“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.”
“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.”
“On Sunday, Trump ordered 25 percent tariffs on Canada, demanding that Canadians surrender their sovereignty to become “our Cherished 51st State.” He suspended the tariff order the next day, after Canada announced it was stepping up border security. The Canadian government, of course, was mostly rehashing a border security plan that it had already announced in December 2024.”
…
“Trump threatened economic sanctions on Colombia after it refused to take U.S. military flights carrying deportees, then claimed Colombia had backed down when it sent its own military to pick them up. Trump threatened to take back the Panama Canal, and the Trump camp claimed victory when Panama announced that it would let its Belt and Road Initiative economic agreement with China expire.”
…
“Trump’s threats to Greenland have alarmed Europe, which can act a lot more independently than U.S. neighbors can. European officials are having a “conversation” about whether to cozy up to China in response to U.S. pressure, The Financial Times reports.
“The European borders are sovereign whether it’s north, south, east and west,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said on the radio, offering to send the French military to defend Greenland. “Nobody can allow themselves to mess around with our borders.”
While it’s unlikely that the United States will get into a shooting war over Greenland, it seems pointless to alienate an important power bloc that was otherwise eager to cooperate against Russia and willing to play ball against China. And the payoff is unclear. Greenland’s population of 60,000, who largely don’t want to be ruled by either the U.S. or Denmark, have been otherwise happy to host U.S. military bases and mining companies, the main U.S. interests in the island.
The real test is how the Trump administration’s bluster fares against rival great powers of China, Russia, and Iran.”
“The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, passed in 1977, grants the president broad authority over economic transactions, and a wide range of abilities to deal with “any unusual and extraordinary threat,” stemming in whole or in part from foreign sources.
Presidents, including Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden, have used the law to impose economic sanctions on other countries, including on Russia after it launched its 2022 war on Ukraine.
But the closest a president has come to citing a national emergency to impose tariffs was when President Richard Nixon used a different law — the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 — to levy a temporary universal tariff on all imports in 1971.
Trump justified his new tariffs Saturday by pointing to “the major threat of illegal aliens and deadly drugs killing our Citizens, including fentanyl,” which he claims Mexico, Canada and China are not doing enough to keep from coming into the United States.
But Bill Reinsch, a former Commerce Department official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Trump’s use of IEEPA to justify his trade actions “doesn’t really pass the red-face test,” setting the stage for a company or trade association whose members have been harmed by the action to sue.
“The question will be, can you find a judge who will write an injunction to stay the tariffs from going into effect,” Reinsch said. “And my prediction is that will be hard, because you’re asking a federal judge to essentially say, ‘I know more than the President does about what an emergency is.’ And I think judges are going to be reluctant to do that.”
That won’t stop a lawsuit from proceeding, most likely all the way to the Supreme Court, Reinsch said, but it could be years before there is a conclusion to the legal battle.
“The courts have historically upheld the president’s power to take emergency actions, especially when they are related to national security. But one important question is whether they will uphold the use of tariffs. In the past, [IEEPA] has only been used to impose sanctions,” said Tim Brightbill, a trade attorney at the law firm Wiley Rein in Washington, DC.
“While it is possible that companies or industry groups would seek an injunction, they probably face an uphill battle blocking the new tariffs,” Brightbill said.”
…
“the U.S. effectively killed the WTO Appellate Body during Trump’s first term by blocking the appointment of new judges, leaving it without the ability to adjudicate disputes. And there’s little to suggest the Trump administration would abide by a WTO ruling even if the organization were able to issue one.”
“For over a week now, Donald Trump and the Justice Department have been flouting the law meant to shut down TikTok. The legislation was unambiguous and was passed by large, bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress; it was affirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court less than two weeks ago. And for the most part, both Republicans and Democrats have sat quietly by as Trump has waved away their previously stated concerns, as well as the constitutional powers and institutional prerogatives of Capitol Hill.
The TikTok ban was supposed to be a critical national security response to the threat posed by the Chinese government and its control over an app with 170 million users in our country. Shortly before the law went into effect, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said in a speech on the Senate floor that “without question, TikTok’s lethal algorithm has cost the lives of many American kids.” He announced that there would “be no extensions, no concessions and no compromises for TikTok.””
…
“On his first day in office, Trump declared that he would effectively ignore the law, and so TikTok lives. He appears to have engineered a short-term bailout for TikTok — whose app should have gone dark in the U.S. by now — after a wealthy donor supported the move and amid some belief that TikTok helped him get reelected.”
…
“he has created a precedent — that he can direct his own administration to ignore laws that he believes are politically or personally unhelpful to him — that ought to trouble Republicans and Democrats alike.
To start, there is no real question about the state of the law on paper: Trump is breaking it.”
…
“His executive order was little more than a public declaration that he would ignore the law on the theory that it interfered with his ability “to assess the national security and foreign policy implications.” Not only did he direct the attorney general not to enforce the law for 75 days, he also instructed the Justice Department “to issue a letter” to each TikTok service provider “stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct” during the 75-day period.
Some Republican China hawks, like Cotton and Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, had taken the position that state attorneys general could enforce the law anyway, but Trump unilaterally decided that they were wrong about that too. His executive order purports to prevent “attempted enforcement by the States or private parties” and to grant the Justice Department “exclusive authority to enforce the law.”
This is generally not how executive orders are supposed to work. They are not supposed to be vehicles for the president to pick and choose which laws passed by Congress he wants to enforce — or which ones he wants to change by fiat.”
“The Constitution’s text is clear that Congress must authorize appropriations and the president must “take Care” that those laws are “faithfully executed.” There is no basis in constitutional text or history for the president to claim open-ended power to impound funds in the manner of the OMB memo. In 1975, the Supreme Court rejected former President Richard Nixon’s claim to be able to spend less than Congress had appropriated. That ruling would have had to come out the other way if the president had a constitutional power to impound. (Perhaps aware of this reality, OMB issued a later memo claiming the freeze was not, in fact, an “impoundment.” But this is just a semantic sleight of hand: For entities that need federal funds this or next week in particular, there is no meaningful difference.)”
…
“If anything, the Supreme Court has tightened the constitutional leash on such unilateral claims of executive authority untethered from a statutory anchor. With Justice Neil Gorsuch leading the charge, it has stressed instead the need for clear authority from Congress for the exercise of any delegated power, including the power to write regulations. The OMB memo makes a mockery of those decisions by allowing the president to do with money what now isn’t allowed with regulations.
It is true that there is a scattering of past instances of impoundment. But these isolated cases largely concern foreign affairs and national security matters. In 1803, for example, Thomas Jefferson declined to spend funds for 15 gunboats for fear that they would upend secret talks with a foreign sovereign, Napoleonic France. Whatever unilateral presidential authority exists over foreign affairs cannot constitutionally be spread with reckless abandon to cover any or all domestic spending.
Past presidents have also confronted conflicts between a legislative command and Congress’ failure to appropriate funds to execute that command. There, presidents are forced to make a choice between dueling statutory orders. Courts rarely address these conflicts. But it is striking to note that in a 2012 case involving competing mandates, the Supreme Court rejected the executive’s claim to be able to withhold promised funds.”
…
“The impoundment power Trump’s White House asserts would drive a stake through Congress’ constitutional authority.
Exactly like the line-item veto invalidated by the Supreme Court in 1998, the claimed impoundment power is de facto power to selectively edit duly enacted laws. This claimed nonenforcement should elicit whiplash among conservatives. After all, it was red states such as Texas, aided by Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller, that once excoriated the Biden administration for negating federal laws on immigration via nonenforcement. (The Biden administration, however, could point to statutory conflicts that don’t exist in this case.)”