's best friends?"

Donald Trump is already painting himself into a corner with his trade war. Things are not working out as planned, as country after country imposes retaliatory tariffs designed to put as many Americans out of work in Republican states and districts as possible. This is going to have a cumulative effect, which will continue to build as long the trade war lasts. Currently, there is no end in sight. Some steelworkers are happy, but when auto manufacturers start announcing layoffs, or (even worse) follow Harley-Davidson in building new factories overseas, then far more Trump voters are going to be negatively affected. Such is the nature of trade wars. And in the midst of all this, giving Trump unlimited power to levy tariff after tariff on whatever country he chooses is a seriously malodorous idea -- even if they do change that acronym.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant