Category: Government

bookmark_borderTrump’s Steel Tariff Déjà Vu: Doubling Down on Economic Damage

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
June 1, 2025

On May 30, 2025, Donald Trump announced that he would raise tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from 25% to 50%. The announcement took place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania—ironically, at the headquarters of U.S. Steel, a company now under foreign ownership after being acquired by Japan-based Nippon Steel.

Despite Trump’s attempts to frame the acquisition as something other than a foreign takeover, his administration supported the deal—effectively relinquishing one of the last iconic symbols of American industrial independence. The political optics of standing in front of a foreign-owned U.S. Steel to promote tariffs supposedly aimed at protecting American manufacturing highlight the contradictions at the core of Trump’s economic strategy.

Trump’s Tariff Folly: Round One

Trump’s earlier imposition of steel tariffs in 2018 under his “America First” policy was marketed as a way to revive domestic industry. But in reality, it delivered a net blow to the broader U.S. economy. Here’s what happened:

  • Net Loss of 75,000 U.S. Manufacturing Jobs
    While a small number of domestic steel jobs were created, the broader manufacturing sector was hit hard. Industries like automotive, construction, and appliances faced soaring input costs, resulting in layoffs, reduced investment, and production slowdowns.

  • $900,000 Cost Per Job Saved
    According to independent economic analyses, each job preserved by the steel tariffs cost American taxpayers nearly $900,000, making it one of the least cost-effective job protection strategies in recent memory.

  • Higher Prices Across the Economy
    U.S. firms paid 15–20% more for steel and aluminum than their international competitors. These increased costs rippled across industries, raising prices on everything from cars to washing machines to public infrastructure projects.

  • Retaliatory Tariffs and Export Declines
    Countries like Canada, China, and the EU responded with their own tariffs, particularly targeting U.S. agricultural exports. Farmers, already struggling from shifting global markets, saw billions in lost revenue.

  • Increased Market Volatility and Business Uncertainty
    The erratic nature of Trump’s trade policies created uncertainty that dampened business investment and contributed to increased market instability.

Why Trump’s 2025 Tariffs Could Be Even More Destructive

Trump’s new 50% tariff—double the rate from 2018—comes at a time when the global economy is more interconnected than ever and inflationary pressures remain sensitive to supply chain disruptions. The risks are even greater now:

  • More Global Retaliation: Other countries may once again hit back with tariffs of their own—this time potentially broader and more aggressive. The U.S. could face compounded export losses, especially in tech, energy, and agriculture.

  • Greater Downstream Harm: U.S. manufacturers are already competing on thin margins and globalized supply chains. A 50% tariff will push many over the edge, leading to offshoring, layoffs, and consolidation.

  • Foreign Ownership Undermines the Premise: Supporting a foreign takeover of U.S. Steel while implementing protectionist tariffs is not just contradictory—it’s economically incoherent. Tariffs that raise domestic prices now benefit a Japanese-owned firm at the expense of U.S. manufacturers and consumers.

  • Inflationary Effects at the Worst Possible Time: Adding significant cost pressures to critical materials like steel and aluminum may worsen inflation at a time when the Federal Reserve is trying to stabilize prices.

Conclusion: America Last, Not First

Rather than revitalizing American industry, Trump’s steel tariffs have proven to be an expensive exercise in economic nationalism. They harm the very sectors they aim to protect, misallocate resources, and isolate the U.S. from global trade benefits.

Trump’s doubling down on tariffs in 2025—combined with a tacit approval of foreign acquisitions—only magnifies the disconnect between his rhetoric and reality. In doing so, he’s not making America great again—he’s making it less competitive, more isolated, and economically unstable.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderFederal Court Rebukes Trump’s Tariff Plan as an “Unprecedented” Executive Overreach

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
May 29, 2025

In a landmark decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade has struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping 2025 tariffs, ruling that he unilaterally overstepped his authority by imposing blanket tariffs on all imported goods under a disputed claim of national security. The court called the move “legally untenable” and a violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

A First in Modern History: Blanket Tariffs on All Imports

On April 2, 2025, the Trump administration began enforcing unilateral tariffs on all imported goods, with rates starting at 10% and rising to 50%. This marked the most extensive use of presidential trade power in U.S. history, applying broadly to all imports from every trading partner, including NATO allies.

President Trump invoked Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a statute that allows limited import restrictions if national security is genuinely at risk. He argued that decades of deindustrialization and overreliance on foreign suppliers had left the U.S. vulnerable in times of crisis.

Critics said the move was a gross distortion of the law’s intent—using a narrow national defense exemption to pursue full-scale economic nationalism without congressional approval.

The Court’s Ruling: “No Statutory Basis”

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s action exceeded the authority granted by Congress.

Judge Jane Restani, writing for the panel, stated:

“Section 232 provides targeted authority to address real threats to national security. It does not authorize the president to impose tariffs on all imports in pursuit of broader policy goals. To do so is to legislate without Congress.”

The court faulted the administration for:

  • Lack of Evidence: It found no clear connection between many of the affected imports and actual threats to national security.

  • Violation of Constitutional Structure: By imposing universal tariffs, the administration had assumed powers explicitly delegated to Congress under the Commerce Clause.

Reaction from Legal Experts and Industry

Legal Scholars:
Trade and constitutional law scholars applauded the decision as a critical defense of legislative authority. Professor Eli Mendelsohn of Columbia Law School called it “the strongest signal yet that courts will not rubber-stamp national security justifications for sweeping economic actions.”

Business Groups:
Retailers, manufacturers, and agricultural importers expressed relief. The American Apparel & Footwear Association said the ruling would “prevent a cost shock that would have rippled through every household in the country.”

The White House:
A spokesperson for the Trump administration denounced the ruling, saying:

“President Trump acted to defend American sovereignty, jobs, and strength. This ruling undermines national security and invites economic sabotage.”

They confirmed the White House will appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Broader Implications for Trade and Governance

This ruling carries significant weight for the future of U.S. trade policy:

  • Reins in Presidential Power: Courts are no longer willing to allow open-ended executive authority on trade under vague legal provisions.

  • Reaffirms Congressional Role: The decision reasserts that only Congress can overhaul tariff policy—especially on such a sweeping scale.

  • Raises Legal Bar for Section 232: Future administrations must show clear, product-specific, and defensible links to national security threats.

Conclusion:
Futures markets responded with cautious optimism to the court’s ruling. While investors welcomed the reaffirmation of constitutional limits on presidential power—and the prospect of a more restrained executive—they remain concerned about the lasting economic fallout. Significant damage has already been inflicted: global supply chains are disrupted, long-standing trade agreements with allies have been unilaterally nullified, and international trust in U.S. trade reliability has been eroded. Additionally, tariffs on key sectors such as automobiles, steel, and aluminum remain firmly in place. Substantial and economically impactful tariffs on China continue to persist, including product-specific Section 301 tariffs ranging from 25% to 100%, 25% Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, and the closure of the de minimis exemption on all retail shipments from China. The court ordered the Trump administration to issue revised directives reflecting the permanent injunction within 10 days. However, minutes later, the administration filed a notice of appeal and publicly challenged the court’s authority, framing the intervention as a matter of national sovereignty.

Bond markets reacted negatively, with interest rates rising amid concerns that the Trump administration’s “Big Beautiful Bill” will further increase the deficit and exacerbate the already unsustainable national debt.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderTrump’s War on Climate Science: Shuttering NASA’s GISS and Silencing the Truth

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
May 24, 2025

For nearly 60 years, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has been one of the world’s leading climate research centers. Tucked atop a Columbia University building in Manhattan since 1966, it played a pivotal role in the early modeling of climate change, helped interpret Earth-observing satellite data, and was once home to an IBM supercomputer so large it took up an entire floor.

It was also the professional home of Dr. James Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 famously warned Congress that global warming had already begun—arguably the moment modern climate policy was born. Hansen’s leadership made GISS a powerhouse of climate science, building data models and forecasts that have been used by researchers and policymakers around the globe.

But in a disturbing turn, the Trump administration has ordered the closure of GISS’s Manhattan facility by May 31, abruptly ending the lease that has kept the institute operating in the heart of New York City. Over 130 staff members are now being forced into remote work with no clarity about the lab’s long-term future. The move comes amid Trump’s ongoing crusade to suppress climate science, including efforts to slash NASA’s Earth Science budget in half.

“They are trying to kill the messenger with the bad news,” said Hansen, denouncing the closure. “It’s crazy.”

A Pattern of Denial and Destruction

This closure is not an isolated decision. It’s part of a long-standing pattern of science suppression by Donald Trump, who has repeatedly dismissed climate change as a hoax:

  • In 2012, he tweeted: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

  • In 2015, he declared: “I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.”

  • In 2016, he called climate science “bullshit.”

  • During his presidency, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, gutted the EPA, and rolled back over 100 environmental protections.

  • His administration also attempted to censor scientific reports, bury climate assessments, and promote fossil fuel use as a central economic strategy.

The closure of GISS is the latest step in that agenda—a symbolic and strategic blow to the heart of American climate science.

Why GISS Matters

GISS is not just another lab—it is one of the world’s most trusted centers for climate monitoring. It has produced global temperature records used by the IPCC, world governments, and even defense agencies. The loss of its physical presence doesn’t just inconvenience scientists—it undermines credibility, collaboration, and continuity in vital climate research.

As climate change accelerates—with 2023 and 2024 ranking among the hottest years in recorded history—the need for independent, science-based institutions like GISS has never been greater.

Silencing Science Is a Threat to Society

The danger of Trump’s denialism goes far beyond budget cuts or facility closures. It erodes public trust in science, spreads disinformation, and delays action at a time when every fraction of a degree of warming matters. While wildfires burn, seas rise, and deadly floods claim lives around the world, Trump and his allies continue to deny, defund, and dismantle the very institutions alerting us to these dangers.

Trump’s strategy is clear: delegitimize the evidence so you can ignore the consequences. Shuttering GISS is just the latest way to do it—by tearing down the infrastructure of knowledge, you don’t have to confront the truth.

Conclusion: The Cost of Denial

History will remember Dr. James Hansen and GISS as pioneers who tried to warn the world. Whether history will remember our political leaders as enablers or protectors of that truth is still being written.

To shut down GISS is not just to close a building—it is to close our eyes to the unfolding crisis. And that’s not just “crazy,” as Hansen says—it’s catastrophic.

The Human Induced Climate Change Experiment

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderMarket Volatility Intensifies as Bond Market Sends Clear Warning

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
May 21, 2025

As anticipated, the stock market is experiencing extreme volatility. This is precisely why I recommended dramatically reducing exposure to equities. The emotional and financial toll of riding this rollercoaster isn’t just unsettling—it’s unsustainable over the long run. Historically, chasing equity rallies in an unstable environment is a losing strategy.

Instead, my advice has been to watch the bond market closely. It’s been the more rational barometer, and far less volatile. While stocks have been erratic, bond yields have been steadily climbing, reflecting deeper systemic issues. As we’ve discussed for months, several converging factors are driving this shift: rising tariffs, inconsistent climate and foreign policy, unsustainable levels of federal debt, and reckless fiscal policy.

If you recall our analysis from earlier this year, we projected that these pressures would eventually trigger a full-blown budget crisis. That scenario is now unfolding. We are witnessing a key political stress test—particularly for the Republican Party and its ongoing alignment with Donald Trump. The question isn’t just economic anymore; it’s political and structural.

Today’s sharp market decline appears to be a delayed response to a major red flag from the bond market. The 20-year Treasury auction had an extremely poor showing, with a historically wide spread between the market rate and the issuance rate. This kind of spread signals deep investor unease, and today, the equity markets finally took notice.
The auction resulted in a high yield of 5.047%, the highest since 2020, reflecting tepid demand and necessitating higher yields to attract buyers.

This significant spread indicates that investors required a premium to compensate for perceived risks associated with the U.S. government’s fiscal policies, including proposed tax cuts and increasing national debt. The poor auction performance contributed to a sharp decline in stock markets, with major indexes like the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average experiencing substantial losses.

The bond market’s reaction underscores the importance of monitoring Treasury yields as a barometer for investor sentiment regarding fiscal sustainability.

Bottom Line:
Keep your eye on the bond market. It’s sending signals that equities have ignored for too long. While headlines may focus on stock index swings, the real story—and the real risk—is unfolding in the bond market’s quiet but decisive movements.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderMoody’s Downgrade Ends Century-Long AAA Credit Rating for the United States

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
May 16, 2025

The United States has just lost its last perfect credit rating, a significant downgrade that could have serious implications for financial markets and the broader economy. On Friday, Moody’s Ratings downgraded U.S. government debt, stripping the country of its long-held AAA rating. This move marks the end of more than a century of top-tier credit status with Moody’s, which had maintained its AAA rating on U.S. debt since 1917.

Moody’s was the final of the “Big Three” credit rating agencies—alongside S&P Global and Fitch—to maintain a perfect rating for U.S. debt. Its downgrade signals a deepening concern over America’s long-term fiscal outlook, including rising deficits, unsustainable debt levels, and persistent political dysfunction that threatens the government’s ability to manage its finances responsibly.

This loss of confidence could rattle global markets, increase borrowing costs for the U.S. government, and put upward pressure on interest rates across the economy—from mortgages and student loans to credit cards and business loans. In turn, it may further complicate the Federal Reserve’s efforts to manage inflation and stabilize the economy.

While the downgrade doesn’t suggest an imminent risk of default, it does reflect growing doubts about the long-term fiscal credibility of the United States—and that could have lasting consequences.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderChina Quietly Retreats from U.S. Debt Market Amid Trade War Volatility

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
May 14, 2025

Cash flows and foreign treasury holdings in and out of the United States have grown increasingly volatile under the Trump administration’s ongoing trade war. One of the most consequential—and largely underreported—developments is China’s quiet withdrawal from the U.S. Treasury market.

Unlike an overt selloff that would signal immediate economic tension, China’s retreat is more subtle: the Chinese government has not been dumping U.S. Treasuries, but it has stopped buying them. This marks a significant policy shift with long-term implications for global capital flows and U.S. debt sustainability.

While private Chinese firms continue to purchase U.S. debt, the state’s declining participation reflects a broader recalibration of strategy. Beijing is gradually reducing its exposure to American financial instruments—particularly long-term Treasuries—as part of a diversification effort and geopolitical hedge against growing economic friction with Washington.

China, historically one of the largest foreign holders of U.S. government debt alongside the European Union (EU), has grown increasingly wary of its overexposure to the U.S. capital markets. Similarly, several EU member states—facing economic headwinds, internal fiscal pressures, and strategic concerns—have also begun to reconsider their heavily weighted positions in U.S. debt.

This pullback could have significant consequences for the United States. Reduced demand from two of its top foreign creditors places upward pressure on U.S. interest rates and increases the Treasury’s reliance on domestic buyers and other foreign entities less inclined to absorb American debt at current yields.

Moreover, in the context of rising federal deficits and elevated government spending—partly driven by the economic fallout of trade tensions—the loss of steadfast foreign buyers could exacerbate fiscal vulnerabilities. If these trends continue, they may erode investor confidence and potentially undermine the dollar’s long-standing dominance as the world’s reserve currency.

In sum, China’s silent retreat from the U.S. debt market—paired with a cooling appetite from the EU—is more than a passive policy decision. It’s a signal. As the geopolitical and economic rift between the U.S. and its key trade partners deepens, global capital is beginning to realign. For Washington, this serves as a wake-up call: trade wars may have broader, more lasting effects on financial stability than previously acknowledged.

China’s Subtle Retreat from U.S. Treasuries Tests Market Resilience Amid Upcoming Auctions

China’s role as a major purchaser of U.S. Treasury securities has been pivotal in financing the U.S. government’s debt. As of January 2025, China’s holdings stood at approximately $760.8 billion, a decrease from its peak of $1.3 trillion in 2013. This reduction reflects a strategic shift, with the Chinese government ceasing new purchases while maintaining existing holdings.

This change in China’s investment behavior comes at a critical juncture for the U.S. Treasury market. The Treasury Department has scheduled significant auctions to manage its debt obligations. In February 2025, for instance, the Treasury offered $42 billion in 10-year notes and $69 billion in 2-year notes. These auctions are essential for refinancing maturing securities and raising new funds.

The upcoming auctions will test the market’s capacity to absorb large volumes of debt without the usual level of participation from traditional foreign buyers like China. A decline in demand could lead to higher yields, increasing borrowing costs for the U.S. government. This scenario underscores the importance of monitoring foreign investment trends and their implications for domestic fiscal policy.

In summary, China’s gradual withdrawal from purchasing U.S. Treasuries introduces new dynamics into the bond market. The forthcoming Treasury auctions will serve as a barometer for investor confidence and the market’s ability to adapt to shifts in foreign investment patterns.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderTariffs on Trial: Court Case Could Rein in Executive Trade Powers and Stabilize U.S. Economy

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
May 13, 2025

If the Trump-era tariffs are struck down by the courts, the United States could see a return to more stable and predictable economic conditions. Such a ruling would likely reduce inflationary pressures, ease supply chain disruptions, and reopen channels of global trade—fostering stronger international partnerships and lowering costs for American consumers and businesses.

At the heart of the issue is a high-stakes legal challenge currently before a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade. The case examines whether Trump exceeded his constitutional and statutory authority when he imposed sweeping new tariffs last month on imports from more than 180 countries and territories. These tariffs were part of an aggressive and unilateral expansion of executive power in the realm of trade policy.

The plaintiffs argue that the executive branch overstepped its legal boundaries, bypassing congressional oversight and established trade laws. Specifically, the case questions whether the president can unilaterally implement such broad and punitive tariffs without clear and immediate justification under existing statutory frameworks like the Trade Act of 1974 or Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could set a major precedent—limiting the executive branch’s authority to impose tariffs without legislative approval. This would mark a significant shift away from the trade practices of the Trump administration, which often used tariffs as blunt-force tools to exert pressure on foreign governments and reshape global commerce.

A ruling against Trump’s tariffs would not only affect the current legal status of these trade measures but also reinforce the role of Congress in shaping economic and trade policy, restoring a more balanced separation of powers. In practical terms, this could help reestablish long-term certainty in global markets, which have been rattled by unpredictable tariff regimes in recent years.

Ultimately, the court’s decision could have far-reaching implications—not just for U.S. trade policy, but for the broader scope of presidential power in economic governance. A ruling that reins in unilateral tariff actions could pave the way for a more collaborative, rules-based approach to global trade in the post-pandemic era.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderIgnore the Noise: The Bond Market Is Sounding the Alarm

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
May 13, 2025

A couple of months ago, I suggested that those concerned about the future of the economy should focus less on the stock market and more on the bond market. Since then, the divergence between financial market optimism and economic reality has only widened. The stock market, increasingly detached from fundamentals, now appears to be highly politicized—driven more by perception management than data.

Meanwhile, the bond market is flashing clear warning signs: long-term yields remain elevated, yield curves have struggled to normalize, and demand for U.S. debt is becoming increasingly fragile. While equities flirt with highs, the real economy is showing strain—from sluggish growth to mounting debt and weakening global demand.

Let’s take a sober look at the realistic economic outlook over the next 12 months, based on the assumption that the recently paused tariffs remain paused:

  • 8% probability of a 90% crash, similar in scope to the Great Depression-era collapse following the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. While unlikely under current tariff policy, this risk escalates significantly if trade tensions are reignited.

  • 80% probability of a 30%+ correction in equity markets. This reflects the reality that tariffs, inflation, high interest rates, and global uncertainty are weighing heavily on both business investment and consumer sentiment.

It’s important to clarify: the economic outlook assumes that the currently paused tariffs remain paused. If these tariffs are reinstated, the probability of a severe economic downturn rises significantly. Tariffs at the levels previously proposed—some exceeding 100%—would effectively function as a trade embargo, strangling critical supply chains, driving up consumer prices, and undermining both U.S. and global economic growth.

Conversely, if the Trump-era tariffs are struck down by the courts, the U.S. could experience a return to more stable economic conditions, with lower inflationary pressures and improved trade relationships.

Currently, a panel of three judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade is reviewing whether former President Trump overstepped his constitutional authority by imposing sweeping tariffs last month on goods from more than 180 countries and territories. The case centers on whether the executive branch exceeded its trade powers under existing statutes.

Should the court side with the plaintiffs, it could significantly restrict the president’s ability to unilaterally impose tariffs—a tactic Trump has routinely used to project strength on trade and reshape U.S. economic policy by executive order. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for U.S. trade policy, presidential power, and the trajectory of the post-pandemic global economy.

In short, the bond market is right to remain cautious. While equities may be propped up by sentiment, headline-chasing, and artificial tailwinds, debt markets are pricing in something more sobering: structural imbalances, fiscal irresponsibility, and elevated geopolitical risk.

Overview

It’s time to stop confusing record stock market highs with real economic health. The bond market is telling a different—and far more credible—story. And that story is a warning. As of May 13, 2025, the United States’ average effective tariff rate on all imported goods is estimated at approximately 15%, a steep rise from the pre-2025 average of just 3%. This sharp increase—driven by both new and expanded tariffs—has significantly raised costs for U.S. importers and consumers alike, fueling inflationary pressures and aggravating supply chain disruptions.

Although the recent U.S.–China trade truce has provided a brief 90-day pause on some of the steepest tariffs, it offers only temporary relief. The broader tariff landscape remains far more restrictive than historical norms, distorting trade flows and undermining business certainty. In contrast to the stock market’s optimism, the bond market’s sustained high yields reflect deeper concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability, inflation risks, stagflation, and the fragility of global trade relationships.

Tariff Scorecard

As of May 13, 2025, the United States enforces a multifaceted tariff regime encompassing both longstanding measures and new tariffs introduced during President Trump’s second term. These tariffs vary by country and sector, with some products subject to multiple overlapping tariffs. Below is an updated overview:

China

  • Pre-Existing Tariffs: Under the 2018–2019 trade war, tariffs of 10%–25% were imposed on over $360 billion of Chinese goods, targeting sectors like electronics, machinery, and consumer products.

  • “Fentanyl Tariff”: An additional 10% tariff was imposed on February 4, 2025, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), citing national security concerns related to fentanyl. This was doubled to 20% on March 4, 2025.

  • “Reciprocal Tariff”: A 125% tariff was added on April 9, 2025, bringing the total tariff rate to 145% on all Chinese imports.

  • Temporary Reduction: On May 12, 2025, the U.S. and China agreed to a 90-day truce, reducing U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%.

  • De Minimis Exemption Closure: Effective May 3, 2025, the U.S. closed the de minimis exemption for China and Hong Kong, subjecting low-value shipments to tariffs.

Canada

  • 25% Tariff on Most Canadian Goods: Implemented on March 4, 2025, targeting non-USMCA-compliant products.

  • 10% Tariff on Canadian Oil and Gas: Announced in February 2025 but currently paused indefinitely.

  • Retaliatory Measures: Canada imposed 25% tariffs on $20.8 billion of U.S. goods, including steel, aluminum, and various other products.

Mexico

  • 25% Tariff on All Mexican Goods: Effective March 4, 2025, with exemptions for USMCA-compliant products.

European Union

  • 25% Tariff on Steel and Aluminum Products: Imposed on February 10, 2025, affecting imports from the EU.

  • Proposed Tariffs on Additional Goods: The EU announced retaliatory tariffs on approximately €26 billion worth of U.S. exports, including agricultural products, alcoholic beverages, and household items.

Global Tariffs

  • 10% Universal Tariff on All Imported Goods: Implemented on April 5, 2025, this broad tariff applies to most imports, with certain exemptions.

  • 25% Tariff on Steel and Aluminum Products: Effective March 12, 2025, this tariff applies globally, with no country or product exclusions.

  • 25% Tariff on Automobiles and Auto Parts: Announced on March 26, 2025, and effective April 3, 2025, this tariff targets global imports, excluding USMCA-compliant products.

Sector-Specific Tariffs

  • Semiconductors: Tariffs increased from 25% to 50%, effective January 1, 2025.

  • Solar Cells and Materials: Tariffs on solar cells increased from 25% to 50% on September 27, 2024. Tariffs on solar wafers and polysilicon rose to 50%, effective January 1, 2025.

  • Steel and Aluminum Products: Tariffs increased from 0–7.5% to 25%, effective August 1, 2024.

  • Batteries and Components:

    • Lithium-ion EV batteries: Tariffs rose from 7.5% to 25%, effective September 27, 2024.

    • Non-lithium-ion battery parts: Tariffs increased from 7.5% to 25%, effective September 27, 2024.

    • Lithium-ion batteries for non-EVs: Tariffs will rise from 7.5% to 25%, effective January 1, 2026.

  • Critical Minerals: Tariffs of 25% were imposed on various critical minerals, including manganese, cobalt, aluminum, zinc, chromium, tungsten, and others, effective August 1, 2024.

  • Medical Products:

    • Syringes and needles: Tariffs increased from 0% to 100%, effective September 27, 2024.

    • Rubber medical and surgical gloves: Tariffs will rise from 7.5% to 50% on January 1, 2025, and to 100% on January 1, 2026.

Proposed and Investigated Tariffs

  • Digital Service Taxes (DSTs): Investigations initiated against France, Austria, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and the UK.

  • Copper, Timber, Pharmaceuticals, Semiconductors, Processed Critical Minerals, and Trucks: Section 232 investigations initiated to assess the impact of imports on national security.

This comprehensive tariff landscape reflects the Trump administration’s focus on protecting domestic industries and addressing trade imbalances. However, it has also led to increased tensions with key trading partners and raised concerns about potential impacts on global supply chains and consumer prices.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderCurb the Enthusiasm: U.S.–China ‘Trade Deal’ Is Just a Temporary Pause in a Costly Tariff War

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
May 12, 2025

A much-publicized “trade deal” between the United States and China was announced over the weekend, sparking an immediate rally in the futures markets. Investors initially interpreted the announcement as a sign of easing tensions between the world’s two largest economies. However, a closer look reveals the agreement is far more limited in scope than the headlines suggest.

In contrast, the bond market remains notably cautious, showing little of the exuberance seen in equities. Interest rates have stayed elevated, reflecting persistent concerns about inflation, fiscal sustainability, and geopolitical instability. Bond investors appear unconvinced that the 90-day tariff pause will yield meaningful or lasting economic relief. The continued pressure in yields signals expectations of ongoing volatility and fiscal strain—deepening the divide between short-term market sentiment and long-term economic fundamentals.

Rather than a sweeping resolution, the deal amounts to a 90-day pause on the implementation of the full 145% tariff rate previously threatened by the U.S. administration. During this temporary window, tariffs remain at historically high levels: a 30% rate on all goods, 50% on most goods, and more than 100% on electric vehicles (EVs) imported from China. While slightly less draconian than a full embargo, these rates still represent one of the largest tax burdens on American consumers and businesses in modern history.

While the temporary easing may seem like progress, these levels still represent some of the most protectionist policies in modern U.S. history, and they function as a substantial tax burden on American consumers and businesses. For context, even the lowest of these rates—30%—is far above the average U.S. import tariff of recent decades, and for many product categories, the costs are being passed directly onto end users.

Economists warn that calling this a “deal” may be misleading. It is more accurately described as a ceasefire, not a resolution. Without structural changes to tariff policy or a rollback of these rates, the economic drag from higher input costs and reduced trade efficiency will persist. Small and mid-sized businesses, in particular, are expected to bear the brunt of these taxes, while consumers face higher prices on everything from electronics to everyday household goods.

Unless further progress is made, this 90-day pause may merely delay—not avoid—the full brunt of a trade war whose costs are already being felt. Any sustainable improvement will require deeper policy shifts, not temporary reprieves wrapped in celebratory headlines.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderMisleading Claims on Gas Prices, Inflation, and the Economy: A Closer Look at the Facts

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
May 10, 2025

“‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell is a FOOL, who doesn’t have a clue. Other than that, I like him very much! Oil and Energy way down, almost all costs (groceries and ‘eggs’) down, virtually NO INFLATION, Tariff Money Pouring Into the U.S. — THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ‘TOO LATE!’ ENJOY!”
— Donald Trump, May 8, 2025

This statement makes multiple false and misleading claims.

1. “Virtually NO INFLATION” — False

  • Reality: As of early to mid-2025, the U.S. still experiences persistent inflation above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. While it has moderated from its 2022 peak, core inflation remains elevated, especially in services (e.g., housing, insurance).

  • Misleading: Even if energy or eggs are down in price short term, overall consumer price levels remain significantly higher than in 2019. “Virtually no inflation” misrepresents the lived experience of most Americans.

2. “Oil and Energy way down” — Misleading

  • Reality: Energy prices fluctuate, but they are still volatile and subject to geopolitical pressures (e.g., OPEC+ cuts, Middle East instability, climate-driven supply disruptions).

  • A decline in oil prices due to a slowing global economy is a negative signal, not a reason for celebration. Historically, sustained oil price drops (when not due to supply surges) often precede or coincide with economic slowdowns or recessions.

  • Gasoline prices remain relatively high compared to pre-COVID levels. Donald Trump has falsely claimed that gas prices are below two dollars per gallon in many states, which is not supported by current data. Both Trump and some White House spokespeople have confused oil futures contracts with actual retail gasoline prices. If gas prices do fall due to lower oil prices and a slowing global economy, the benefit to consumers may be minimal—especially if unemployment rises and people are driving less. Additionally, if lower gasoline prices spur increased demand, this could exacerbate climate-related inflation, particularly in sectors like insurance. In the end, the net cost to consumers may still rise, despite cheaper fuel.

3. “Almost all costs (groceries and ‘eggs’) down” — False

  • Reality: Food prices have risen substantially since 2020. Even if eggs or specific items dropped after a spike (e.g., due to avian flu), the overall grocery bill remains much higher than a few years ago.

  • The USDA and BLS data show food inflation continues to burden consumers.

4. “Tariff money pouring into the U.S.” — Misleading and Economically Illiterate

  • Reality: Tariffs are taxes paid by U.S. importers, not foreign governments. Any money collected goes into the Treasury from American businesses, not “from China.”

  • Tariffs often lead to higher prices for consumers and reduced competitiveness for U.S. firms. There is no evidence that tariffs have “poured” beneficial money into the U.S. in a net economic sense.

5. Jerome Powell is a “fool” who is “too late” — False framing

  • Reality: Powell raised interest rates aggressively beginning in 2022, faster than in any cycle since the 1980s, specifically to combat inflation.

  • While one could debate timing or magnitude, he acted decisively. The Fed’s moves helped slow inflation, albeit with some lag.

  • Calling him “too late” while simultaneously claiming there’s “no inflation” is contradictory.

Summary:

The statement is riddled with falsehoods, contradictions, and economic misconceptions, such as:

  • Ignoring persistent inflation trends.

  • Misrepresenting the role and effect of tariffs.

  • Cherry-picking price data.

  • Criticizing Powell for being “too late” while celebrating current inflation as “virtually zero.”

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

The Human Induced Climate Change Experiment