“The European Union hit back hard as U.S. President Donald Trump imposed 25 percent global steel and aluminum tariffs on Wednesday, announcing a two-stage retaliation covering €26 billion in EU exports that far exceeded a trade fight that blew up in his first term.
The European Commission said it would, from April 1, reimpose tariffs in response to €8 billion in U.S. tariffs — including on iconic American products such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles, bourbon and jeans. And, from mid-April, it will set further countermeasures over €18 billion in new U.S. tariffs, subject to the approval of EU member states.
“We deeply regret this measure,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in an early-morning statement.”
…
“The 27-nation bloc — a common market spanning 450 million people — wants to send an unmistakable message that the EU is serious about defending its economic interests should Trump launch a full-scale trade war.”
…
“The Commission left the door open to a deal with Trump, saying it “remains ready to work with the U.S. administration to find a negotiated solution” and adding that its measures “can be reversed at any time should such a solution be found.””
“Economist Peter C. Earle, the director of economics and economic freedom at the American Institute for Economic Research, tells Reason that referring to Trump’s proposal to acquire vast amounts of cryptocurrency as a “strategic reserve” is “misleading first and foremost because traditional strategic reserves…like the strategic petroleum reserve [and] China’s strategic pork reserve are basically…repositories where large amounts of commodities are held [that] serve economic and security functions.” No cryptocurrency serves a security function, and only two, bitcoin and cardano, could plausibly serve the economic role since their supply is algorithmically constrained, explains Earle. Instead, the federal government committing itself to purchasing cryptocurrency would put a “floor under crypto values” and would function as a “sort of soft subsidy.””
“Multiple lawsuits he’s filed against media operations are “chilling attempts to convert Trump’s complaints about press coverage into causes of action are legally baseless and blatantly unconstitutional,” notes Reason’s Jacob Sullum. He used as an example Trump’s recent social-media post after MSNBC cancelled a TV show: “Fake News is an UNPARDONABLE SIN! The whole corrupt operation is nothing more than an illegal arm of the Democrat Party. They should be forced to pay vast sums of money for the damage they’ve done to our Country.”
Trump, who calls the media the “enemy of the people,” is all for a free press as long as it’s parroting his political line. He recently booted the Associated Press—which despite its biases provides mostly nuts-and-bolts reporting—from presidential events after it refused to start calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, following our Chief Mapmaker’s childish edict. This is bullying.
The New York Times reported that the administration “would start handpicking which media outlets were allowed to participate in the presidential press pool, the small, rotating group of reporters who relay the president’s day-to-day activities to the public.” This is not just an assault on protocol, but a glaring attempt to punish outlets that don’t bend the knee. A California Assembly speaker once denied my reporting team press passes for dubious reasons. It’s hard to do one’s job as a journalist if the government denies you access to its activities.
Trump’s interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, recently threatened criminal investigations of members of Congress and the media who have criticized Elon Musk and his team of DOGE budget-cutters. It’s preposterous for prosecutors to treat feisty comments as “threats,” which is the justification used by Martin’s office. And, as a letter from various civil-rights groups points out, it is certainly not a crime “to identify individuals openly conducting government work that is of the utmost public concern.”
A Trump executive order relating to anti-Israel protests called on universities to “monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff.” It’s fine to deport visiting students who engage in violence and law-breaking—but the highly respected and non-ideological rights group, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), argues that this edict “would make universities monitor students’ constitutionally protected speech.”
There are plenty of other examples to belie MAGA’s boast that it champions free-speech absolutism.”
“Trump and his allies believe tariffs are the key to all sorts of wondrous economic outcomes that will make America more prosperous. In his speech to Congress on Tuesday night, Trump said that tariffs “are about protecting the soul of our country,” whatever that means.
But even if you buy those arguments, it should be obvious that tariffs being implemented and then immediately withdrawn (for the second month in a row) will not produce the promised benefits.
They won’t generate revenue for the government, won’t cause businesses to alter their supply chains, and won’t stop the flow of illegal drugs. It’s the equivalent of looking at a river, declaring your intention to build a dam, and then expecting the river to become a reservoir.”
“Tariffs on Chinese goods like manufactured parts and chips “are going to make the production process more complicated and more expensive,” said economist Christopher Thornberg with Beacon Economics.
Thornberg said California companies that rely on those materials like Apple and Nvidia, which makes highly sought-after chips essential for training AI programs, will be able to absorb the costs “because of the mountain of profits they are sitting on.”
The longer the trade spat goes on, though, the more likely knock-on effects like higher consumer prices, but also bites out of the budget, become as companies absorb increased costs.”