Tag: trump tariffs
Trump's Obsession With His 'Beautiful' Tariffs Is Getting Even Crazier

Trump's Obsession With His 'Beautiful' Tariffs Is Getting Even Crazier

Some kids will have a favorite toy or stuffed animal that they latch onto and keep with them at all times. It can be cute, and they usually grow out of it, so there’s no real harm. It’s a bit different when the kid is the president of the United States and the item he chooses to latch onto is a major policy tool that he does not understand at all.

The item of course is tariffs, which Donald Trump has pronounced as the “most beautiful word in the English language.” This alone should be 25th Amendment stuff. Tariffs are taxes on imports, nothing more, nothing less.How can a type of tax be the most beautiful word in the English language? Imagine someone getting teary eyed and sentimental over “gasoline taxes” or maybe “land transfer taxes.” This is real whack job stuff.

But even worse, Trump doesn’t seem to understand the object of his love at all. He seems to believe that foreign countries are paying the tariffs. He often talks about them as though the Chinese, Korean, or Canadian governments are sending us checks to pay his tariffs.

That is absurd on its face. The tariffs are taxes paid at our ports by the company that imports the product. There is a possibility that the exporters lower their prices to offset the tariffs. To some extent this does happen, but research shows that only a small share -- five to 15 percent -- of the tariff is offset in the form of lower prices charged by exporters. This means that the overwhelming majority of Trump’s tariffs are paid by businesses and consumers in the United States.

And we already have the data on this with Trump’s tariffs. The price we pay, not including the tariffs, for our imports has been rising since Trump’s “Liberation Day,” not falling. This means there is no doubt, people here are paying the bulk of Trump’s tariffs, not anyone in foreign countries.

But Trump’s tariff craziness goes further. He is obviously very concerned that the Supreme Court will rule against him on the legality of his tariffs. They may decide that the first paragraph of section 8 of the Constitution, laying out the powers of Congress which says Congress has the power to impose taxes, means something like Congress has the power to impose taxes. That would mean that Trump would have to end most of his taxes and likely refund the money he raised.

Trump clearly seems to view this as a disaster. He constantly whines over this prospect. He has even taken to claiming that the Supreme Court was given “wrong” numbers on the revenue raised from his tariffs.

This is incredibly crazy for two reasons. First, Trump’s lawyers were the ones giving the court the numbers. Is he claiming that his own lawyers gave inaccurate numbers to the Supreme Court? If that were really the case, the President who is best known for his role in The Apprentice, should have used his signature “you’re fired” line at the point his case was argued.

The other reason Trump’s claim is totally crazy is he somehow came up with the number of $3 trillion as the amount that would have to be refunded. This number is beyond absurd. In a full year, our goods imports are roughly $3 trillion. Does Trump think he imposed 100 percent tariffs on all goods imports? And most of his tariffs have only been in place for half a year.

But the crazy gets worse. Trump insists that tariff revenues are about to skyrocket, as companies have drawn down inventories and will now have to bring in more goods on which they will be paying his tariffs.

There are several problems with this latest Trump story. First there is no evidence that inventories are unusually low right now. The most recent data we have show them to be somewhat higher than at the same point last year.

The second problem is one of simple logic. If tariff revenue is about to soar that would mean that imports and our trade deficit are about to soar. Trump had promised to bring our trade deficit down. Is he now claiming that it is about to go sharply higher?

But the third problem from Trump’s claim is that, if true, it would mean that we will soon be paying much higher taxes. This means that the problem of high prices and affordability that has gotten so many people upset will soon get much worse. That would be very bad news for the tens of millions of people struggling to make ends meet and a big hit to the economy’s growth.

The good part of the story is that the prospect of soaring tariffs is a Trumpian fantasy. If anything, tariff revenue is likely to be somewhat lower in the months ahead as Trump has reduced tariffs on bananas, coffee, and a number of other food items.

Also, as trade patterns adjust to higher prices, import volumes will inevitably fall. The process will be accelerated as foreign companies and countries increasingly recognize that the United States is no longer a reliable trading partner and instead look to other markets. For these reasons, the taxes we pay for Trump’s tariffs will be going down, not up.

But the bad news is that Trump clearly has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to his signature policy. He has no idea of the magnitudes or mechanisms involved in what he calls the most beautiful word in the English language. Maybe Trump doesn’t know English very well.

Turkey Day? This Year, Millions Of Americans Can't Afford Traditional Holiday Meal

Turkey Day? This Year, Millions Of Americans Can't Afford Traditional Holiday Meal

Nearly half of Americans are trading turkey this Thanksgiving for cheaper options like chicken, according to a new report from Defend America Action. It’s just one example of how rising costs are putting a damper on the holiday.

The report was compiled at the behest of more than a dozen Democratic state legislators, who have personally witnessed their constituents cutting corners to make ends meet.

“While Trump and Republicans spend billions bailing out their allies and handing out tax breaks to billionaires, Americans are facing higher prices with fewer resources,” the lawmakers said in a joint statement. “Many Americans will find themselves clipping coupons, cutting costs, and waiting in long lines instead of settling in for a relaxing holiday with family and friends.”

The report found that 57 percent of Americans say that Thanksgiving trimmings are more expensive than last year. They’re not imagining it: turkey prices are up 24 percent, canned cranberries are up 45 percent, frozen peas are up 17 percent, cheddar cheese is up 6.6 percent, and the price of sweet potatoes rose by a staggering 37 percent.

Prices for wine, sugar, and whipped cream are all up as well.

The legislators are right to blame President Donald Trump’s inflationary policies. New tariffs on imported farm equipment, fertilizer, steel, and aluminum have increased production costs for many farmers, leading to higher prices in supermarkets.

Tariffs are essentially taxes on imported goods. The tax is paid by the importer, and the cost is often passed to the consumer. Trump claims he is using tariffs to pressure foreign governments into better trade deals.

The pain has been especially acute for turkey farmers. In March, Trump levied tariffs on animal feed imported from Canada and Mexico, which accounts for more than 60 percent of poultry farmers’ operating costs.

It’s been made worse by the administration’s sluggish response to an avian flu outbreak that has shrunk the American turkey inventory to its lowest level in 40 years.

While some Americans will be cooking chicken, one in ten say they won’t be serving any protein at all, choosing to serve only sides instead. Nearly a quarter plan on cutting portion sizes.

This data undercuts Trump’s claims that Thanksgiving will be more affordable this year. He has repeatedly cited a 25 percent price drop for Walmart’s pre-packaged Thanksgiving meals as proof that he’s bringing costs down. Not only is this an outlier, but Walmart’s offerings are also smaller and include less expensive items than in past years.

It’s not just grocery prices, either. Year-over-year travel costs are up as well, with airfare 3.2 percent more expensive than it was in 2024. The additional costs do not equal more luxury. Airports across the country are bracing for delays and cancellations as they continue to struggle with the fallout from Trump’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) staffing cuts and the recent government shutdown.

An estimated 31 million people are expected to fly between November 21 and December 1.

More than half of Americans, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs poll, rank grocery costs as a significant source of stress in their lives.

Reprinted with permission from American Journal News

Fox News Spinning Madly To Make Sense Of Trump's 'Affordability' Message

Fox News Spinning Madly To Make Sense Of Trump's 'Affordability' Message

Following this month’s Democratic election victories -- which even Fox News suggested were due to concerns over affordability -- the network is attempting to craft a coherent message on the issue from various Trump administration policies and announcements.

For instance, a November 18 segment on Fox & Friends noted that President Donald Trump is working to “alleviate food import tariffs,” making “efforts to address high mortgage rates,” and considering $2,000 “rebate checks.”

Yet these three solutions that the Fox report presents as Trump’s plan to “ease” the “affordability crisis” all come in response to issues that Trump has made worse.

LAWRENCE JONES (CO-HOST): Meanwhile, President Trump is looking to make life more affordable for all Americans, eyeing solutions for high costs.

MARK MEREDITH (WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT): The White House says one of its major goals remains to make America affordable again. As we know, Americans coast to coast are fed up with the rising cost of living. And with the midterms looming, the White House is also trying to show people what it’s doing publicly.

MEREDITH: The administration’s effort includes removing some of the tariffs the president himself imposed on a number of food products, as well as addressing higher mortgage rates, something that of course many people are dealing with. And the president’s teasing the possibility of tariff rebate checks as soon as next year.

The Yale Budget Lab’s latest estimate shows that Trump’s tariffs will cause “price level rises by 1.2% in the short run, representing a loss of $1,700 for the average household,” and the Tax Foundation’s latest estimate says Trump’s tariffs “amount to an average tax increase per US household of $1,200 in 2025 and $1,600 in 2026.”

These Trump tariffs previously had widespread support from Fox, which is already praising the president for lowering them as a “quick fix” on the affordability crisis he made worse.

And during the above Fox & Friends segment, co-hosts Ainsley Earhardt and Lawrence Jones spoke positively of possible stimulus checks, styled as tariff “rebates” even though both The Budget Lab and the Tax Foundation estimate that they will cost far more than the revenue Trump’s tariffs have brought in so far.

Additionally, some of the Trump administration’s proposals to make housing more affordable, including mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and a 50-year mortgage, would likely end up increasing housing costs.

Fox’s scramble to piece together a Trump administration affordability plan comes amid Trump’s own false messaging that he has already solved the affordability crisis.

In a series of Truth Social posts and public remarks he made earlier in November, Trump repeatedly pointed to the cheaper (and significantly smaller) Walmart Thanksgiving dinner bundle for this year to declare victory on the issue of affordability, saying things like: “So the Democrats ‘affordability’ issue is DEAD!” and “We are the affordability, when we are the ones that have done a great job in affordability, not the Democrats.”

More recently, Trump has repeatedly and falsely claimed that prices are lower now under his administration.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

supreme court justices Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Will Supreme Court's 'Originalist' Justices Permit Trump's Power Grab?

I think the Supreme Court will rule against President Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs. That said, it's just remarkable that the vote will not be 9-0.

Trump is claiming sweeping powers to impose (and rescind and reimpose and re-rescind) tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), which was a revised version of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (TWEA). The acronyms "I-EE-pah" and "TWEE-ah" flew around the courtroom like trapped sparrows.

The question for the Court was whether IEEPA actually grants the president power to impose tariffs — though the word "tariff" does not appear in the text of the law and no president has ever before interpreted the statute to grant taxing power. Addressing the justices on Wednesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that because the law grants the power to "regulate" trade in certain emergencies, it must also include the power to tariff.

But that's a huge leap, and the reason should be obvious to conservative justices who have claimed to be suspicious of overweening executive power. Striking down former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that "some of the biggest mistakes in the Court's history were deferring to assertions of executive emergency power," while "some of the finest moments in the Court's history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency power."

Yet when it came to Trump's imposition of crushing tariffs against every nation on the globe, Kavanaugh curled up at the feet of executive power like a purring cat. "The tariff on India, right? That's designed to help settle the Russia-Ukraine war, as I understand it," he said on Wednesday.

But that's a huge leap, and the reason should be obvious to conservative justices who have claimed to be suspicious of overweening executive power. Striking down former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that "some of the biggest mistakes in the Court's history were deferring to assertions of executive emergency power," while "some of the finest moments in the Court's history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency power."

Yet when it came to Trump's imposition of crushing tariffs against every nation on the globe, Kavanaugh curled up at the feet of executive power like a purring cat. "The tariff on India, right? That's designed to help settle the Russia-Ukraine war, as I understand it," he said on Wednesday.

Not quite. The tariff on India reportedly arose from Trump's pique at Prime Minister Narendra Modi's refusal to say (falsely) that Trump had negotiated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan and thus deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.

But let's grant for the sake of argument that Trump's 50 percent tariffs on India have a legitimate foreign policy purpose. How does Kavanaugh account for the extra 10 percent tariff on Canada in retaliation for a TV ad that embarrassed Trump by accurately quoting Ronald Reagan's opposition to tariffs? Or the 40 percent tariff on Brazil (a country with whom we ran a trade surplus) for trying and convicting his fellow election stealer Jair Bolsonaro? Kavanaugh should reread his own words about unwise deferral to executive authority.

As the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in August, imposing tariffs is a core congressional prerogative, and while the statute authorizes a number of discrete actions, tariffs were not among them.

This would seem to be a core point. When the president claims sweeping authority to impose taxes (tariffs) without congressional approval, he obtains his own independent income stream and Congress becomes a nullity. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically vests power in Congress to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." It is Congress, not the president, that is granted power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." If the Supreme Court were to accept Trump's grasp for unreviewable taxing power, the balance would be obliterated.

During Wednesday's oral argument, the advocates and justices discussed the emergency powers in question but didn't dwell on whether the emergency was real or a Trump alternate reality — like the 2020 "stolen" election.

Trump has claimed several "emergencies" as justification for upending global trade. One is fentanyl. And while it's true that fentanyl is a dangerous drug that enters the United States through Mexico, it is not the case that Canada is implicated — yet Canada is sanctioned along with Mexico and China. (More than 5,000 pounds of fentanyl were seized on the southern border in the first part of 2025, but only 64 pounds crossed from Canada; that's the difference between a U-Haul's worth of fentanyl and a backpack's worth.)

More risible is the argument that America's bilateral trade deficits with various countries comprise an emergency. The U.S. has been running trade deficits since 1976, and in that half-century, it has achieved the highest per capita GDP on the planet. With only about 4.5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. accounts for more than 26 percent of global GDP. In any case, something that has been going on since before most Americans were born is hardly an emergency.

In 2023, the conservative justices were correct to brush back the Biden assertion of authority to forgive billions in student debt. Citing "major questions doctrine," Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that if something will have huge economic or social consequences, it requires clear congressional authorization.

But it shouldn't require any newly minted doctrine to find that presidential power, like kingly power, cannot go unchecked. Resistance to arbitrary power fueled the American Revolution and inspired the Founding. When Patrick Henry worried that the president might easily become a king, James Madison sought to reassure him by noting that "the purse is in the hands of the representatives of the people." In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall intoned that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

Our Constitution is premised on limiting the power of the state. Judicial conservatives claim to cherish this idea. Let's see.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World