“Trump unilaterally imposed tariffs on much of the world. Yet the president has no such authority under Article II of the Constitution, which enumerates the limited powers of the executive branch. Instead, the authority “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” as well as the authority “to regulate Commerce with Foreign nations,” resides exclusively in Article I, which is where the limited powers of the legislative branch are detailed.
So, Trump’s trade war violates the constitutional separation of powers because Trump has unlawfully exercised power that the Constitution placed in the hands of Congress, not in the hands of the president.”
…
“As a pretext for his trade war, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Yet “the statute is silent on tariffs, and for good reason. It was never meant, and has never been understood, to authorize the President to impose them.” That observation comes from a superb friend of the court brief filed by a cross-ideological group of legal scholars and former government officials in support of the legal challenge against Trump’s tariffs. Their brief thoroughly explains why Trump’s use of the IEEPA to fundamentally remake the American economy cannot be reconciled with any law passed by Congress. In short, Trump’s tariffs flunk the test imposed by the major questions doctrine.”
“By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren’t supported by rigorous evidence.
The originators of the China shock theory examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others—not with the entire country—based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses.
However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects.
To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory’s proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs—just a 1.4-percentage-point drop in overall manufacturing employment.”
…
“In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents’ methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various followup studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50 percent smaller than initially claimed.
Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports.
Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China’s WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand.
Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing.
Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It’s also worth noting that there are around half a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today.”
…
” evidence from Trump’s first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst.”
“Chronic absenteeism—often defined as when a student is absent for more than 10 percent of the school year—skyrocketed during the pandemic. According to AEI’s absenteeism tracker, by 2022, national chronic absenteeism increased by 89 percent when compared to three years prior. While absenteeism has declined from its 2022 peak in most states that report such data, 2024 figures show it remains higher than pre-pandemic levels. Absolute rates of absenteeism varied broadly state by state. In Alabama, students had the lowest rate, peaking at 18 percent in 2022 and falling to 15 percent in 2024. By contrast, nearly half of all students in Washington, D.C., were chronically absent in 2022, dropping to a still-staggering 40 percent in 2024.”
…
“According to Polikoff’s research, low-income students in particular are facing persistent increases in absenteeism when compared to pre-pandemic numbers.”
“Under the Fifth Amendment, Boasberg notes, the government’s assertion that it infallibly identifies the guilty “does not suffice.” As the Supreme Court confirmed in Trump v. J.G.G., which addressed a temporary restraining order (TRO) that Boasberg issued during an earlier round of the ACLU’s litigation, “‘it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law’ in the context of removal proceedings,” meaning “the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard ‘appropriate to the nature of the case.'” Specifically, the justices said, “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.””
The insanity, cuelity, and incompetence of Trump on the global stage is pushing forward a global transition that needed to happen. Europe needs to pay its fair share to defend itself and the world can’t continue to let China take advantage of the system. The U.S. led world order is undemocratic and deeply flawed, but what is the alternative?
The Biden administration went to Europe and asked if war breaks out in the Pacific, are you with us? Europe said no. Yet, they expect the U.S. to protect them from Russia.
“U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has directed immigration officials to largely pause raids on farms, hotels, restaurants and meatpacking plants, according to an internal email reviewed by Reuters, a senior Trump official, and a person familiar with the matter.
The order to scale back U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids came from Trump himself, the person familiar with the matter said, and appears to rein in a late-May demand by top White House aide Stephen Miller for more aggressive sweeps.”
…
“The White House pointed to a Trump social media post on Thursday where he said farms and hospitality businesses were concerned the administration’s far-reaching immigration enforcement was taking away “very good, long time workers” and promising changes.”
“The State Department is eliminating the CARE office and ending the Enduring Welcome program, stranding U.S. allies who risked their lives and were told America would protect them.”