Tag: international trade
Leonard Leo

It's Just His Nature: Scorpion Trump Stings Frog Leo In Lawless Rage

Leonard Leo, the bête noire of liberals who curated Trump’s first-term judicial appointments, including his three Supreme Court justices, has gone from Trump's shortlist to his shit list. As is his wont, Trump turned on his loyal servant with particular savagery, calling him a “sleazebag” who had rendered bad advice on a series of judicial nominations.

Leo responded with comparative good grace, along with a pointed, if diplomatic, defense of his influential work: "I'm very grateful for President Trump transforming the Federal Courts…[T]he Federal Judiciary is better than it's ever been in modern history, and that will be President Trump's most important legacy."

The genesis of the fallout speaks volumes about Trump's view of the role of the federal judiciary, and of his own inner circle.

Trump's ire was sparked by the Court of International Trade’s recent opinion striking down his broad tariffs because they unlawfully usurped Congress’s powers and relied on supposed “emergency” powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that the Act does not provide.

This legal failing is a cross-cutting theme of Trump's indiscriminate power grabs. Similar to a number of modern would-be authoritarians, Trump has repeatedly tried to steamroll basic legislative authority by characterizing everyday political issues as emergencies requiring a strongman’s intervention.

The opinion was a unanimous per curiam (i.e., no single author was identified) by three members of the Court of International Trade: a Reagan appointee, an Obama appointee, and a first-term Trump appointee. Moreover, the Trump appointee, Timothy Reif, is—as Trump appointees go—unusually well qualified, having previously served as general counsel in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in the Executive Office of the President and then senior counsellor to the U.S. Trade Representative.

The panel, including Reif, held that the IEEPA—the text of which doesn't even contain the word emergency—could not support Trump’s outlandish and all-too-familiar claims that the sky is falling. At the same time, the court noted the possibility of statutory sources of authority other than the one Trump invoked.

In response to the administration’s predictable motion for emergency relief, the Federal Circuit—the Court of Appeals for the specialized Court of International Trade—has imposed an administrative stay that tells us nothing about whether it will affirm the lower court on the merits.

Trump's temper tantrum is ironic, if not absurd, given Leonard Leo’s record as the administration’s judicial nominee whisperer. By any measure—on the left or the right, and whether provoking aversion or elation—Leo has compiled a phenomenally successful record in the service of Trump and the conservative judicial movement in general.

He follows in the footsteps of advisors to other Republican administrations since Reagan, who have adopted a single-minded focus on judicial appointees and have dramatically transformed the makeup of the federal judiciary. In Leo’s case, that includes Trump's three Supreme Court nominees: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Conservative Trump supporters have generally taken those appointees—which have established an über-majority conservative Court likely to last for a generation or more—as back-to-back-to-back home runs.

Just for starters, all three of them voted to overrule Roe v. Wade, probably the number one goal of judicial conservatives for a generation, and a (dubious) achievement that for many years looked impossible. In terms of the personal bounty for Trump, all joined the outlandish 2024 immunity opinion that continues to provide him comfort on a regular basis—for example, just last week, with the pardon for Paul Walczak in the wake of a $1 million solicited donation by Walczak’s mother that fits the criminal elements of bribery to a T.

The larger lesson in Trump's excoriation of Leo is what it shows about Trump’s expectations of the purpose of screening his nominees.

Leo has served up a long series of candidates who talk the talk about conservative jurisprudence, including the newfangled articles of faith like robust Second Amendment interpretation, solicitude for religious-based intolerance, and the Supreme Court’s less-than-fully-coherent history-and-tradition test.

That doesn't cut it for Trump. One important opinion against him—plainly on the basis of well-established legal principles that any judicial conservative should embrace—and Leo gets moved to the other list, with a heavy dose of Trump’s obloquy for good measure. For Trump, there's only one test of judicial qualifications: ruling for Trump, whatever the law provides. Leo failed in his presumed duty to find absolute Trump toadies, or to quietly inculcate the potential toadies he did find.

Leo joins a very long list of former insiders whom Trump has abruptly cast out and vilified. Central advisers such as Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Anthony Scaramucci, Kayleigh McEnany, Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, and many others have all tasted Trump’s poison, some for reasons that are minor or even mysterious. The fact is, there's no rhyme or reason to Trump's spurning of former close associates. It rather just seems to be a way of demonstrating domination and superiority to any advisor, however valuable.

Trump is like the scorpion in the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Not able to swim to cross the river, the scorpion asks a frog for a ride on his back. Knowing the scorpion’s dangerous sting, the frog hesitates: “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion replies, “Because if I sting you, we’ll both drown.” So, the frog agrees to ferry the scorpion across the river. Halfway there, the scorpion stings the frog, who with his dying words asks, “Why did you do that? Now we’re both going to die.”

“I couldn’t help it,” the scorpion replies. “It’s in my nature.”

Trump is a legal ignoramus indifferent to the Constitution and the role of law. His only interest is domination. He turns on those who served him faithfully because it’s in his nature.

The general agenda of Trump 2.0—outlined by the long blueprint of Project 2025—is to put in place a series of measures that grossly, and unconstitutionally, aggrandize Trump's personal power, rejecting any vestiges of restraint and lawfulness that stymied him the first time around.

Transposed to the federal judiciary, that means a careful search for judges like Aileen Cannon or Matt Kacsmaryk who—not to put too fine a point on it—are utterly in the tank for the president who appointed them and who could yet elevate them to higher judicial service.

So far, the Trump 2.0 judicial nomination process has little to show for itself; the Senate has confirmed none of his 11 federal court nominees this year.

Leo’s casting out thus portends a series of nominees carefully chosen to cross fingers behind their backs when they swear, as the law requires, to “administer justice without respect to persons.” Call it the attempted Cannonization of the federal judiciary—and, to the extent Trump can secure Senate confirmations, one more sharp departure from the rule of law.

Harry Litman is a former United States Attorney and the executive producer and host of the Talking Feds podcast. He has taught law at UCLA, Berkeley, and Georgetown and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Clinton Administration. Please consider subscribing to Talking Feds on Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Donald Trump

Chin Up! We're Doing Better Than Expected -- Or At Least Trump Is Doing Worse

It’s wonderful to see isn’t it? A snake in the grass slithering up to bite the ass of the person who had beckoned it forth?

That is the spectacle we have been treated to for these weeks and months since January 20, as one executive order signed by Trump after another has fallen to the considerations of judges who, one, can read the law, and two, require that assertions made in the executive orders, and those made by Trump’s DOJ lawyers in court, must be backed up by evidence and that pesky bane of every authoritarian, reason.

Lawsuits have been filed and Trump’s hastily written executive orders have been subjected to scrutiny by legal minds sharper than those which backed up Trump’s Sharpie. Most recently, the ordinarily somnolent Court of International Trade, in a 3-0 ruling, blocked almost all of Trump’s tariffs, which he had imposed using powers he asserted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law which allows a president to regulate international commerce after declaring a “national emergency” due to an “unusual and extraordinary threat ... to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" originating from outside the borders of the country. The court found that retaliating for tariffs imposed by other countries, or otherwise addressing trade imbalances, does not constitute such a threat and thus does not justify the declaration of national emergency necessary for the assertion of powers under the IEEPA.

The Trump administration quickly appealed, and a court of appeals issued a stay of the trade court’s injunction rejecting or limiting Trump’s tariffs, at least until the case can be heard and a ruling can be issued on the merits. In the meantime, a district court issued a similar ruling blocking Trump’s tariffs in response to a lawsuit filed by a toy company that had been hugely and negatively affected by Trump’s tariffs on trade with China. That ruling has also been temporarily stayed on appeal.

Trump reacted to the trade court ruling by attacking the Federalist Society and its leader, Leonard Leo, on whom he had relied for advice on judicial appointments during his first administration. In a rage-filled post on Truth Social, Trump called Leo “a sleazebag” and “a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America,” his catchall criticism for anyone he feels has wronged him in some way.

Trump’s assertion of power using executive orders has run counter to a Supreme Court decision that he and his arch-conservative legal allies had long sought. The decision, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overturned the so-called “major questions doctrine” which dated back to 1984 and required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting complicated and ambiguous laws. The trade court cited the Loper decision in its ruling slamming Trump’s tariffs. Trump reacted with fury, writing, “The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs.”

Well, yes, that is what the sting of the Loper decision feels like when it bites you in the ass.

We are witnessing a delicious moment best summed up by what we might call the hippie-era “what goes around, comes around” doctrine. That occurs when the thing that you wished for starts to affect you in ways that you had not contemplated, perhaps because your contemplation of what you wanted was inadequate in its consideration of what effect it might have in the future.

Multiple lawsuits and federal court rulings have kicked much of Trump’s executive order agenda to the curb. A federal court blocked Trump’s attempt to do away with birthright citizenship, which is written into the text of the Constitution. A federal judge in Boston ruled that Trump cannot stop Harvard from accepting foreign-born students. More lawsuits filed by Harvard seek to overturn Trump’s orders to strip Harvard of federal funds and grants. Legal experts say those lawsuits are likely to be successful because the reasoning behind Trump’s moves against Harvard is so blatantly punitive.

Other judges have overturned Trump’s attempts to bar several major law firms from entering federal government buildings, holding top secret security clearances, or representing companies doing business with the federal government, again because Trump’s orders have been nakedly punitive.

Other judges have ordered the return of people deported under false pretenses. The Supreme Court itself handed down an emergency ruling that the Trump administration must afford undocumented immigrants the same due process rights granted to everyone under the Constitution.

The news website Axios summed up the “flood” of rulings against Trump this way: “The headlines are constant: Judge blocks X; Judge freezes Y; Court allows Z to continue.

On Friday, Trump bid farewell to his erstwhile ally, Elon Musk, at the end of his time as a so-called “temporary federal employee” overseeing his DOGE worm-burrowing into federal agencies seeking to eliminate or undermine them, as he did with USAID and the Department of Education. But even in those two cases, federal judges have reversed some of the DOGE moves and reinstated funding and in some cases order the rehiring of employees who had been summarily fired without cause in violation of federal regulations.

The effect of DOGE and Musk has been, by their own measure, lame. Musk announced on the campaign trail and after he was appointed to head DOGE that he would reduce the federal deficit by $2 trillion. Then it was $1 trillion, then $200 billion, and Musk had stopped talking about the federal deficit and started claiming “savings” from the discovery by DOGE of “waste, fraud, and abuse,” which in Washington D.C. could be uncovered by a street sweeper with a broom and dustpan.

In the end, Musk claimed that he had “saved” $175 billion. Robert Hubbell yesterday called that figure a “mirage,” citing “A study by the Budget Lab at Yale estimates that cuts to the IRS will result in $350 billion in reduced tax collections over the next ten years—an amount that is double the alleged ‘savings’ by DOGE.”

Much if not most of what Musk and Trump attempted to do with DOGE has been overturned by federal courts, which have found certain of their moves unconstitutional and others to have violated previous Supreme Court decisions such as the Loper decision. In the meantime, the New York Times headlined on the front page of the Sunday paper a major investigative story on Musk’s drug use during the campaign and afterwards while he was working as a temporary government employee.

Musk was described as having used Ketamine, Ecstasy, psychedelic mushrooms, the stimulant Adderall, and the sleeping medication Ambien. The Times reported that Musk, like all federal employees, was supposed to have been drug-tested periodically during his employment. He was said to have been forewarned of the drug tests so that he could pass them.

So, Donald Trump has relied on a drug-addled madman with Nazi sympathies to undertake his reform of the government he is charged with overseeing. And now Musk has turned on him, criticizing Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” and its lifting of the debt ceiling.

When Trump rolled out his plethora of executive orders, signing the first bunch before an adoring MAGA crowd at a sports facility in Washington on inauguration eve, I first thought, Oh-oh. They’re serious this time.

I should have known. The lawyers Trump used to write the executive orders were not from the big law firms he would soon move to eliminate from working on federal government cases, because those firms had long refused to do legal work for him. According to Adam Bonica, a professor of political science at Stanford, Trump lost a stunning 96 percent of the cases filed against him in federal court during May. During April, he lost 76 percent. During March, the number was 74 percent. The judges ruling against the Trump administration were appointed by both political parties, with those appointed by Democrats outnumbering Republican judges by only 8 percent.

The Washington Post reported today that Trump’s FBI is in “chaos” due to the mismanagement of Director Kash Patel. Over at the Department of Defense, the top aides to Secretary Pete Hegseth are said to be at each other’s throats.

Here is my estimation of where we are on the first day of June, 2025. Things could be a whole lot worse, and they’re showing signs of getting better, as Trump continues to attack the judges he appointed to the bench and former allies like Elon Musk are now off the White House leash and his Adderall-fueled tongue is bound to start wagging.

Chin up. We’ve got a long way to go, but Trump and the fools he appointed to his cabinet are living up to every expectation we should have had about them.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. He writes every day at luciantruscott.substack.com and you can follow him on Bluesky @lktiv.bsky.social and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter.

Donald Trump

Internet Erupts As Trade Court Strikes Down Unlawful Trump Tariffs

A federal trade court halted Wednesday President Donald Trump's attempt to impose broad tariffs on imports using an emergency-powers statute.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel from the Court of International Trade in New York consisting of Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Donald Trump appointees, followed multiple lawsuits claiming that Trump overstepped his legal authority, destabilized U.S. trade policy, and triggered economic turmoil.

Currently, at least seven lawsuits are contesting the tariffs, which have been a central element of Trump’s trade agenda.

Social media users including legal commentators welcomed the decision. Graham Steele, who is a fellow at Stanford University's Rock Center for Corporate Governance, wrote: "IEEPA grants the President a lot of authority, and this President still found a way to exceed that authority."

"YOU CAN'T WIN IF YOU DON'T FIGHT. ANOTHER EXAMPLE. FIGHT," writer Amanda Carpenter said in a post on the social platform BlueSky.

International Relations professor David Burbach wrote on Bluesky: "This could be gigantic, IIEPA's grant of unilateral emergency trade powers to the President has been the loophole through which they are trying to shove the whole tariff thing. I'm sure this gets to SCOTUS."

Legal journalist Chris Geidner posted one excerpt of the ruling to Bluesky in which the panel ruled that the tariffs were "unlawful to all," writing: "After forcing challengers out of district courts, here’s how the specialty court slaps Trump around."

"Trump’s first-term [U.S. Trade Representative] Bob Lighthizer built a very careful legal strategy to ensure tariffs wouldn’t be overturned in court," tweeted author and Columbia University researcher Eddie Fishman. "Second-term Trump admin hasn’t been so careful."

Small business owner Aaron Rubin wrote on X: "Unless the government wins an emergency stay on appeal, CBP has to stop charging all reciprocal and fentanyl related tariffs and refund any paid duties."

"So if you are a foreign government negotiating with the Trump administration about the IEEPA 'Liberation Day' tariffs, and the tariffs have now been struck down (pending a probable appeal), it may be time to recalibrate your negotiating position," China Trade Monitor co-founder Simon Lester tweeted.

AlterNet reached out to the White House for comment.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

U.S. Ginseng Has A Loyal Clientele

U.S. Ginseng Has A Loyal Clientele

By Frank Shyong, Los Angeles Times (TNS)

LOS ANGELES — One of the most popular holiday gifts in China is ginseng, stamped with an unusual guarantee: 100 percent American.

Few consumers are more faithful to American products than Chinese users of ginseng: the U.S. exported $77.3 million in ginseng roots last year, most of it to Hong Kong, and American ginseng fetches the highest price of any cultivated variety.

The Asian market prizes the American strain for its stronger flavor and high levels of the active ingredient that is said to unlock the root’s myriad but unproven health benefits.

The other part of the U.S.’ competitive advantage is favorable feng shui. Ginseng grown in North America is said to have a “cool” nature and calming effect, which means it can be taken daily; Asian ginseng is considered “hot” and must be consumed in limited quantities.

American ginseng is cheaper in the U.S. than in China. In the San Gabriel Valley, herbal stores cluster on streets near hotels popular with tourists, their shelves loaded with red boxes covered in quality seals and branded with American flags.

But an American flag is no guarantee of American authenticity, said Tom Hack, international marketing director for the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, where he says up 95 percent of the U.S. crop is grown.

In a recent survey at an Asian food expo in Southern California, the board found that less than 12 percent of ginseng products labeled as Wisconsin ginseng actually came from Wisconsin.

Hack says American ginseng purchased in America is more likely to be Canadian, or …

Chances are, he said, the Chinese tourists “are taking Chinese-raised ‘American ginseng’ back with them.”

At Chung Chou City in San Gabriel, the heavy scent of dried herbs and seafood fills the air as an elderly customer sinks his hand into a barrel of sliced ginseng root. Manager Jeff Lin hurries over.

“Man man kan,” he says encouragingly. Take your time.

Ginseng is a boom-or-bust business, Lin said; sales jump when plane tickets are cheap and tourists from the Hilton hotel across the street are plentiful. Lin has noticed a slight increase before breaks in the school year, when Chinese students studying in the U.S. buy boxes to take home to their families. Ginseng is an especially prestigious gift to give for Christmas, Lin said.

Raw ginseng is available in several 60-pound barrels at the front of the store, but Chung Chou City also offers ginseng whole, chopped, powdered, in pills, or as candy or tea.

Thick roots are more valuable, and smooth, unblemished roots cost hundreds of dollars more. Wild, foraged ginseng commands the highest price, but American-grown ginseng is the most popular, Lin said.

Stores eagerly display their Wisconsin credentials. At Ten Ren Tea and Ginseng in Monterey Park, a gold-plated plaque with the words “Wisconsin Ginseng Export License” hangs over the counter. Other stores offer glossy pamphlets describing company-owned-and-operated ginseng farms in Wisconsin.

It’s a highly profitable industry in which even a few small sales can put a store in the black. At one store, the most expensive roots were selling for up to $9,000 a pound.

Around this time, in the days after the Lunar New Year, Wisconsin’s ginseng farmers are overrun with orders from Chinese suppliers trying to restock after the holiday rush.

Sales have been strong the last few years, and farmers have sold out their whole inventory, said Hack of the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin. In 2013, the board and Beijing-based Tong Ren Tang signed a 10-year, $200-million deal to sell Wisconsin ginseng in China.

But over the last two decades, Wisconsin farmers have watched their market share sharply decline thanks to ginseng piracy and brand dilution, Hack said.

As proof, he offers some math. Wisconsin produces about 700,000 pounds of ginseng a year — 95 percent of the American crop, according to the Ginseng Board. About 80 percent of that is exported directly to Asia. That leaves roughly 140,000 pounds of genuine Wisconsin ginseng for distribution in the U.S. — a small fraction of U.S. sales.

U.S. ginseng suppliers typically aren’t selling Wisconsin-grown ginseng, Hack said, because so little of it is available in the domestic market. The U.S. imports a lot of ginseng for domestic use — about $31.3 million of it in 2014, according to WiserTrade, a research firm that compiles data on U.S. foreign trade.

Some of that imported ginseng could be marketed as Wisconsin-grown, Hack said. A few years ago, Wisconsin ginseng seeds were planted in Canada and China — both among the world’s leading ginseng producers.

Funded by assessments from ginseng farmers, Wisconsin’s Ginseng Board was formed in 1986. In 1991, it trademarked an official seal that would be stamped only on board-verified ginseng products.

But the seal was widely pirated, and the board sued several companies for trademark infringement.

Today, just seven distributors worldwide are authorized to use the seal. But ginseng suppliers are still counterfeiting American authenticity, Hack said.

In January, Wisconsin Ginseng Board officials flew to Southern California and inspected dozens of Wisconsin-branded ginseng products at the Asian American Expo in Pomona. Hack says less than 12 percent of the products were actually from Wisconsin.

Hayward-based Prince of Peace is one of just two authorized distributors of Wisconsin ginseng in the U.S. The company distributes about 80,000 pounds of the product a year, said Billy Poon, general manager of its Asian market division.

They package their ginseng in distinctive peach-colored boxes printed with an endorsement from former pro tennis player Michael Chang. But even their packaging has been pirated, Poon said.

Hack declined to comment on whether any lawsuits were pending against Southern California companies, saying only that cease-and-desist letters had been sent based on their findings at the Pomona event.

Wisconsin’s ginseng industry has shrunk dramatically thanks to plummeting prices, Hack said. At one point, there were 1,500 growers producing 2.2 million pounds of ginseng a year. Today, about 180 growers produce about 700,000 pounds annually.

“We don’t get a fair shake,” said Joe Heil, a Wisconsin farmer who has cultivated ginseng for 22 years. Imported ginseng “is mislabeled, it’s snuck in. The Chinese (who) are bringing it in laugh about it.”

On Garvey Avenue in Monterey Park, Joe Lin, owner of Chang Le Xin Hui Group, munches on Hainan chicken as he oversees an empty store.

An immigrant from China’s Fuzhou province, Lin opened three years ago, and his business has grown slowly. Competition is fierce; within a few blocks of his store, about a dozen others compete for tourist business from the nearby Lincoln Plaza hotel.

Down the street, a box of American-labeled ginseng was going for $10. At the Yuen Fong Sum Yong Trading store in neighboring San Gabriel, the deal was buy one box, get one free.

“There are too many ginseng stores,” Lin said. “We Chinese people always do this _ as soon as something makes money, everyone copies it.”

(c)2015 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Image: American ginseng that is being sold for $2,300 per pound at Shinsen Ginseng and Herbs, Inc. in San Gabriel, Calif. (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times/TNS)

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World