The Politicl article presents itself as an explanatory report on Trump's tariffs, but its structural framing reveals a clear directional bias. Its headline eastablish an anxiety-driven narrative before evidence is introduced, priming readers to expect economic harm. The article then sequences information to reinforce this predetermined conclusion; it opens with economists' warning, moves into corporate claims that price increases inevitable, and concludes with predicted political damage to Republicans. Notably absent are countervailing perspectives, such as sectors benefiting from tariffs, reshoring effects, or alternative macroeconomic interpretations. This selective structuring does not fabricate facts, but it constructs a false sense of inveitability by presneting only the portion of economic reality that supports a derteriorating outlook. Language choices further amplify the article's negative framing through emotionally suggestive terminology rather than neutral economic vocabulary. Terms, such as "hangover" and "only so long" serve as affective cues that imply instability, crisis, or impending collapse. These metaphors shape a reader's emotional response independently of empircal data to guide interpretation toward the harshest reading of tariff impacts. While the article avoid massively overt partisan language, its tonal shaping functions as a linguistic form of bias, which packages economoc prediction in a rhetoric of anxiety. Even when presenting factual corporate statements, the article frame them through metaphors of unsustainability, reinforcing the sense of impending economic deterioration. Meanwhile, this article has the tendency strongly against trariff and the administration through selective sourcing and omission. Nearly every quoted vioce represents groups negatively affected by tariffs.The absence of perspectives from other industrial fields, trade straregists, which creates a one-directional narrative that harm is universal and policy failure is assumed.