“The high tariffs that America imposed during the late 19th century did not make America rich and did not make American manufacturing strong. It’s also absurd to claim that the country was at its wealthiest in an era when most people did not have access to indoor plumbing, electricity, or modern medical care—and when the average person was, objectively, much poorer.”
…
“If tariffs are as great as Trump says they are, he should be implementing them no matter what the leaders of any other silly little countries say or do. We can tax our way to prosperity, Trump claims, but we’ll just…not do that, I guess?
That’s the problem with Trump’s theory about tariffs. Either tariffs are an inherently good and prosperity-generating policy that enriches America, or they are a threat to get other countries to do as Trump says. Both things can’t be true.”
“Trump tore up the North American trade deal that he’d signed (and praised as the “best agreement we’ve ever made”) just five years ago. He sent the stock market tumbling, forced the American automotive industry and other manufacturers to beg for mercy, and antagonized two of America’s biggest trading partners and allies. And after all that, he got virtually nothing in return.
Indeed, Canada’s and Mexico’s governments may have gotten more. Their leaders learned that Trump sees 10,000 as a big and significant number and that they can appease his tariff fever by promising to just keep doing what they already do—as long as they make it sound like he’s convinced them to change course.”
…
“when Trump was asked directly by reporters on Saturday if there was anything Canada could do to avoid the tariffs, he said “nothing.” In various social media posts, Trump claimed first that the tariffs were intended to stop fentanyl from coming across the border And then, a day later, said they were meant to compel Canada to join the United States. Vice President J.D. Vance tried his hand at putting some random meats on this tangle of bones Sunday night, writing on X that Canada wasn’t keeping up with its NATO obligations.”
…
“The leaders of Mexico and Canada effectively called the president’s bluff that there was nothing they could do to avoid tariffs. Facing the reality that tariffs would cause serious pain for American businesses—something that he even admitted last weekend (maybe he’s learning?)—Trump retreated, leaving the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement in tatters and the relationship between America and two of its key allies strained.
We should be glad that Trump safely found an off-ramp after steering the United States recklessly into a potentially ugly situation, and we can hope that he did not cause too much long-term damage while getting there.”
“CBS is back in the news. Less than two weeks into President Donald Trump’s second term, the network’s parent company Paramount is considering settling his lawsuit claiming CBS’ coverage of the presidential campaign—and, in particular, an allegedly deceptively edited interview with Kamala Harris—was unfair and somehow harmed him. Reports have tied this possible settlement to Paramount’s planned merger with Skydance, which Paramount shareholders fear the new administration could try to block or delay.
Notably, this also comes against a backdrop of President Trump’s appointed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr rattling his saber at broadcast networks that have earned the president’s ire.
Shortly before the inauguration, under the guidance of its former, Joe Biden–appointed chair, the FCC dismissed complaints against ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC regarding broadcasts during the campaign—including CBS’ 60 Minutes Harris interview. In doing so, the FCC emphasized the importance of honoring CBS’ editorial discretion and broadcasters’ First Amendment right to report on matters of public concern as they see fit. But Trump’s handpicked successor has indicated the FCC will reconsider that dismissal, along with the NBC and ABC dismissals (but not the Fox dismissal, unsurprisingly).
Freedom of the press protects journalists and the news media in publishing information—especially in the political sphere—free from official censorship. In that way, a free press serves a vital role as the “Fourth Estate” in our democratic society, keeping citizens informed so that individuals may oversee their government’s actions. As Ida B. Wells stated, “The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press.”
That’s why it’s concerning that CBS would go to the mattresses over a halftime show for a game it gets once every fourth year, or even a bread-and-butter scripted show like Without a Trace, but would capitulate when it comes to its news and political coverage. Already the network is reportedly poised to comply with an FCC demand for the transcript and camera feeds from the 60 Minutes interview.
When parties to legal disputes resolve them with monetary payments rather than seeing them through to a decision, it is often said they are “buying peace.” Here, there is no peace to be bought, at least not without reassurance from the courts that CBS can cover political matters as its editorial discretion dictates, no matter how much it might displease the president or his appointees.”
“the U.S. is heavily reliant on Canadian crude oil to make liquid fuels and other petroleum products. Most U.S. refineries were built in the 1970s to accommodate heavy oil from the Middle East and Canada. This was well before the American shale boom, which brought lighter-grade oil to the market. In 2023, nearly 60 percent of crude imports came from Canada and July 2024 saw a record 4.3 million barrels of oil per day imported from the country.
“Canada is by far our largest supplier, and we build refineries specifically to refine heavier Canadian crude,” explains Nick Loris, the executive vice president of policy at C3 Solutions, a free market energy think tank. “Depending on the tariff rate and how long they’re in place, gas prices could rise anywhere from 10-30 cents per gallon, with the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain Region getting hit the hardest,” Loris tells Reason.”
…
“tariffs could also harm American nuclear power. Despite generating the most nuclear energy in the world, the U.S. relies on other nations for uranium to fuel its fleet. Canada is the largest supplier of raw uranium (27 percent of imports in 2022), followed by Kazakhstan (25 percent) and Russia (12 percent), the latter of which the U.S. depends on for roughly a quarter of its uranium enrichment needs.
With last year’s passage of a bill to ban imports of Russian uranium signed into law, Canada is primed to play an increasingly important role in America’s uranium supply. Tariffs would threaten this and could increase fuel costs for American nuclear power producers”
“None of this will do much to stop “dangerous narcotics” from entering the United States, which is Trump’s avowed goal. Interdiction efforts are doomed by the economics of drug prohibition, a challenge that is compounded by fentanyl’s potency, which allows traffickers to distribute large numbers of doses in small packages by land or mail. And Mexican cartels are already working on domestic production of fentanyl precursors in case shipments from China are curtailed. Despite those realities, Trump can still falsely claim he is winning the war on drugs by citing misleading metrics.
Trump said the tariffs would remain in place until the targeted countries took “adequate steps to alleviate the opioid crisis.” Since that criterion is deliberately vague, Trump can simply declare that whatever Mexico, Canada, and China agree to do is “adequate.”
In case that seems too slippery, Trump could cite drug seizure numbers as proof of his success. The beauty of this approach is that Trump can claim victory no matter which way the numbers go.
Given Trump’s promise to “seal the border,” you might expect U.S. drug seizures to go up. But he has previously argued that increased seizures are a sign of failure rather than success.”
…
“Unlike “adequate steps” and drug seizure numbers, overdose deaths are a clear measure of whether the “opioid crisis” is getting better or worse. The good news is that drug-related deaths fell precipitously last year after climbing nearly every year for more than two decades. According to preliminary CDC estimates, the death toll during the year ending last August was about 22 percent lower than the total for the previous year—by far the biggest such drop ever recorded.
Inconveniently for Trump, that dramatic decrease happened on Biden’s watch, and there is little reason to think interdiction had anything to do with it. So even if the apparent turnaround continues this year, attributing it to Trump’s tariff-assisted war on drugs would be highly implausible. We can nevertheless expect that Trump will do just that.”
“while Americans are generally supportive of abortion rights, there was little evidence to show that abortion was going to end up mattering more than other issues, like the economy and immigration, and even less evidence that it would be a more motivating issue than it was in the 2022 midterms, which took place just months after the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Generally speaking, Americans are supportive of abortion rights. When asked a standard polling question about whether abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in all cases or illegal in most cases, majorities of Americans typically say that it should be legal in all or most cases. And we saw that support show up in the 2024 election results: Six states* passed ballot measures that enshrined abortion rights in their state constitutions, and these measures significantly outperformed Vice President Kamala Harris in every state they were on the ballot.”
…
“Polling before the 2024 election did seem to show an increasing share of voters saying abortion was their top issue — on average, even more than in the months preceding the 2022 midterms. According to YouGov/The Economist’s weekly tracking survey, there was a slow but steady increase in the number of registered voters choosing abortion as their top priority over the course of the campaign, from around 5 percent in the summer of 2023 to around 10 percent before the election.
But 10 percent is still relatively low compared with other major issues in the election. The percentage of respondents choosing an issue related to the economy*** in the same surveys averaged 39 percent in polls conducted in October 2024, much higher than the percentage saying abortion was their top issue, which averaged 9 percent in October.
And the increase in Americans prioritizing abortion may be an artifact of a well-known quirk of political polling: partisans forming their political opinions based on what trusted elites are saying. In other words, the Harris campaign’s focus on abortion may have made Democratic voters more likely to say abortion was an important issue to them. Indeed, if we break down the YouGov/The Economist polling numbers by party, we see that abortion’s increasing prioritization as an issue in 2024 was driven almost entirely by self-identified Democrats.”
Serbia has been building up its military and has declared its intention to unite with Serbs living in other countries while also taking an authoritarian turn and having friendly relations with Russia and China.
“The annual number of drug-related deaths in the United States rose by 44 percent between 2016 and the last year of his first term. Now Trump blames foreign officials for his failure”
…
“As The New York Times reported in December, Mexican cartels already have a backup plan. They are recruiting “chemistry students studying at Mexican universities” to synthesize fentanyl precursors, “freeing them from having to import those raw materials from China.”
Trump thinks the Mexican and Canadian governments could do more to shut down fentanyl manufacturing within their countries. But to the extent they succeeded in doing that, production would simply shift elsewhere, as has happened repeatedly with drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.”
…
“Mexican drug cartels “move illicit fentanyl into the United States, primarily across the southwestern border, often in passenger vehicles,” the CRS noted. “The U.S.
Department of Homeland Security asserts that 90% of [seized] fentanyl is interdicted at ports of entry, often in vehicles driven by U.S. citizens. A primary challenge for both
Mexican and U.S. officials charged with stopping the fentanyl flow is that [the cartels] can meet U.S. demand with a relatively small amount.””
…
“Fentanyl also enters the United States by mail, and it is not feasible to intercept all of those shipments, especially given their small size and the enormous volume of packages.”
“the $8 million figure represents total government expenditures to Politico since 2016, not USAID dollars specifically. The amount paid by USAID to Politico totals $44,000.
A government agency directly transferring cash to a journalistic outlet that’s supposed to cover it impartially might still constitute a scandal; in general, the feds should not subsidize journalistic projects. But importantly, USAID was not generously donating the money to Politico—the government paid the money in exchange for subscriptions to Politico’s premium content. This is a pretty important difference; USAID is paying for the service Politico provides, in much the same way that a government agency has to pay for janitorial services, electricity, or office supplies. If a federal office buys a new printer, it isn’t necessarily malicious. It could be malicious, if the printer costs too much money, is defective, or was purchased as part of some kickback scheme—but the reality that government offices need printers isn’t really up for argument.
When confronted with these facts, many of the conservative social media accounts asserted that something must be awry, since $44,000 is still way too much for a Politico subscription. They assume that USAID is overpaying in exchange for favorable coverage of progressive causes and unfavorable coverage of Trump.
But that’s not what USAID and the other government agencies are paying for. In truth, Politico’s premium product isn’t political news coverage, progressively slanted or otherwise: It’s minute-to-minute updates on regulatory decisions that impact specific industries. This is information that political and government agencies need and that Politico supplies, for a premium price. As independent journalist Lee Fang points out, Politico isn’t the only game in town: Bloomberg and LexisNexis run similar services. Politico’s price tag is comparable to theirs.
“Politico provides paywalled ‘pro’ subscription services that cost over $10,000 per login for up-to-the-minute, detailed reporting on policy decisions and regulations,” writes Fang. “The $8.1 million in Politico subscriptions referenced above relates to years of subscriptions by agency officials across the government.”
These services are clearly valuable—in fact, Republican legislators pay for them, too. Customers of Politico’s services include Rep. Lauren Boebert (R–Colo.), Rep. Elise Stefanik (R–N.Y.), and even Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.). Republicans want their staffers well informed of legislative updates. Corie Whalen, a communications director for former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.), notes that it would be both impractical and ultimately more expensive to expect legislative staff to gather the necessary information some other way.”