“Basically all major colleges and universities are tax-exempt organizations, and the government revoking that status over policy disagreements would be unprecedented. The U.S. tax code also grants exemptions to a wide swath of organizations, including charities, religious institutions — and even some political organizations.
But Republicans have taken aim at the Ivy League through the tax code in the past.
Congress imposed a 1.4 percent tax on high-dollar university endowments, like Harvard’s, in 2017 and Republicans may expand the levy in the tax package they are currently assembling.
Trump’s threats follow his administration pulling over $2.2 billion of Harvard’s federal funding in response to the university announcing it would not comply with a list of demands to curb what the White House views as antisemitism on campus.
Educational institutions can lose their tax-exempt status if found to be participating in activities related to political campaigning for or against candidates, or substantial amounts of lobbying by the Internal Revenue Service. There is no public evidence of Harvard violating IRS rules.”
“The White House says it has the upper hand in its trade war with China. Its actions suggest otherwise.
Top administration officials spent the weekend trying to defend a carve-out of consumer electronics from the astronomical 145 percent tariffs it levied on China last week. The carve-out was neither an exemption nor a policy rollback, the White House argued, because those electronics are still subject to a separate 20 percent tariff on China and some electronic components could face sector-specific tariffs in the future.
But to some White House allies, the exceptions are indicative of the relatively weak position the administration is in as it wages a trade war with China, which has spent years making preparations for an escalation with the U.S. on trade. The carve-outs also reveal the conundrum facing the administration: The U.S. is imposing new tariffs on Chinese goods in an attempt to move manufacturing back to the U.S., but those tariffs are particularly painful for U.S. manufacturers because they are currently so dependent on Chinese parts.
So far, the U.S. has demonstrated that it is more willing to bend than China is in this burgeoning fight.
“Xi Jinping will not back down,” said one former Trump administration official, who like others in this story was granted anonymity to share their candid assessment of the U.S.-China relationship, adding that “the CCP will lose confidence in him” if he does, using the acronym for the ruling Chinese Communist Party.”
Trump’s China tariffs are destroying this small business.
When starting the business she looked into manufacturing in the U.S., but no U.S. factory would accept such a small order. Today, the price, requirements, and availability of source materials make manufacturing in the U.S. prohibitive.
After Trump’s election, she prepared for 20 percent tariffs, but Trump’s 100 plus percent tariffs are destructive.
“Slovakia has a population of just 5.4 million, yet it is one of Europe’s leading car manufacturers, heavily reliant on auto production and exports to the U.S. Home to five major car manufacturers and more than 350 local suppliers, Slovakia is not only the second-largest E.U. exporter of vehicles to the U.S., but also the biggest car producer per capita in the world.
Slovakia manufactures and exports higher-end SUVs from brands like Audi, Volkswagen, Porsche, Range Rover, and—starting in 2026—Volvo. With SUVs accounting for 46 percent of total annual auto sales in the U.S., the tariffs are likely to hurt models that are especially popular among American consumers.
According to the National Bank of Slovakia, the Slovak economy “would decrease cumulatively by nearly 3 percent” due to the new tariffs, and “would also mean the loss of 20,000 jobs.” The bank projects that Slovakia’s economy will “suffer the most in 2026, when its growth would barely stay above zero” and that by 2027, the automotive tariffs alone could reduce gross domestic product by 0.3 to 0.5 percentage points. The bank’s governor referred to the prospects of a 25 percent car tariff impact as a “small Armageddon.””
“Take Egypt: In 2016, facing fiscal pressure and public dissatisfaction, the government raised tariffs on hundreds of imported goods—everything from electronics to household furniture. The stated goal was to protect domestic industries and reduce reliance on foreign goods. The outcome? Inflation soared, local industries remained stagnant, and Egyptian consumers were left paying more for lower-quality products. The government hoped tariffs would nurture innovation; instead, they strangled competition and punished ordinary people.
In Iraq, where the state has tried to rebuild its shattered economy after years of conflict, officials implemented tariffs to supposedly boost “national production” and replenish government coffers. But in a country where corruption runs deep and borders are porous, the policy only incentivized smuggling and rent seeking. Goods flowed illegally across borders while customs officials took their cut. Meanwhile, consumers bore the cost, and genuine economic growth never came. Tariffs there didn’t protect industries—they protected the corrupt.”
Tariffs are a bad policy based on a misunderstanding of economics. Even if you have a protectionist mindset, Trump’s tariffs make no sense because they don’t focus on tariffs goods that we could produce and provide our consumers; they focus on inputs to things we want to produce like steel, aluminum, and autoparts. Many more people use steel and aluminum that produce it. This makes tariffs bad before we even consider retaliatory tariffs from other countries.
The uncertainty of what tariffs will look like prevents businesses from investing and consumers from making large decisions, causing further damage.
“”The trade war is now turning into a direct confrontation between the US and China … we could again be seeing escalation and de-escalation at the same time, pulling markets in different directions,” Rabobank analysts said.
And though a wider trade war is on hiatus, risks remain to the health of the US economy, and Trump’s move is “merely the end of the beginning,” according to JPMorgan.
Other parts of the president’s trade-policy overhaul are still in effect, including a 10% baseline tariff on most trading partners, 25% duties on steel and aluminum imports, and 25% duties on auto imports. Those elements could still lead to consequences analysts have warned about, such as rising prices and slower economic growth.”
“San Antonio sends almost half its exports to Canada, which makes the Texas trade hub one of the most vulnerable U.S. cities in the tariff war.
Mayor Ron Nirenberg says one in five jobs in his state is exposed by President Donald Trump’s new tariff regime — “300,000 jobs immediately on the block.””
“President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced a 90-day pause of the higher tariffs against 60-odd trading partners that went into effect earlier Wednesday, with the exception of China — an abrupt reversal of his market-rattling trade policy.
Trump, in a Truth Social post, said he plans to keep the administration’s global baseline tariff increase of 10 percent in place for all countries.
But tariffs he imposed on China will continue to rise, Trump wrote, increasing to 125 percent, due to Beijing’s continued retaliation.”