“Part of his administration’s solution to the high price of eggs? More imports. As part of a $1 billion plan to combat the bird flu, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced..that it would seek to expand imports of eggs”
…
“A sudden constraint on supply—in this case, the bird flu—has pushed prices higher, and finding alternative suppliers might help ease the pain.
Now, someone in the White House might want to apply that same analysis to Trump’s plan for more tariffs on two of America’s biggest food suppliers.
Trump backed down from his threats to slap 25 percent tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico earlier this month, but at the time, he said those tariffs were merely delayed by 30 days.”
…
“Canada and Mexico accounted for 28 percent of all imports to the U.S. last year. If the costs of Trump’s tariffs are fully passed down the supply chain, consumers could be facing $225 billion in higher costs, according to an estimate by the American Action Forum (AAF). The energy and manufacturing sectors figure to be the hardest hit, thanks to the deeply integrated North American supply chains for products ranging from crude oil to critical minerals like cobalt and zinc.
Food prices would likely rise too. The U.S. imports more food than ever before, Bloomberg noted this week, and many of those imports come from America’s two neighbors. Mexico is America’s largest source of agricultural imports, according to the USDA. That includes 63 percent of U.S. vegetable imports and 47 percent of U.S. fruit and nut imports. All of that would be affected by the new tariffs.”
“Ukraine is unlikely to accept separate peace provisions because they know what much of the rest of the world seems willfully blind to: Russia is on its knees. With casualties approaching three-quarters of a million—with some 1,400 casualties added daily—the Russian behemoth is staggering and nearing collapse. It has lost over 10,000 main battle tanks, six times the combined number possessed by the UK, Spain, France, Italy, and Poland. Its economy is teetering, its disparate regions restless, and its federation is fractured. A rapid dissolution is not only possible, it grows increasingly likely.
Yes, Ukraine has suffered substantially, and its people are tired, but the country is far from desperate. Most cities operate entirely normally: café life is vigorous, and families go about their business as if war was a distant thought. It is common now for soldiers to blast away at Russian advances in the morning, then calmly nosh pizza in a quiet street that afternoon. Internal supply lines are a very powerful advantage. The pressure on Ukrainians to accept an imposed “peace” simply isn’t there. Like the early days, when the Ukrainian government opened armories to “allow the Ukrainian people to take whatever they need to defend themselves and their families,” the idea of national resistance remains firm.
Politicos and pundits will gather and quibble in faraway places about Ukraine’s future, but the conclusions they arrive at will be empty, irrelevant scraps of paper to Ukrainians dead set on continuing to fight for their freedom.”
“the demise of public housing was not an inevitable outcome. As my colleague Rachel Cohen has pointed out, other countries have successfully pulled it off. Governments around the world have shown that they can operate mixed-income housing developments that have reliable maintenance and upkeep and that public housing doesn’t have to segregate poor people away from the middle class.
So why did public housing in the United States age so poorly?”
…
“efforts to undermine public housing are about as old as the efforts to build it. From the outset, opposition was fierce. Many Americans didn’t like the idea of the government using their tax dollars to subsidize poor people’s housing, and real estate developers were concerned about having to compete with the government.
The Housing Act of 1949, which had a goal of providing “a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family,” bolstered America’s public housing plans by heavily investing in the construction of new housing units. But by then, the federal government had already undermined its own stated plans by capping construction costs (which encouraged using cheap materials and discouraged modern appliances) and allowing racial segregation. Congress had also doomed public housing authorities’ ability to raise revenue through rents in 1936 when it passed the George-Healey Act, which established income limits for who can qualify for public housing — making mixed-income public housing models impossible for federally funded projects.
As housing projects started to draw more Black residents, white people who lived in public housing started leaving, especially after the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s banned racial discrimination in housing. This was partly because the Federal Housing Authority pushed for more people to own homes and expanded its loans mostly to white people, helping white families move out of the projects. Black families didn’t receive the same opportunity.
“You saw a change in the racial composition, which simply added to the stigma and the pattern of administrative neglect that characterized many housing authorities,” the historian Ed Goetz told The Atlantic in 2015.
Starting with President Richard Nixon — who declared that the US government had turned into “the biggest slumlord in history” and suspended federal spending on subsidized housing — public housing started facing serious austerity measures and never recovered. Federal investments shifted away from building new public housing units and toward housing vouchers and public-private partnerships.
In the decades that followed, public housing started declining in quality, and Congress funded a program to demolish dilapidated public housing units and replace them with newly constructed or renovated mixed-income developments. But according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, those demolitions were an “overcorrection”; public housing simply needed more funding and better management.”
We need to maintain and grow connections between the U.S. and China. Chinese immigrants and students are not just a nice thing, they improve relations and the immigrants make America stronger diplomatically and economically.
“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.”
“Anti-American fever peaked in Canada over the weekend after Trump announced the tariffs were on the way. At a pop-up DJ show in Montreal, a digital sign read “F—K TARIFFS.” On Saturday night in Ottawa, “The Star-Spangled Banner” was booed before the Senators went on to blow out the Minnesota Wild. The jeering continued through the weekend at NHL and NBA games across the country.”
“In exchange for the delay of these tariffs, the Mexican government agreed to send 10,000 national guard troops to its northern border while Trump vowed to stem the flow of American firearms into Mexico. Canada, meanwhile, pledged to implement its 1.3 billion border security plan (which it had already enacted in December). Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he was “very pleased with this initial outcome, and the Tariffs announced on Saturday will be paused for a 30 day period to see whether or not a final Economic deal with Canada can be structured.””
So far, the concessions from Mexico and Canada are: things they were going to do anyways, things you didn’t need a big tariff threat to get, and two-way deals where the U.S. made its own promises. So, rather than successful threats getting important concessions, we had economic disruption, economic fears, and acted like assholes on the world stage with nothing substantial in reward.