“Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada will impose “carefully calibrated and targeted counter tariffs” on the United States in response to President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Carney said Canada will counter with 25 percent tariffs on all vehicles imported from the United States that are not compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and on the non-Canadian content of USMCA-compliant vehicles from the United States.
But Carney said that unlike Trump’s tariffs, Canada’s countermeasures will not affect auto parts “because we know the benefits of our integrated production system.” All other previously announced Canadian countermeasures to Trump’s previous threats will remain, Carney said.
Carney said Trump’s global reciprocal tariffs have ended 80 years of American global economic leadership that started after World War II.”
“President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime will completely transform America’s economic relationship with the rest of the world, all in the name of revitalizing domestic manufacturing.
And yet, many businesses won’t be rushing to shift their supply chains to U.S. shores.
For all the detail in Trump’s Wednesday announcement, his endgame is still shrouded in confusion. That’s lethal for long-term investment, making confident planning all but impossible.”
…
“I’ve asked multiple corporate executives in recent weeks whether companies are likely to start investing in manufacturing in the United States in response to Trump’s policies, and the message has basically been: That’s an unanswerable question right now. Because making those decisions requires understanding the relative costs of doing it versus not doing it, and Trump is far too unpredictable to allow for that kind of calculation.”
“On March 15, the Trump administration loaded more than 200 men onto three planes bound for El Salvador, where they were to be locked in its notorious CECOT prison. A video of the men being marched, head-down, into police vehicles and into the facility ricocheted around the world, a symbol of the United States’ position on immigrants it accuses of having gang ties.
But not seen by the camera were eight women who were also on the planes but never got off. Shortly after they landed, according to court filings, El Salvador apparently refused to take them. So they were shipped back, to be locked up again on American soil.
Now, for the first time, two of those women are speaking out in an interview with NBC News, describing the chaos they say they witnessed during the Trump administration’s deportation efforts and how, they allege, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials deceived them about where they were being taken.
“We were lied to,” said one of the women, Heymar Padilla Moyetones, 24. “They told us we were going to Venezuela, and it turns out that, no. When we arrived at our destination, that’s when they told us we were in El Salvador.”
Trump administration officials have said all of the people it has sent to El Salvador were Venezuelans who were carefully vetted and had clear ties to Tren de Aragua, a gang from Venezuela that the administration has designated a terrorist organization.
But the vetting process apparently did not include determining whether El Salvador would accept female detainees.
Moyetones said ICE officials kept her on the aircraft. “They didn’t let us leave. They told us that we were going back, that we were coming back here,” she said.”
…
““I came with a lot of dreams,” Moyetones said. Since she was a child, she said, the United States had been the country where she wanted “to make a life.” She ultimately came about a year ago, with her son, then an infant, to give him a better future.
“We thought that perhaps the treatment from people in this country would be different toward us,” she said, but after what happened with the flights, she is sad and disappointed with the United States and just wants to be deported back to her home country, Venezuela. But her son, now 2 years old, is in the care of a relative, and she does not know whether they will be reunited. “I am very afraid, because I have always been with my son,” she said. “I have always looked after my son, but I don’t know. I wouldn’t know what to tell you.””
“Although the United States has the power to seriously disrupt economic life in other countries, the book argues, the consequences don’t always serve American interests. Sanctions hurt the prosperity and political standing of Iran’s pro-American middle class the most. They also make the government more paranoid and remove important incentives to play nice. Everyone seems worse off.
The U.S. has tried to wash its hands of the policy’s consequences for ordinary Iranians, blaming their poverty on domestic “corruption and economic mismanagement” rather than on sanctions. But the data are clear. The Iranian economy was booming from 1988, the end of the country’s war with Iraq, to 2011, the beginning of former President Barack Obama’s intensified sanctions campaign.
Obama’s innovation was secondary sanctions. As the flow of direct American-Iranian trade shrunk, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control punished companies in other countries that dealt with Iran. The Iranian economy became more or less radioactive, as any bank in the world that handled Iranian money and any shipping company that handled Iranian oil risked the wrath of the U.S. government.
Then Obama made a deal, lifting the sanctions in 2015 in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Trade resumed and foreign investment flowed back in—until Trump reimposed sanctions in 2018. (Despite Trump’s claims to the contrary, former President Joe Biden continued to enforce the same sanctions.) Iran has since come closer to building a nuclear bomb, and it has had more confrontations with the U.S. military.”
“U.S. manufacturing output, even adjusted for inflation, is near all-time highs. While about 5 percent below its December 2007 peak, it’s up 177 percent compared with 1975, the year America last ran an annual trade surplus. Industrial production—manufacturing, mining, and utilities combined—is higher than ever. That’s hardly a collapse.
A principal source of confusion is the difference between jobs and output. Yes, the number of workers in manufacturing has declined dramatically—from around 19 million in 1980 to about 13 million today. But that didn’t happen because America stopped making things. It happened because we got incredibly good at making things.
Productivity in manufacturing has surged thanks to automation, technology, and global supply chains. Just as we now produce more food than ever with just over 1 percent of Americans working in agriculture (down from around 75 percent in 1800), we produce more manufactured goods with far fewer workers. That’s not economic decline; it’s progress.
Also fueling the perception of decline are regional factors. Shuttered factories in Detroit or Youngstown, Ohio, bring concentrated pain and struggle for affected workers. No one denies this. But manufacturing didn’t disappear; it relocated and upgraded.”
“On Inauguration Day, President Donald Trump vowed to “forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.”
Less than two weeks later, Vice President J.D. Vance’s office hired Buckley Carlson—the 24-year-old son of former Fox News host and popular conservative pundit Tucker Carlson—as deputy press secretary.
At least young Buckley can be certain that he didn’t get the job because of the color of his skin.
The dismantling of the federal government’s various so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies has been one of the signature efforts of the first two months of the second Trump administration. Those rules often required that factors like race, gender, and ethnicity be considered alongside (or even ahead of) other more important things when the government was hiring, promoting, or awarding taxpayer-funded contracts.”
…
“And yet, what Trump has done over these first two months seems to be a long, long way from restoring meritocracy to the federal government or society at large—often in ways that matter much more than a silly patronage job handed out to Tucker Carlson’s kid.
Start with some of the personnel decisions the administration has made. Reducing the size of the federal workforce is a laudable goal, but the mass firings carried out by Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) seem to have targeted probationary employees (those on the job less than a year, generally) first and foremost—despite DOGE’s public claims to the contrary. That’s an arbitrary approach that says absolutely nothing about merit and protects more senior employees simply because they’ve been around longer. Rather than promoting meritocracy, it is the sort of “last in, first out” thinking you’d expect from a teachers’ union.
That approach sits awkwardly alongside this week’s big news story: that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth disclosed sensitive operational details about a military operation in a group chat that included The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. Goldberg was reportedly invited to the chat by Michael Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser, who has now also been put in charge of the investigation into how all of that happened. (Cue the meme!)
The implications have not gone unnoticed. If no one is fired over the group chat snafu, writes journalist Zaid Jilani, then “the message is that accountability is only for people at the bottom. People at the top can get away with anything.”
“There is no administration in the world—beyond this one—where a blunder of these proportions happens and nobody gets fired or resigns. Not in London. Not in Moscow. Not in Tokyo. Not in Pyongyang. Nowhere,” is how Politico summed it up on Thursday.
Without accountability, all that talk about meritocracy is pretty meaningless.”