Gavin Newsom suggests he will make all 52 congressional districts in California blue if Republicans gerrymander Texas on behalf of Trump. pic.twitter.com/T6gBjmdBth
— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) August 1, 2025
Schumer on weak jobs report: ‘Chickens are coming home to roost’ on trade war The Effects of Trump's Trade Policy Won't Be Undone U.S. President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders late yesterday setting an updated schedule of sweeping tariffs, most of which will take effect Aug. 7. The new rates reflect a series of preliminary trade agreements reached in recent months with major U.S. trading partners, while dozens of other countries were hit with levies ranging from 15 to 40 percent. The orders also confirmed a baseline 10 percent tariff for the dozens of countries not hit with higher rates. ........ And the fact that the tariffs announced yesterday won't go into effect for another five days means that there is still the chance that Trump will once again modify or reverse course. ............ The long-term truce between the U.S. and China while they continue to negotiate has also taken the worst-case scenario of a trade war between the world's top two economies off the table for now. And while the framework trade deals that have been announced are vague, they at least provide some predictability for U.S. trade relationships with many of the world's largest economies. ..........
the global economy is just now reaching a point at which Trump's trade policy will begin to have significant impact
.......... all of this will put more pressure on the U.S. dollar, which has already been weakened this year by Trump's tariff policy, his threatening of the Federal Reserve Board's independence .......... Considering how dollar-dependent the global financial architecture remains, the dollar's weakening will create even more risk and uncertainty for the global economy in the months and years ahead. ........ the damage that has been done just six months into his second term to U.S. institutions and the rule of law suggests that the U.S. is in for a long, painful and difficult political reckoning for years to come, at a time when its domestic politics have become polarized, paralyzed and dysfunctional. ......... Trump struck trade deals with the European Union and Japan to impose a 15 percent tariff on both trading partners. He also announced a deal with South Korea on Wednesday, imposing a 15 percent tariff on goods from there as well. ................. The White House has eagerly touted Trump’s dealmaking spree while laughing off the dire predictions from economists, who are bracing for a much bigger hit from new import taxes..... “What we are watching is President Trump rebuilding the greatest economy in the history of the world and simultaneously proving the so-called economic experts wrong at every turn,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
The Effects of Trump's Trade Policy Won't Be Undone U.S. President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders late yesterday setting an updated schedule of sweeping tariffs, most of which will take effect Aug. 7. The new rates reflect a series of preliminary trade agreements reached in recent months with major U.S. trading partners, while dozens of other countries were hit with levies ranging from 15 to 40 percent. The orders also confirmed a baseline 10 percent tariff for the dozens of countries not hit with higher rates. ........ And the fact that the tariffs announced yesterday won't go into effect for another five days means that there is still the chance that Trump will once again modify or reverse course. ............ The long-term truce between the U.S. and China while they continue to negotiate has also taken the worst-case scenario of a trade war between the world's top two economies off the table for now. And while the framework trade deals that have been announced are vague, they at least provide some predictability for U.S. trade relationships with many of the world's largest economies. ..........
the global economy is just now reaching a point at which Trump's trade policy will begin to have significant impact
.......... all of this will put more pressure on the U.S. dollar, which has already been weakened this year by Trump's tariff policy, his threatening of the Federal Reserve Board's independence .......... Considering how dollar-dependent the global financial architecture remains, the dollar's weakening will create even more risk and uncertainty for the global economy in the months and years ahead. ........ the damage that has been done just six months into his second term to U.S. institutions and the rule of law suggests that the U.S. is in for a long, painful and difficult political reckoning for years to come, at a time when its domestic politics have become polarized, paralyzed and dysfunctional. ......... Trump struck trade deals with the European Union and Japan to impose a 15 percent tariff on both trading partners. He also announced a deal with South Korea on Wednesday, imposing a 15 percent tariff on goods from there as well. ................. The White House has eagerly touted Trump’s dealmaking spree while laughing off the dire predictions from economists, who are bracing for a much bigger hit from new import taxes..... “What we are watching is President Trump rebuilding the greatest economy in the history of the world and simultaneously proving the so-called economic experts wrong at every turn,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. .........
The majority of surveyed Americans also said Trump’s tariffs will increase prices, with only 7 percent of those surveyed saying they will have no effect.
........ The impact on prices will be seen before the end of the year, once the tariffs hit companies and they pass them along to consumers .......... to date, we’re actually seeing businesses pulling back because of the uncertainty ....... Trump also declared on Wednesday, after months of administration officials claiming a deal was imminent, that he would impose a 25 percent tariff on India and slap on a penalty for buying military equipment and energy from Russia amid the war in Ukraine.
Trump moves nuclear submarines in response to Russia's 'highly provocative' statement "I want to be generous, but we just don't see any progress being made," Trump said. "I'm not so interested in talking anymore." ....... "Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10… He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!" Medvedev posted on X earlier this week.
Iran’s New Ultimatum to the U.S. Could Spark Another War In a stunning new demand, Iran has declared it will only return to nuclear negotiations if the United States first provides compensation for the damage caused by recent U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on its nuclear facilities. ...... Araghchi echoed recent claims by Iranian officials that the door to diplomacy with Washington remains open, but drew a harder line this time, laying out its own conditions for nuclear talks. ....... “They should explain why they attacked us in the middle of…negotiations, and they have to ensure that they are not going to repeat that (during future talks),” Araghchi told The Financial Times. ........ The Natanz fuel enrichment plant was first revealed to the IAEA in 2002, with enrichment operations beginning around 2010. The Fordow plant was unveiled in 2009, with construction believed to have begun sometime between 2006 and 2007. ....... Araghchi has been in regular contact with U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, exchanging messages in the weeks since the 12-day war came to an end. ........ discussions so far have produced no new agreement, and the clock is ticking as the end-of-August deadline for agreeing to a new nuclear deal approaches. ........ Failure to meet the deadline, Rubio said, would mean Britain, Germany, France, and the U.S. triggering a “snapback” mechanism under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action deal, reimplementing sweeping sanctions against Iran.
De-Dollarization Is Inevitable. The World Isn’t Prepared In late May, yields on U.S. Treasury bonds jumped to their highest level since 2023, after the House of Representatives passed sweeping tax cuts as part of President Donald Trump’s proposed budget. The higher effective interest rate on U.S. government borrowing reflected investors’ concerns over the fiscal impact of the bill, which if passed by the Senate and signed into law would add $3.8 trillion to the federal debt—currently at $36.2 trillion—over the coming decade, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. ....... The convulsions in the U.S. bond market represent more than a momentary financial hiccup. They signal the early tremors of what JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon called an impending “crack in the bond market” that could set off a potentially catastrophic realignment in the global economic order. As yields on long-term U.S. government debt surge past 5 percent, the international community is beginning to face the uncomfortable reality that the world’s hegemon is galloping toward a sovereign debt crisis with no clear resolution in sight. ............. Unlike previous sovereign debt crises that afflicted peripheral economies or even major European nations, however, the emerging U.S. fiscal crisis threatens the very foundation of the post-Bretton Woods international monetary system. Hanging in the balance are the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency, the Treasury market’s function as the world’s safe haven and the United States’ capacity to serve as the consumer of last resort. The implications extend to every central bank, sovereign wealth fund and international institution that has built its foundations on the assumption of U.S. fiscal stability. .............. The international ramifications of a U.S. fiscal crisis would dwarf any financial contagion witnessed in modern history. U.S. Treasury bonds serve multiple critical functions in the global financial system. They are the primary reserve asset for central banks, the preferred collateral for international transactions and the benchmark “risk-free” rate against which all other assets are priced. Approximately $9 trillion in Treasuries are held by foreign governments and investors, with almost a third of that sum being held by just three countries—Japan, the U.K. and China—alone. .......... A sustained loss of confidence in U.S. fiscal management would trigger a cascade of consequences. Should the price of Treasuries, which moves inversely to yields, fall precipitously, central banks around the world would face massive paper losses on their reserve holdings, potentially destabilizing their own currencies. The global banking system, which relies on Treasuries as high-quality collateral, would experience a severe liquidity crunch. Emerging markets, whose debt is often priced at a premium over U.S. Treasuries, would see borrowing costs skyrocket regardless of their own fiscal prudence. ............
The most troubling aspect of the United States’ fiscal trajectory is the apparent inability of its political system to correct course.
.................... The geopolitical implications are equally profound. A fiscally weakened United States would struggle to maintain its global military commitments, creating power vacuums that rival powers would eagerly fill. The dollar’s weaponization through sanctions—a key tool of U.S. foreign policy—would lose its potency, as countries accelerate efforts to build alternative payment systems. Already, China’s experiments with “digital yuan” cross-border settlements and expansion of bilateral currency swap agreements signal a world preparing for reduced dollar dependence. ............... Predictions of the dollar’s demise have circulated for decades, from the 1970s stagflation crisis through the 2008 global financial crisis. Each time, the dollar emerged stronger, benefiting from what Barry Eichengreen called its “exorbitant privilege”—the U.S. government’s ability to borrow in its own currency at preferential rates while other nations hold dollars as reserves. Critics sounding alarm bells about U.S. fiscal profligacy have consistently been proven wrong. So why should anyone believe this time is different? ............. When earlier predictions of dollar decline were made, U.S. debt-to-GDP ratios were a fraction of today’s levels—under 40 percent in the 1970s and around 65 percent before the 2008 crisis. Currently, that figure sits at 121 percent, or double the 60 percent benchmark widely considered to be fiscally sustainable. .................... More critically, in these earlier periods, the U.S. political system was still capable of bipartisan compromise on fiscal matters. The Social Security reform passed in 1983 and budget agreements negotiated in the 1990s demonstrated that U.S. democracy could still make hard choices when necessary. ............ Today’s political landscape offers no such hope. The hyper-partisanship that has paralyzed Washington shows no signs of abating. Primary systems that punish fiscal moderation and reward fiscal profligacy have created political incentives that virtually guarantee continued deterioration. Meanwhile, technological alternatives to the dollar system that didn’t exist during previous crises are rapidly maturing, from China’s digital yuan trials with trading partners to sophisticated currency swap networks.
Countries seeking to insulate themselves from U.S. financial sanctions are actively building the infrastructure for a post-dollar world.
................... Japan carries a staggering 250 percent debt-to-GDP ratio and is beginning to buckle under the pressure of its crushing debt. European nations, already struggling with high debt levels, now confront the need for dramatic increases in defense spending as U.S. security guarantees become unreliable. Meeting NATO’s target of 2 percent of GDP dedicated to defense spending would require European members to find tens of billions of additional euros annually, at a time when many are already running significant deficits. Worse still, the alliance is now close to agreeing to the Trump administration’s demand that it raise the defense spending target to 5 percent of GDP. Even China is grappling with a local government debt crisis and a property sector meltdown that threatens its financial stability. When everyone is fiscally stretched, the coordination needed to manage a crisis becomes nearly impossible. ........... The feedback loop now threatening to take hold follows a familiar pattern from previous sovereign debt crises elsewhere in the world, albeit at an unprecedented scale. As markets lose confidence in a country’s fiscal sustainability, they demand higher yields to compensate for the greater risk they are taking in buying sovereign debt. These higher borrowing costs worsen the nation’s fiscal position, further eroding investor confidence and driving yields higher still.
In emerging markets, this spiral typically ends with intervention by the International Monetary Fund and painful structural adjustment. For the world’s largest economy and reserve currency issuer, no such external stabilizer exists.
......................... The Social Security pension program’s trust fund will run dry in 2033, after which benefit cuts of approximately 20 percent—considered the “third rail” of U.S. politics—automatically kick in. The Medicare low-income health insurance program confronts similar pressures three years thereafter, in 2036. Added to this is the fact that, when these crises hit, the U.S. can expect to be spending around $2 trillion annually on interest payments alone at current projections. .............. the U.S. now relies on immigration as the primary driver of population growth. However,
amid U.S. political dysfunction, societal polarization and the Trump administration’s overtly xenophobic policies, the country is likely to be increasingly unattractive to potential immigrants, meaning it will be severing this demographic lifeline just when it’s needed most. Should immigration continue to decline, the entitlement math becomes even more catastrophic.
................... While the entitlement crises of 2033-2036 represent structural breaking points, several near-term developments could trigger a crisis much sooner. As evidenced by last month’s tremors, the Treasury market is already showing signs of stress. Weak auctions, in which demand barely covers the debt on offer and yields spike to attract sufficient buyers, have become more frequent. The return of “bond vigilantes,” who sell off their Treasury holdings to register their disapproval of U.S. fiscal policy, could begin forcing yields sharply higher, requiring primary dealers—banks and securities brokers that buy Treasuries directly from the Fed to sell on to individual investors—to absorb an unusually large share. ............ The psychological threshold of 5 percent yields on 10-year Treasuries has already been breached multiple times. Should yields settle above 6 percent—a level last seen in the runup to the 2008 financial crisis—the feedback loop between higher borrowing costs and deteriorating fiscal metrics could quickly become self-reinforcing. ................... Standard & Poor’s already downgraded U.S. debt from its AAA rating back in 2011, with Fitch following suit in 2023. Moody’s completed the trifecta last month, stripping the U.S. of its last AAA rating. With all three major agencies now rating U.S. debt below perfect, forced selling by institutions mandated to own only AAA-rated securities, such as pension funds and public employee unions, has already begun. ...........
U.S. sovereign risk is now comparable to countries with BBB+ ratings like Italy and Greece
, a striking disconnect from official ratings that reveals how markets truly assess U.S. fiscal sustainability. ................ The most troubling aspect of the United States’ fiscal trajectory is the apparent inability of its political system to correct course. Any serious fiscal consolidation would require both significant tax increases and entitlement reform, a combination that has become politically radioactive. The last serious attempt at such a fiscal grand bargain came in 2011, during the administration of then-President Barack Obama, and it failed. Since then, both parties have retreated to their respective corners, with Republicans refusing to countenance tax increases and Democrats protecting entitlement programs from any meaningful reform. ............ The world’s economic architecture remains anchored to a hegemon that lacks the political capacity for fiscal self-correction. This recognition should prompt urgent consideration of how to manage an orderly transition away from dollar dependence rather than awaiting an inevitable and chaotic collapse. .............. In the face of these daunting fiscal realities, many market participants cling to scenarios that might avert catastrophe. Chief among these is the hope for a tech-driven productivity boom that could generate enough growth to outrun the debt spiral. Yet even if artificial intelligence, or AI, delivers on its most optimistic promises, the timeline for such transformation extends well beyond the 2033-2036 entitlement crisis window. .......... More troublingly, mounting evidence suggests the AI revolution may itself be a bubble. And even if it does eventually pay dividends, the historical precedents of previous “frontier” technologies—like railroads, automobiles and the dotcom bubble—suggest there will be massive over-investment, with only a few firms surviving into the mature phase of adoption. Should the current AI investment mania collapse, taking trillions of dollars in market capitalization with it, the fiscal crisis would accelerate dramatically just when the economy could least afford another shock............ the notion that the Federal Reserve could simply monetize the debt through unlimited money-printing ignores both the inflationary consequences of doing so and the damage it would do to the dollar’s reserve status. The Bank of Japan’s decades-long experiment with monetary expansion has only been possible because of Japan’s unique economic characteristics—high domestic savings, persistent deflation and current account surpluses—none of which apply to the United States. ............
The choice facing the international community is not whether to end the dollar’s privileged position but whether that end comes through careful preparation or catastrophic crisis.
.............. the pound sterling’s decline from premier reserve currency status took several decades and was managed without systemic collapse. However, that transition benefited from an obvious successor currency in the dollar and a cooperative relationship between the U.K. and U.S. as the declining and rising powers, respectively. Today’s interconnected financial system, the scale of dollar dependence and the absence of a clear alternative all suggest we may not have the luxury of such a gradual, orderly transition. ............. The challenges to de-dollarization remain formidable. Network effects make the dollar’s dominance self-reinforcing—everyone uses dollars because everyone else uses dollars. No alternative currency matches the depth and liquidity of U.S. Treasury markets. The euro suffers from structural flaws exposed during the sovereign debt crisis of the 2010s. The yuan remains hobbled by capital controls and political risk. Yet these very challenges make preparation more urgent, not less. .................. The IMF’s Special Drawing Rights—based on a basket of currencies and used as a unit of account and settlement among its member states—never achieved critical mass since their introduction in 1969, because they offered no advantages over dollars for most transactions. Regional payment systems like the Asian Clearing Union remained marginal because they couldn’t match the dollar’s convenience and acceptability. But multiple factors suggest the next attempts might succeed where others failed. .................. digital currency technology enables instantaneous, low-cost multicurrency transactions that weren’t possible in previous eras. Central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs, could enable efficient settlement systems that reduce reliance on dollar intermediation. China’s digital yuan trials demonstrate the potential for technology to accelerate monetary transformation, particularly as countries seek to insulate themselves from U.S. financial sanctions. A basket-based digital settlement system, perhaps administered by the IMF or a new international institution, could provide stability while reducing single-currency dependence. ........... the sheer scale of countries now seeking alternatives to the dollar creates momentum that didn’t exist before. The BRICS nations, representing 40 percent of the world’s population and over a third of global GDP, are actively developing alternative payment mechanisms. Their New Development Bank, while still small, provides a template for non-dollar development finance. As more countries join these initiatives, network effects could begin working against the dollar rather than for it. ............... the private sector is increasingly hedging against dollar risk. Major commodity traders are experimenting with yuan-denominated contracts. Corporate treasurers are developing multi-currency cash-management systems. All these micro-level adaptations could help accelerate macro-level change when crisis hits by providing a number of alternatives to the status quo. ............ For U.S. allies, this transition presents acute dilemmas. Countries like Japan, South Korea and the European NATO members must balance their security dependence on Washington with the need to protect their economic interests from U.S. fiscal instability. This may require uncomfortable conversations about burden-sharing and the development of regional security arrangements that could fill the vacuum left behind as the U.S. military’s capacity diminishes. With the Trump administration already undermining confidence in Washington’s security commitments, this task becomes all the more urgent. ............. The warning signs of U.S. fiscal instability are multiplying, from debt-ratings downgrades to surging yields on Treasuries. Yet the global financial architecture remains as dollar-dependent as ever, creating a dangerous mismatch between emerging risks and institutional preparedness. ........ Policymakers worldwide must begin not just planning for a post-dollar monetary order but actively constructing one. This doesn’t require abandoning the dollar immediately or indulging in wishful thinking about its demise. Rather, it demands pragmatic preparation for a transition that appears increasingly inevitable. Central banks, which are diversifying their reserves into gold at the fastest pace in decades, should do so even more aggressively. Financial institutions should stress-test for dollar disruption scenarios. International bodies should accelerate work on alternative payment and settlement mechanisms. .......... This transition need not be disorderly. With sufficient foresight and cooperation, the world could evolve toward a more balanced, multipolar monetary system that actually enhances stability. But this requires acknowledging that the current trajectory is unsustainable and that waiting for U.S. political dysfunction to self-correct is a recipe for disaster. ............. The question now is whether the international community will act on this recognition or continue moving toward a preventable catastrophe. The bond market is already beginning to vote with its feet. The rest of the world would be wise to follow suit—not in panic, but in prudent preparation for a new monetary order. .............. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law and ethics at Georgia College & State University.
Putin Passes New Law That Even His Own Circle Is Alarmed About Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law that penalizes individuals for searching online content deemed “extremist” by the state. .......... The move has sparked concern, even among typically loyal Kremlin supporters, for its sweeping implications........ With vague definitions and harsh penalties, the law marks a deepening of Russia’s authoritarian grip.
Commentary: Trump isn't 'winning' his trade wars Trump is shackling the US economy and threatening his own political future. His tariffs will inevitably weaken the economy and rattle voters who are already losing faith in Trump's ability to safeguard their prosperity. ....... Trump's supposed "wins" of late include trade deals with South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, and the European Union. Still in the works are deals with Canada, Mexico, and China, the top three US trading partners. Most of the deals announced so far lack specifics and may be more like frameworks for deals that will take months to hammer out. .......... The tariffs are cutting into profits at Ford (F), General Motors (GM), Procter & Gamble (PG), and many other American companies, including some that say they'll have to pass the higher costs on to consumers through higher prices. Shoppers will face renewed inflationary pressures and a slowdown in hiring likely to come from slower growth. .......... Trump tariff defenders argue that economists have been wrong about inflation because it hasn't shown up yet. But that is probably just a matter of timing. Producers and merchants stocked up on imports during the first quarter, knowing the Trump tariffs were coming. They bought a lot less in the second quarter, when many new tariffs were in effect. That is only now beginning to show up in everyday prices. But the early signs show inflation picking up exactly where you'd expect import tariffs to hit. ......... Inflation data for June showed unusual month-to-month increases in the cost of appliances, toys, clothing, and sporting goods. Imports dominate those product sectors, so if you were looking for tariff-related inflation, that's where you'd find it. "Tariffs [are] beginning to rear their ugly head," Oxford Economics explained in a July 15 analysis. "Tariff impacts on the economy are still in the pipeline." ........... The Yale Budget Lab expects higher tariffs to cost the typical household about $2,100 per year, once importers, suppliers, and consumers have adjusted to higher prices by shifting their business strategies and buying habits. .......... If the government forced every family in the US to cough up an extra $2,100 per year, there would be national outrage and maybe revolt. The tariffs won't work like that. Part of the cost to families will be gradually rising prices, some noticeable, others not. Economists generally think the tariffs will push the annual inflation rate from 2.7% now to the high threes or maybe 4%. It's already up from a low of 2.3% in April. But 4% isn't nearly as painful as the 9% inflation from 2022. ......... Other parts of the cost to families will come from slower economic growth, which in turn will mean lower pay than some workers would otherwise earn and slightly higher unemployment. Tariffs are inefficient, introducing new costs and barriers to trade. That hurts growth. .......... Trump wants Congress to pass legislation to send "tariff rebates" of $600 or more to most taxpayers, drawing the funds from new tariff revenue the Treasury is collecting. Thoughtful voters might ask why Trump is imposing new taxes on one hand, then offering relief from those taxes through a rebate. Wouldn't it be better to do nothing in the first place? ............. Trump's approval rating for his handling of the economy dropped from 42% in February to 37% in July ........ His overall approval rating dropped from 47% when he took office to 37%. ......... Voters chose Trump in the 2024 presidential race in large part because they wanted him to bring prices down and create more opportunity than they experienced during the Biden years. Trump, so far, is doing the opposite. ........ Consumer confidence has mostly fallen since Trump took office, with the University of Michigan sentiment index nearly as low as it was at the moment of peak inflation in 2022. ........
If Trump is winning, then it's ordinary Americans he's winning against.
Economy is getting worse under Trump’s leadership, Americans say in new poll on eve of his tariff D-Day the president’s tariff agenda is one of the biggest anchors driving down his approval numbers. ........ On the core issue of tariffs, Trump is clearly tanking — despite months of pronouncements from the White House of America’s impending “Golden Age.” ....... Four in ten Americans say that Trump’s tariffs will make the country poorer and stifle economic growth. Just 26 percent believe the White House’s line about economic prosperity coming down the pike. ............ And most alarmingly for the White House, inflation still ranks as the No. 1 issue for voters. That could prove to be dangerous ground for the president as the summer concludes with potentially sharp increases to consumer prices stemming from the president’s reciprocal tariffs. ............ Six in 10 of voters under 30 now say that Trump’s policies are harming the economy, and making them worse off financially. Seven in 10 voters in the same category say that they didn’t believe the president is focused enough on lowering prices for consumers. ........... If Trump is losing ground with the younger voters he peeled off from Democrats in 2024, Republicans are set for trouble in the midterm elections next year. Polling isn’t yet registering significant voter support for the GOP budget reconciliation package, the “big, beautiful bill”, as it’s been overshadowed by the president’s tariffs and mass deportation agenda, among other issues. ......... Another factor driving down Trump’s numbers with younger voters is Jeffrey Epstein. .......... The sudden declaration that the “Epstein Client List”, which Vice President JD Vance and others in the administration pledged to release, supposedly did not exist at all erupted into a wildfire on the MAGA right, particularly among Trump’s younger supporters. .......... more than four in ten, think that Trump and his team have partially or completely lied in their public statements regarding the case. Less than 20 percent of Americans believe them. ............. Immigration has been another issue where the president has lost ground as the White House and Department of Homeland Security have accelerated mass deportation programs under his second term. Images of immigration enforcement raids have caused massive protests in Los Angeles and alarmed many Americans including Trump-supporting independents around the country. ............ Nearly every poll on the Decision Desk HQ Average, with the exception of two surveys conducted by Republican outfits, now shows Trump with popularity ratings in the negative, some by double digits.
Trump’s new tariffs have no precedent in the modern era In just six months, President Donald Trump has remade global trade and upended a century of precedent. ........ Trump on Thursday announced higher tariffs — again — on just about every country in the world. Even as some countries’ tariff rates came in lower than they had feared, practically all goods coming in to the United States face a significantly higher tax than when Trump took office in January. ........... The new trade regime will put in place the highest tariffs America has imposed since 1933, during the Smoot-Hawley era — a tariff bill that contributed to the deepening of the Great Depression. ....... there’s already some evidence Trump’s tariffs are — slowly — reigniting inflation and slowing the US economy. ......... That danger is why leaders of developed countries for decades have largely lowered tariff rates and welcomed globalization — actions that have fueled the services economy backed by Big Tech and finance, but have also contributed to the offshoring of factories and manufacturing jobs. ......... Last year, imports to the United States faced an effective tariff rate of 1.2%, a low tax that has fallen over the course of many decades. Declining tariffs in part persuaded US companies to make their products in foreign countries where labor costs were cheaper — and then ship those goods back into the United States while facing a relatively minuscule tax penalty for doing so. ......... Apple on Thursday said it paid $800 million in tariffs last quarter and expects to pay $1.1 billion this quarter. Automakers, including GM, Stellantis and Volkswagen, also reported tariff costs of over $1 billion over the past quarter. ........
Many major retailers, including Walmart and Target, have said recently they wouldn’t be able to absorb all the tariff costs and would raise prices for their customers.
............... Despite some negative reaction on Wall Street Friday, stocks remain near record highs. US gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy, bounced back sharply in the second quarter by some measures. The labor market has remained resilient, and inflation is still reasonably close to normal levels. ............ Tariffs have worked in many of those regards: The Treasury Department reports about $150 billion in tariff revenue since Trump took office, up considerably from previous years. Numerous American manufacturers have announced major commitments to build new factories in the United States. Trump has used the threat of tariffs to impose his will on multiple countries to negotiate everything from peace deals to lower taxes. And America’s trade gap briefly narrowed earlier this year. ............ Tariff revenue is paid in the form of a tax on US importers, not foreign countries as Trump routinely claims. Many of the companies’ factory announcements were already in the works or are years away from taking place, and — considering America has about 400,000 open manufacturing jobs it can’t fill — it’s not clear where the labor force for those factories will come from. Trump’s tariff threats don’t always work and sometimes penalize US consumers, who have to pay higher prices as a result. And the trade gap, after countries worked through their pre-tariff inventories, is widening again. ....... economists continue to fear a delayed shock reaction that could damage the global economy and take America’s standing in the world down a peg.
The recent court rulings challenging President Donald Trump’s tariffs, particularly those imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), have raised significant questions about the efficacy, legality, and broader implications of his trade policy. Below, I will address each aspect of your query, providing a comprehensive analysis of the potential fallout, timelines, economic impacts, political consequences, and insights into Trump’s decision-making process and his inner circle. This response will draw on available information, including recent court developments, while critically examining the narrative and avoiding speculative leaps. The analysis will be structured systematically to ensure clarity and depth.
1. Would the courts knocking down tariffs render the exercise farcical?
If the courts ultimately strike down Trump’s IEEPA-based tariffs, the effort could be perceived as farcical in the sense that it would appear as a chaotic and poorly executed spectacle, failing to achieve its intended goals. The tariffs, a central element of Trump’s economic nationalism, were meant to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, stimulate domestic manufacturing, and pressure trading partners into making concessions. However, the May 2025 ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) declared these tariffs unlawful under IEEPA, arguing that Trump overstepped his authority by invoking emergency powers for a non-emergency issue like the trade deficit. This signals a fundamental miscalculation in the legal strategy, as IEEPA had historically been used for sanctions, not broad tariffs.
This misstep exposes a gap between the administration’s bold rhetoric—promising transformative trade policy—and the reality of legal overreach. The tariffs caused immediate economic disruption, with estimates indicating $34 billion in lost sales and increased costs for U.S. companies, alongside market volatility. If the CIT’s ruling is upheld, it would nullify these measures, thereby exposing the policy as a high-stakes gamble that failed to account for judicial checks. The administration’s appeal and the temporary stay granted by the Federal Circuit on May 29, 2025, indicate a determination to continue the fight, but the initial ruling damages the policy’s credibility, making it appear impulsive and poorly vetted.
However, calling the situation entirely farcical may oversimplify things. Some tariffs, such as those under Section 232 (steel, aluminum, and automobiles) and Section 301 (targeting unfair trade practices), remain unaffected by the IEEPA ruling. These tariffs may still advance Trump’s broader agenda. Moreover, the administration’s shift toward alternative legal tools shows a degree of adaptability, even if the response is reactive. The spectacle may still resonate with Trump’s base, who view such disruptions as evidence of his fight against the establishment, even if the policy falters legally.
2. How long will it take the courts to knock down the tariffs?
The timeline for a final resolution remains uncertain, but it can be estimated based on current developments. The CIT’s May 28, 2025, ruling invalidated IEEPA-based tariffs, but the Federal Circuit granted a stay the following day, keeping the tariffs in effect pending appeal. Oral arguments for this appeal are scheduled for July 31, 2025, suggesting that the appeals process is actively underway.
Appeals Process: The Federal Circuit could take weeks to months to issue a ruling, likely by late 2025 or early 2026, depending on the complexity of the arguments and judicial backlog. If the administration loses, it may appeal to the Supreme Court, which could extend the timeline by another 6–12 months, potentially into mid-2026 or beyond. Given the tariffs’ significance, a Supreme Court review is plausible, though not guaranteed.
Other Lawsuits: At least seven lawsuits challenge the tariffs, with notable cases such as V.O.S. Selections v. Trump and Oregon v. Department of Homeland Security. Other cases are stayed pending the outcome of V.O.S., suggesting that a consolidated resolution may hinge on this case.
Practical Timeline: If the Federal Circuit upholds the CIT’s ruling, the tariffs could be permanently halted by early 2026 unless the Supreme Court intervenes. If the administration prevails, the tariffs remain, though further legal challenges may persist. A final “knockdown” might take 1–2 years if escalated to the Supreme Court.
3. What will this do to Trump’s signature policy issue?
Tariffs have been central to Trump’s economic and political identity, framed as a tool to restore U.S. manufacturing and assert global leverage. A permanent invalidation of IEEPA tariffs would be a significant blow, undermining his narrative of decisive action. The key impacts include:
Policy Disruption: The IEEPA tariffs, including those targeting “reciprocal” tariffs and “fentanyl” tariffs, were among Trump’s broadest, affecting nearly all imports. Their loss would narrow the scope of his trade agenda, compelling reliance on narrower tools like Section 232 or Section 301, which require more specific justifications, such as national security or unfair trade practices. This could slow or limit new tariff impositions, diluting the policy’s reach.
Political Fallout: Trump’s base may see court defeats as evidence of a hostile “deep state,” reinforcing his victimhood narrative. However, swing voters and the business community, already wary of tariff-induced price hikes, might view this as incompetence, eroding his economic credibility.
Global Perception: Trading partners, already rattled by tariff unpredictability, may begin to question U.S. reliability, particularly as countries like Canada and Germany have criticized the tariffs’ legality. The G7 Summit in June 2025 had highlighted hopes for clarity, now delayed by ongoing legal uncertainty.
Despite these setbacks, Trump could mitigate the damage by doubling down on unaffected tariffs or negotiating new trade deals, as seen with preliminary agreements with Japan and other countries. The administration’s claim of having “three or four other ways” to impose tariffs suggests resilience, though these alternatives are slower and less flexible.
4. How much price chaos can we see before resolution?
The tariffs have already driven significant economic disruption, and the extent of “price chaos” will depend on how long they remain in effect and how markets respond. Key points include:
Current Impact: From January to April 2025, the average U.S. tariff rate surged from 2.5% to 27%, the highest in over a century, before dropping to 18.2% by July 2025 after rollbacks. This raised $108 billion in revenue but increased costs for U.S. consumers (49%), businesses (39%), and foreign exporters (12%). Prices for goods like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and consumer products have risen, contributing to an “uncertainty tax” that suppresses investment and consumer spending.
Short-Term Chaos: With the Federal Circuit’s stay keeping tariffs in place, price volatility could persist through late 2025. If tariffs resume at full strength (e.g., reciprocal tariffs set for August 1, 2025), expect further price spikes, particularly for imported goods like steel, aluminum, and consumer electronics.
Long-Term Outlook: If courts strike down the tariffs by mid-2026, price stabilization could follow, but supply chain damage and eroded investor confidence will take time to heal. Goldman Sachs suggests alternative tariff routes could maintain some pressure, but a full rollback would ease consumer prices, though not immediately. Economic growth, already slowed to 1.1% annualized in H1 2025, may dip further to 0.75% in H2 if uncertainty persists.
5. Will this render Trump a lame-duck president?
A lame-duck president is typically one whose influence wanes due to term limits, electoral losses, or eroded authority. Striking down the tariffs would not automatically make Trump a lame-duck president, but it could weaken his presidency significantly:
Political Capital: Tariffs are a signature issue, and their failure could embolden opponents, including critics like Sen. Rand Paul, who argue Trump oversteps executive powers. A sustained legal loss might prompt Congress to reclaim trade authority, limiting Trump’s leverage. However, his control over the Republican Party and loyal base could sustain his influence, especially if he reframes the loss as judicial overreach.
Policy Alternatives: Trump’s team is already exploring other statutes (e.g., Section 232, 301), and preliminary trade deals with countries like Japan show he can pivot. This adaptability could preserve his agenda’s momentum, preventing a full lame-duck status.
Public Perception: Polls from April 2025 showed declining approval amid tariff chaos, but Trump’s resilience lies in his ability to dominate narratives. If he maintains GOP and voter support, he avoids being sidelined, though prolonged economic pain could test this.
In short, while a tariff defeat would hurt, Trump’s broader agenda (immigration, deregulation, crypto policies) and political showmanship could keep him far from lame-duck status, especially early in his term.
6. What does this tell us about the decision-making process in the Trump White House?
The tariff saga reveals a decision-making process marked by impulsiveness, legal overreach, and a reliance on loyalty over expertise:
Impulsiveness: Trump’s use of IEEPA, a law never before applied to broad tariffs, suggests a rush to act without thorough legal vetting. The CIT’s unanimous ruling, including by a Trump-appointed judge, underscores this misstep. His failure to engage with the court’s 49-page explanation, as noted in his reactive posts, points to a disregard for detailed analysis.
Centralized Authority: The tariffs reflect Trump’s preference for unilateral action, bypassing Congress, which holds constitutional trade powers. This aligns with his broader governance style, as seen in first-term tariff moves and recent clashes with institutions like Harvard or the Federal Reserve.
Reactive Adaptation: The administration’s quick appeal and exploration of alternative statutes show a reactive but pragmatic approach. Kevin Hassett’s dismissal of the ruling as a “hiccup” caused by “activist judges” suggests a strategy of deflecting blame while seeking workarounds.
7. What kind of people is Trump surrounded by?
Trump’s inner circle appears to blend loyalists, ideologues, and pragmatic operators, with varying degrees of competence:
Loyalists: Figures like Stephen Miller, who called the CIT ruling a “judicial coup,” prioritize Trump’s narrative over legal nuance, amplifying his anti-establishment rhetoric. Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary, echoed this by decrying “judicial overreach,” indicating a team that reinforces Trump’s worldview.
Pragmatists: Kevin Hassett, head of the National Economic Council, seems more strategic, dismissing the ruling as temporary and citing alternative tariff tools. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s comments on upcoming semiconductor tariffs suggest a focus on execution, though with optimistic timelines.
Departures: Elon Musk’s exit from the DOGE Service role after clashing with Trump on policy (e.g., tax bills) shows that even high-profile allies can be sidelined if they diverge. This suggests a circle that values alignment over independent expertise.
Critics Within: The firing of Floyd Brown from the Kennedy Center for ideological reasons and Trump’s attack on Leonard Leo, a former ally, indicate a purging of perceived disloyalty, even within conservative ranks.
The mix leans heavily on loyalty, with less emphasis on legal or policy depth, contributing to missteps like the IEEPA tariffs.
8. What does this reveal about Trump’s attitude?
Trump’s response to the tariff rulings reflects a consistent attitude: defiant, dismissive of process, and unyielding to criticism.
Defiance: His immediate appeal and public attacks on judges as “activist” or part of a “judicial tyranny” show a refusal to accept setbacks quietly. His failure to engage with the CIT’s legal reasoning suggests a belief that his authority supersedes judicial checks.
Disregard for Process: The IEEPA tariffs, imposed without clear congressional backing, align with Trump’s history of stretching executive powers, as seen in first-term trade moves and recent clashes with institutions. His comment on Mattel’s dolls, threatening 100% tariffs over personal grievances, underscores a whimsical, personality-driven approach.
Unwillingness to Listen: Trump’s attack on Leonard Leo and his distancing from former allies suggest a rejection of dissenting voices, even from within his ideological camp. His reliance on a tight circle of loyalists reinforces a bubble where challenges to his instincts are minimized.
Conclusion
If the courts permanently strike down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, the effort risks being seen as a farcical overreach, exposing flaws in legal strategy and execution. The legal process could take 1–2 years, with price chaos persisting in the interim, driven by high tariffs (up to 27% earlier in 2025) that raise consumer and business costs. While damaging, this wouldn’t necessarily render Trump a lame duck, given his political resilience and alternative policy levers. The episode highlights a White House driven by impulsive decisions, a loyal but legally underprepared team, and a president who prioritizes defiance over due process. This suggests a governance style that thrives on disruption but struggles with institutional constraints, potentially setting the stage for further clashes as Trump navigates his second term.
Barackface: Would The Courts Knocking Down Tariffs Render The Exercise Farcical? https://t.co/zu0uftbgO8
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 31, 2025
