the DON JONES INDEX…
http://donjonesindex.com/title http://donjonesindex.com/dji.250403.htm http://donjonesindex.com/dji.250410.htm	GAINS POSTED in GREEN LOSSES POSTED in RED 4/17/25... 14,731.43 4/10/25... 14,673.02 6/27/13... 15,000.00
(THE DOW JONES INDEX: 4/17/25... 39,669.39; 4/10/25... 37,625.31; 6/27/13… 15,000.00)

LESSON for APRIL 17th, 2025 – “OF TARIFFS and TAXES”

Tuesday was Tax Day.

Well, maybe not for some. For reasons potent or petty to our Internal Revenue Service – acceding to the wishes and the whims of the weather, the President and, one presumes, God – five states enjoyed another two weeks’ leisure to pick up the damages from Helene and Milton, tote up their earnings for 2024, and send the results (and, if applicable, their money) in to Washington.

Taxation is almost as ancient as civilization. Today’s tax codes are extensive and ever-changing, but many of the basic tax types governments depend on today, including sales taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes, have been around since early civilization.

A concise history of the gumment levies dates back about 5,000 years ago, to ancient Egypt, where... according to a brief history by taxfoundation.org (ATTACHMENT ONE), the Pharaoh collected a tax equivalent to 20 percent of all grain harvests. Later, the Greeks were responsible for taking the idea of taxation and spreading it throughout the developed world, as they expanded their realm and civilization evolved.

Julius Caesar was first to implement a sales tax: “a 1 percent flat rate that was applied across the entire Empire. Under Caesar Augustus, the sales tax was 4 percent, closer to a rate we see today in many U.S. state sales taxes.” Augustus also imposed a direct taxation system that resembled an income tax. “This began as a direct tax on an individual’s wealth,” but when proven difficult to execute, the income tax replaced that collection. Rome was also the pioneer in imposing inheritance, or death, taxes

Originally, property taxes were levied in Egypt, Persia, and China based on the production value of the land, or how much the plot was expected to yield in goods, and so, therefore, “were typically paid by farmers.” Property taxes continued in Medieval Europe under William the Conqueror in England... “(f)amously, Lady Godiva rode a horse through the streets naked in protest of the property tax rate her husband was forced to pay.”

Tariffs also date back to the 3000s BCE “on trade of metal and wool between the ancient city of Kanesh in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) and Assyria (in modern-day Iraq).” The Roman Empire adopted them and were, thereafter, imposed to control the trade of certain goods like wool, leather, butter, cheese, and more.

Taxes, our history and educators... most of them, largely contend... are the price Americans pay for living in a nation where freedom is charisted, justice is practiced and opportunity is ever knocking at the door. American colonies levied “property taxes, excise taxes, poll taxes, and some early forms of income taxes”, though tax rates and burdens were far less than their counterparts in Great Britain and the Crown, consequently struck out against their colonies by taxing sugar, printed materials and, in 1767, the the tax on tea “that led to the Boston Tea Party.”

After the war for independence, tariffs were “the original pipeline of tax revenue for the U.S. government,” including the “Tariff of Abominations” in 1828, which increased tensions between the North and South leading up to the Civil War, after which industrialization emabled the nativist dream of exports becoming more common than imports. The result was a foreign version of Old World Only, causing revenues to decline. “In 1913, as a result of declining tariff revenues and as part of a Progressive political push to shift tax burdens onto the wealthy and limit the excesses of the Golden Age, the 16^th Amendment was ratified, allowing for federal taxes to be levied on individual and business incomes.

“The World Wars led to the expansion of the federal income tax to boost the national budget and further increase progressivity in the federal tax code. Today, the income tax is the top stream of government revenue.”

The postwar consumption craze engendered decades of deficit spending - but when the party stops, voters... at least in the (small “d”) democratic countries... tend to cut off the music or even shoot the jukebox.

Prior to November, 2024, bakertilly.com (investment advisors and tax consultants) issued a report contending that the United State was facing a pivotal fiscal cliff next year, as numerous Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 provisions affecting individuals, estates and pass-through entities will sunset at the end of 2025, resulting in increased tax burdens for the majority of taxpayers (ATTACHMENT TWO) creating instability and resentment.

Two months before the election, bakertilley issued another report on the state of the state and the state of Americans’ money and their findings – atop the other burdens falling atop the Democratic Party were predicted to determine the outcome of the contest, and the country.

Dividing and comparing the tax policy promises and platforms of the competing parties, bakertilley.org opined that the G.O.P. supported “making the temporary TCJA provisions permanent” while President and candidate Biden and his replacement, Kamala Harris, promised to roll them back for taxpayers making over $400,000. bakertilley.org further broke down the economic issues into specifics – summarizing the party platforms as follows...

Business tax

“The largest difference in the Republican and Democratic business tax policy platform (was) the proposed corporate tax rate.” Republicans, then as now, campaigned on maintaining or even decreasing the current 21% corporate rate, “while Democrats would like to see an increase to 28%, which is still well below the pre-TCJA 35% rate.”

(See charts and graphs as ATTACHMENT THREE, 9/4/24)

Individual tax

Republicans also promised to make all of the expiring individual provisions permanent. Harris, the replacement nominee by then, campaigned on the Biden pledge to the under-$400,000 taxpayers plus an array for further sock-its like “the expansion of the net investment income tax and/or a wealth tax for ultra-high-net-worth taxpayers.”

Trust, estate and gift taxes

“The estate tax exemption (was) the primary focus in this area.” Republicans proposed that $10 million exemption per taxpayer, indexed for inflation; (13.61 million for 2024) extended or the entire estate tax repealed. Democrats wanted these made “more restrictive”.

Other policies were compared, although neither party had much to say about tariffs at the time – Trump, according to his previously stated views, promising to “implement a 10% to 20% tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on Chinese imports.” Harris focused on increasing the corporate tax rate.

Both expressed support for the popular proposal to eliminate taxes on tips and gratuities.

After four years of Sad Old Joe, plague, wars and inflaton, Americans rose up on their hind legs last November; growled, and voted to bring back Donald Trump, the President they’d elected eight and then rejected four years earlier. This time around, a more experienced, wilier coyote could point to the twenty twenties with a grin and a grimace – the latter reflecting upon Biden and his legacies: plague and war, higher prices everywhere and foreign fear and respect for the American eagle plummeting.

Two days after D-Day another financial corporation, Fidelity.com, issued its own autopsy on the Biden-Harris campaign and the restoration of Ol’ 45... now New ’47. (November 6^th, ATTACHMENT FOUR) and surmised that President-elect Donald Trump’s Republican victory (including control... however narrow... of the House and Senate) could “give him the upper hand in driving his agenda through Congress.”

Trump expressed support “for lowering corporate taxes to 15% from their current 21% rate” while the Democrats had wanted this raised.

On the other, left or populist hand, incoming Veep Vance expressed support for increasing the Child Tax Credit to $5,000 per little American, Trump proposed tax credits for “family caregivers taking care of a parent or loved one” (although nothing for retired or low-income below the poverty line or dependent on Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid... now all rumoured to be on the chopping block).

A week after Trump 2.0 took office U.S. News and World Report author Jorge Guajardo cited unnamed polls by “our” pollsters that recommended lowering the corporate tax rates “because it brings businesses and jobs back to the United States” rather than locating them overseas to avoid the U.S. government taking such a large cut and a full 61% of those polled said “spending cuts are necessary and worthwhile to lock in the 2017 tax cuts.” (Jan 28^th, ATTACHMENT FIVE)

And now we are nearly one fiscal quarter into that New American Order wherein another Cato-mite, Kimberly Clausing, toiling for U.S. News, argued that the public perception of wasted federal spending “shows a clear openness to making hard fiscal trade-offs. Even liberal voters acknowledge the need for spending restraint, with Democratic poll respondents stating they'd willingly cut about a third of federal expenditures to achieve greater fiscal responsibility,” no matter Democrats said it would mean hungry children, a lessening of American influence among our economic and military allies and as the liberals over there at GUK and IUK contend and the homegrown tax and spenders in Washington screeched, a neglected, eventually collapsing infrastructure.

“Many know that preserving our financial future means drastically shrinking the size and scope of government. Two-thirds of voters correctly conclude that cutting spending strengthens rather than hurts the economy, rejecting the Washington tax-and-spend orthodoxy. U.S. News’ Clausing cited Cato’s polling (Jan. 8^th, ATTACHMENT SIX)

Congress, with Speaker Mike in control and, as Democrats charge, cravenly beholden to Djonald UnContested, is disposed to do what it always does; meddle with the status quo and legislate improvements that usually consist of improvements for some, corrosion for others. In the case of MAGA... perversely – according to liberals, Democrats and liberal Democrats – it was the economic pains and aims of the lower middle class that pushed Ol’ 45 back over the top again, making him our New 47.

The Republican base, in 2024, had not, for the most part... gone to elite universities like Harvard (also on the President’s hit list, albeit for other reasons), many had had no education further than high school, if that. Many worked with their hands and made things that the businesspeople sold to other Americans and paid them workman’s wages that they paid out for food, shelter, some diversions of a limited nature, some savings for retirement or their children – if they were fortunate – for the American necessities of the time like a car, a television, maybe an iPhone or computer with Internet access and... often... a gun.

They had watched and felt their prospects declining through the Joe years – years when bad bugs from China (as they were told) killed their families and empowered government regulators as made them wear masks, like outlaws, and get stuck with needles bearing what they were told would be cures and preventions, but might also be vaccines that might contain other diseases to make them sicker or stupider, maybe nanoparticles to follow them around or turn, perhaps, to perverted practices that Democratic elits performed or, if not at least condoned.

Their betters told them that they were no better than the “peasants” that J. D. Vance saw in the Chinese, spat in the face of their God and took away their taxes to give to the bottom class of beggars and bums and criminals – the migrants from dark and dirty places swarming, like the cockroaches in Robert DeNiro and Danny Trejo’s “Machete” movie, over our borders to despoil and derail the American dream.

Squeezed from above and below, they united behind the promise of Making America Great Again and threw both the bums and the betters back into the swamps from whence they had crawled.

To the Marxist madmen of the left, they responded to allegations of inquality with affirmations of acknowledging their subservience – so long as movers and shakers of politics, economics and culture made things – things they needed or, at least, desired – and if some of them appeared to be making nothing other than money... well, it was only proof that they were better and smarter and more favored by God, so they stilled their doubts and chanted along with their Master: “God bless America! God keep us safe!”

To the extent that it protected them and gave them dreams to sleep upon of a night, these Americans... mostly Republicans, although more than a few had been born to parents or raised by grandparents who’d lived through depression and war and had pulled the lever for FDR and maybe JFK until the leftists deserted them on contentious issues like crime and race and citizenship while MAGA replaced the tired old issue of the class war with identity politics.

If the President also nurtured identity and personal grievances, well those were their grievance too and his solution to the troubles – tariffs, bigger and more beautiful tariffs that would put the rest of the world back into its place... appreciating the innovations and generosity of Americans instead of stealing our technology and undercutting our economy with their mindless army of coolies and peasants flooding our markets with the cheap substitutes for the goods that Americans of other times had made and claimed as their own.

After all, prior to the invention of the Federal Income Tax... a consequence of World War and the actually progressive Progressives of a century ago before Warren Harding shut the door on poor and working classes to kick off a decade of debauchery that ended in the Great Depression... the country was able to thrive on tariffs and so, King Donnie now maintains, should go back in the Wayback machine and do that (and a few other things) – bringing us closer and closer to Tax Week, 2025.

A view from across the pond... the Independent U.K. (not as liberal as the Guardian, but liberal nonetheless) termed Trump tariff trauma a “queasy” rollercoaster ride: posting on Truth Social that “THE BEST DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENCE IS THE ABILITY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE!!!”

But, while a wave of his magic wand could send the Dow soaring hundreds, even thousands of points up with the rest of the Wall Street idices profiting too, gravity has occasioned the nasty habit of bringing the markets back to earth again.

There are signs that the American people are getting more fed up with the erratic nature of all of the tariffs, the Brits... as also the Euros, the Asian markets, the angry Chinese (but not the untaxed Russians) and as many as two thirds of Americans) now contend. (ATTACHMENT SEVEN) Ray Dalio, the founder of the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, “warned that a recession could be the least of the United States’ worries, and that a reorganization of the global trade structure could have catastrophic results for the nation.”

Trump has sown chaos in global commerce and financial markets with a chaotic on-again, off-again approach to imposing duties on products from … basically the entire world. He has shaken investors’ faith in the U.S. dollar and in federal bonds, while major stock markets have plummeted. “Experts are increasingly warning the U.S. may be entering a recession – or worse,” Olivier Knox of U.S. News concurred. (Monday, April 14: ATTACHMENT EIGHT)

Describing the ups and loops, the downs and now... except to China... the temporary outs of the tariffs, Mr. Knox set his own timeline beginning on April 2^nd when the President (still playing the Fool in the view of many) announced what he called “reciprocal tariffs” of up to 50% on American trading partners. “The president also set a baseline 10% tariff on imports from scores of other countries and territories. Then, under pressure from the bond market, he suspended the former for nearly everyone for 90 days.”

Then, on Friday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials announced (at what was certainly the behest of the best and brightest among Donald’s Cabinet of Curiosities) “a carve-out for high-tech items such as smartphones, laptops and television displays, many of which come from China.

ComSec Howard Lutnick told ABC’s “This Week,” that all the tech toys “were going to have a special focus-type of tariff to make sure that those products get reshored.” 

The problem is that it will take years, in some cases, to bring the industry up to the standards of the Chinese and other imports. Hasty replacements will result in more planes falling out of the sky, guns that backfire, failed scientific experiments... and as for nuclear safety... well...

“One of the biggest X factors,” Knox concluded, is whether the president “will reach some kind of trade ceasefire with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Senior Trump aides in recent days have talked up the importance of the two leaders speaking to each other, while also insisting that Xi must make the first move.”

He hasn’t. And he’s said that he won’t.

“You think tariffs are bad?” asked Adam Michel director of tax policy studies for the Libertarian-right gang of pot smokers, wife swappers and tax haters at Cato – also moonlighting for U.S. News, also on Monday... “Wait till you see what's next.”

Trump’s tariffs are raising prices on imported goods, roiling financial markets and angering many U.S. consumers who now have to pay what is an extra tax on those items from abroad. “But an even larger tax hike is looming on the horizon: the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts passed during Trump’s first term.” (ATTACHMENT NINE)

Cato commissioned YouGov to conduct a poll of 2,000 Americans which showed “overwhelming support for making those tax cuts permanent. Americans, regardless of their political differences, say they can't afford higher taxes and prefer to cut spending rather than hike taxes to make up for the loss of income to the federal government.

There are several nails within these Nikes of good intent – many opinionators, even some of whom are Republicans, acknowledge that tariffs are taxes on Americans because... whether the foreigners retaliate or not upon goods and services of varying necessity being tariffed with additional tariffs of their own... the combined price increases upon merchers of everything from cars to cloths, gas to groceries, will compel them to raise their prices at the pump or the aisles (those, that is, that are not driven out of business). Further, since the discretionary/necessity indices favor the more affluent, funding the government through tariffs will only increase inequality (as we shall explore in next week’s Lesson),

Attempting to spin a nonpartisan (or, at least, less partisan) spin on the taxes and tariffs, the Tax Policy Center, back before Christmas with Trump elected but still waiting in the wings, took note of the upcoming expiration of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) to contend that, while all income groups would get a tax cut relative to current law, higher-income households would receive a larger benefit. 

The TCJA was a sweeping piece of legislation that made major temporary changes to many individual tax provisions, including reducing marginal tax rates, expanding the standard deduction, expanding the child tax credit, modifying the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and introducing a new deduction for businesses organized as pass-through entities (199A). (12/19/24, ATTACHMENT TEN) It raised taxes by repealing personal exemptions and limiting itemized deductions.

Using charts, graphs. figures and mathematics – as noted in the references above and website here - the TPC deduced that low- and middle-income households “primarily benefit from the TCJA’s larger standard deduction and expanded child tax credit (Figure 2) by an average of 0.5% of after-tax income; that middle-income households receive a 1.2 percent boost in after-tax income (Figure 3) and the “highest-income taxpayers would benefit the most overall from these extensions, seeing net tax cuts of 2 percent of after-tax income for those in the top quintile (2.5 percent for those in the top 1 percent).

The liberal Salon called these differentials a "massive redistribution" of wealth from workers to the rich and gains would be wiped away by the higher prices tariffs would bring. (April 12, ATTACHMENT ELEVEN)

Elizabeth Pancotti, a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and a managing director at the Groundwork Collective, described the current GOP plan to Salon, thence to America, as a “triple whammy of massive redistribution in a society that is already tilted toward the wealthy.”

“The end goal here is to redistribute trillions of dollars from the middle and working class at the bottom to the one percent and the wealthy folks,” Pancotti said.

In essence, a tariff is a sales tax on imported goods, and because lower-income Americans spend a larger proportion of their income on goods, they will also spend a larger proportion of their income paying the tariffs on affected goods.

While the top 1% of households received an average tax cut of $60,000, according to the Tax Policy Center (above), the bottom 60% of households received an average tax cut of less than $500 against costs which the Yale Budget Lab estimated would cost the average American household around $4,689 per year, “a sum that eclipses the tax cut that most households received in the GOP’s budget plan while only being about 8% of the average tax cut the wealthiest households received.”

Pancotti also pointed out that the Republican budget plan “will almost certainly result in dramatic cuts to services like Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which serves as a safety net for the poorest Americans,” and would facilitate loopholes that Dean Baker, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says will also make it easier for the wealthy to avoid paying their taxes.

The reverse Robin Hoodwink will be global, as well as local, with the UN’s trade and development arm, UNCTAD, calling on Donald Trump to exempt the world’s poorest and smallest countries from “reciprocal” tariffs, or risk “serious economic harm” according to the liberal GUK. (April 14^th, ATTACHMENT TWELVE) GUK identified twenty eight small, poor countries as being unlikely to become a threat to the world’s largest economy, “given their small size and modest levels of exports.”

“These include Laos, which is expected to face a 48% tariff; Mauritius 40%; and Myanmar, to be hit with 45%, despite trying to recover from a devastating earthquake,” UNCTAD reported, holding out hope that the current 90-day pause would present an opportunity “to reassess how small and vulnerable economies – including the least developed countries – are treated.

“Malawi, facing 18% tariffs, bought just $27m of US exports last year; Mozambique, which faces 16% tariffs, $150m; Cambodia, set for 49% tariffs, $322m.” Most of these exports were “agricultural commodities, for which the US is unlikely to be able to find substitutes elsewhere – let alone develop a domestic industry.” (UNCTAD warned Easter candy-lovers that $150m in vanilla imported from Madagascar, close to $800m in cocoa from Ivory Coast and $200m in cocoa come from Ghana.)

Even a few Republicans (whom the New York Times termed caught between their “populist ambitions and low-tax instincts” as MAGA, its base of support, “increasingly comes from the working class.” (ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN)

But Gotham’s smaller and harsher publican, the New York Post reported Speaker Mike’s pivot to the President’s right, in an interview with another conservative medium, the Fox. (April 13^th, ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN)

Despite Trump previously telling Republicans that he is open to a tax increase for the wealthy, Johnson (R-La.) argued that he’d prefer to find payfors elsewhere “and underscored that the GOP needs to hustle on finishing the Trump agenda bill due to bond market jitters.”

“I’m not a big fan of doing that,” Johnson told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” when asked about ratcheting up taxes on the rich. “We’re the Republican Party and we’re for tax reduction for everyone. So, I mean, that’s a general principle that we always try to abide by.”

Postie Ryan King acknowledged that moderates are skittish (or as Trump termed them, “yippy”) about “deep cuts to programs like Medicaid, creating a predicament for Johnson, given the slim GOP control of the House and Senate” and pachydermical plans to increase defense spending.

Tax hikes on the rich have been floated as a means of making the math work; even hardliners such as Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) at least expressing “openness” to it.

Privately, Trump has told Senate Republicans that he is open to “jacking up taxes on high-income earners,” Semafor reported. Fellow skeptics also include House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.).

And Trump ally Steve Bannon insisted that Republicans will jack up taxes on the rich, telling “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday that “Trump and the MAGA movement will raise taxes on the wealthy.”

On Stage Left, the Guardian U.K. reported on a new analysis of company filings by the Groundwork Collaborative economic thinktank after eleven top US consumer goods corporations reportedly spent more than three times as much on share buybacks as they did on taxes.

PepsiCo, Comcast, personal care giant Kimberly Clark, line-of-fire United Healthcare and the other companies collectively recorded half a trillion dollars (US) in profits since the last cuts. “They enacted $463bn in buybacks and paid just $140bn in federal taxes.” (April 9^th, ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN)

“The companies are now throwing massive amounts of money at investors who are largely already wealthy people,” said Pancotti of Groundwork (above). “This is how you get the staggering wealth inequality in this country.”

In analyzing prices on food, GUK contended that General Mills and PepsiCo (well, at least the latter is often sold in food stores) “have returned $66bn to shareholders and paid just $16bn in taxes since the cuts.” Diaper merchers Kimberly Clark and Procer Gamble have seen their profits “soar by at least 70% as they raise prices across their multitude of brands and consumers pay about one-third more overall on personal goods” with the average American family paying $1,000 more per year per child since the days of the plague, “prompting some state governments to start covering the costs under Medicaid” which is the turkey neck on Trump’s tax and tariff chopping block.

Similar instances of gouging are endemic in shelter, in Comcast and AutoZone and other corporations where executive compensation is tied to stock price, and higher share prices keep activist shareholders at bay, “so there’s plenty of reason for company leadership to enact them,” Lenore Palladino, a University of Massachusetts economist, told the Guardian.

Fox (April 9^th, ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN) was relieved to report that Trump’s tax cut proposal survived what was termed a "rule vote," a “framework that serves as one of the first steps in the budget reconciliation process.” The legislation survived by the narrowest of margins... 216 to 215 votes... with three Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.; Victoria Spartz, R-Ind.; and Mike Turner, R-Ohio — voting with Democrats to block it.

But several other Republicans who voted to allow debate on the measure said they “will still oppose its final passage” unless amendments were made. Republican fiscal hawks raised concerns about the differences in minimum mandatory spending cuts, which they hope will offset the cost of new federal investments and start a path to reducing the deficit.

The Senate's version calls for at least $4 billion in spending cuts, while the House baseline begins at $1.5 trillion — a significant gap.

“Conservatives have demanded extra guarantees from the Senate GOP that it is committed to pursuing deeper spending cuts in line with the House package,” said the Fox.

"They don't have a plan that I've seen. So until I see that, I'm a no," Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital. 

After amending the legislation to include the deeper spending cuts that recalcitrant Republicans demanded, the House... on Thursday last... passed Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” by a comparative landslide: 216 to 214.

Since the House bill has deeper spending cuts than the one passed by the Senate, the two versions must be merged into one bill for Trump to sign into law in a merger process called "reconciliation" – “and further legislation will be needed to enact the bigger tax cuts that Trump has asked for.” (BBC, ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN)

“The House plan, currently a broad blueprint with many details still to be worked out, would cut taxes by about $5 trillion (£3.9 trillion). Over the next decade, it would also (also) add $5.7 trillion to the US government's debt,” according to another U.K. medium - Reuters. “The Treasury reports that US debt currently stands at around $36 trillion.”

The revisions won over Turner, leaving Massie and Spartz the only dissenters in the House.

The budget measure will also slash the money coming into the US federal government. If it eventually passes, the bill will extend tax cuts that were passed during Trump's first term in 2017.

President Trump has also asked for additional tax cuts on tips – to make good on a campaign promise to end income taxes on tips for service-industry workers – as well as on overtime wages and Social Security retirement benefits.

Those tax cuts, if passed, would further increase US government debt.

In a statement after the House vote, the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said: "This vote is more than a budget win; it's a statement of purpose and strength, which affirms the Trump administration's commitment to delivering growth and opportunity."

“A rise in federal borrowing requires another vote by Congress to increase the debt ceiling.” Although such measures have been contentious, Bessent said during a cabinet meeting on Thursday that he was confident that Congress would raise the ceiling again later this year.

However the leader of the House Democrats, Hakeem Jeffries, called the budget bill a "disgrace" and criticised potential cuts to Medicaid, the US government program that funds health care for low-income Americans.

The legislation which calls for a minimum of $4 billion in spending cuts is far less than a previous version approved by the House that mandates $1.5 trillion in cuts. Reuters, again (ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN) said “the $4 billion figure is simply a minimum that does not prevent Congress from passing much larger spending cuts in the months to come.”

Republican leaders said that if the billions in tax cuts are not renewed, “Americans will face a tax hike of trillions of dollars” not to mention the revenues lost to “tax breaks for overtime wages, tipped income and Social Security benefits, that Trump promised on the campaign trail.” Nonpartisan analysts (unnamed) said that could drive the bill's cost north of $11 trillion.

Billions... trillions... what’s a few million here and there, falling out of Uncle Sam’s wallet. Don Jones would sure like to pick even that up... yessirree!

"I don't care how philosophically principled you are, I don't care how bold and dramatic the legislation is, if (the billions, not trillions bill) never makes it to the president's desk, it's never going to become a law," Republican Representative Frank Lucas of Oklahoma said in a Thursday interview.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune tried to sway the concerns of the House hardliners, pledging, "we'll certainly do everything we can to be as aggressive as possible" with spending cuts.

Speaker Johnson assured the fiscal hawks that he’d push for work requirements for able-bodied young men who "play video games all day" and said the rest of the cuts would come from a clearing away of waste, fraud, and abuse in the system... Democrats, of course, declaring otherwise and even wishy washy Republican Susan Collins dissented: “I don't see how you get to $880 billion."

“What they’re doing in reality is giving billionaires the national credit card and telling them to go hog wild,” said Representative Angie Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, during the legislative debate.

Now?

Riley Beggin of USA Today (ATTACHMENT NINETEEN) predicted “weeks of debate” on the details of new tax cuts “and how much to spend on each program, as lawmakers flesh out the bare-bones resolution.”

Republicans plan to pass their tax, tariff and budget bill through "reconciliation," which allows them “to skirt the Senate filibuster and its challenging 60-vote threshold.” But passage of the tax cuts may add between five and eleven trillion to the National Debt over the next decade which the ‘Pubs believe can be reconciled by slashing Medicaid, snatching school lunches from children and avoiding the looming default by raising the debt ceiling another $5 trillion.

Trump has targeted Harvard and... were he more competent... would be able to shut it down. But he isn’t, and he can’t, so HKS.HARVARD.org (ATTACHMENT TWENTY) solicited trade expert Robert Lawrence (the Albert L. Williams Professor of International Trade and Investment at HKS – the Harvard Kennedy (John and Bobby, not Bobby Junior) School, as graduated Peters Hegseth and Navarro, Bill O’Reilly and Turkish dictator Erdogan – and author of “Behind the Curve: Can Manufacturing Still Provide Inclusive Growth?”) to discourse upon the debt, the deficit and other things... and Lawrence answered that just over 8% of Americans work in manufacturing... that manufacturing (at present) “is simply too small to have a significant impact on the American labor force,” comprised of gumment men (and women), middlemen and merchers and way, way too many parasites.

Lawrence believes in a New World Order in which Americans no longer make stuff... trade, taxes, tariffs and services or not... so the robots and foreigners will do the work Americans used to do.

Maybe somebody should consider legislation to tax the robots?

He says that the bright side is that higher tariffs will strengthen the dollar, but the dark is that “foreigners are not going to take these tariffs lying down. They are going to retaliate.” As they have.

The old debate was, asked Lawrence, “do we decouple the West from China?” The new debate is going to be, “does the rest of the world really need the United States?”

Or Harvard?

In anticipation of Liberation Day (and April Fools’), the Washpost, prior to his humiliation pauses, coached advisers that the tariffs represented “a generational opportunity to transform the U.S. economy.” (March 29^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE) This kicked off the first of many stock market declines and pissed off brokers and broke retirees... but did electrify Steve Bannon, who gushed: “Instead of Trump’s Birthday, make ‘Liberation Day’ a national holiday to honor the jobs, skills, and trade that returned to America and her workers.”

And her robots.

“At some point they’re going to have to choose a strategy, because several of these stated goals are in contradiction with each other,” said Erica York, an economist with the Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank. “You can’t have a tariff for everything and everyone — in time, they will have to reveal what the real purpose is.”

And the President...

The WashPost reported that, in an interview with NBC posted on Saturday, Trump said he “couldn’t care less” if carmakers raised prices as a result of the tariffs. “I hope they raise their prices, because if they do, people are going to buy American-made cars. We have plenty,” Trump said.

“LIBERATION DAY IN AMERICA IS COMING, SOON,” the president posted on Truth Social. “FOR YEARS WE HAVE BEEN RIPPED OFF BY VIRTUALLY EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, BOTH FRIEND AND FOE. BUT THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.”

USA Today asked and answered such questions as the curious wandered and wondered about (ATTACHMENT TWENTY TWO) such as what are reciprocal tariffs (matching duties on nations that charge fees on U.S. exports), why (because the U.S. “has allowed other nations to levy tariffs on U.S. exports without any consequences”), and “who are the Dirty Fifteen?”

The Dirty Fifteen, SecTreas Scott Bessent said on Fox Business are “nations that contribute most significantly to the U.S. trade deficit and impose the largest tariffs.” These include China, Mexico, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Canada, India, Thailand, Switzerland, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, South Africa and various members of the European Union, according to the Wall Street Journal.

See more Q&A at the Attachment.

“The Republican president plans to tax imported pharmaceutical drugs, copper and lumber,” Time opined (ATTACHMENT TWENTY THREE)

“He has put forth a 25% tariff on any country that imports oil from Venezuela, even though the United States also does so. Imports from China are being charged an additional 20% tax because of its role in fentanyl production. Trump has imposed separate tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico for the stated reason of stopping drug smuggling and illegal immigration. Trump also expanded his 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs to 25% on all imports.”

ComSec Lutnick says they will force other nations to show Trump “respect.”

Curvy e-con-mystic Arthur Laffer, who says he views “Trump as a smart and savvy negotiator”, estimates the tariffs on autos, if fully implemented, “could increase per vehicle costs by $4,711.” The investment bank Goldman Sachs estimated that the economy would grow this quarter at an annual rate of just 0.6%, “down from a rate of 2.4% at the end of last year.”

Happy Harvard grad and out-of-jail Pete Navarro told the Fox that auto tariffs, alone would raise $100 billion annually and the other tariffs “would bring in about $600 million per year, or about $6 trillion over 10 years. As a share of the economy, that would be the largest tax increase since World War II, according to Jessica Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.”

Foreign leaders responded as follows...

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Trump's tariff threats had ended the partnership between his country and the United States and that Canada already has announced retaliatory tariffs.

French President Emmanuel Macron said the tariffs were “not coherent” and would mean "breaking value chains, creating inflation in the short term and destroying jobs.

The Chinese government said Trump's tariffs would harm the global trading system and would not fix the economic challenges identified by Trump.

Time (ATTACHMENT TWENTY FOUR) also took note of the President’s knee-taking (which he persisted in calling a victory)... telling the press that people “were jumping a little bit out of line... getting yippy.”

A few more responses from foreign leaders were solicited...

Bangladesh

Muhammad Yunus, Bangladesh’s interim leader, thanked Trump for “responding positively to our request” for a pause. The U.S. is the biggest export market for Bangladesh, which had been hit hard by a 37% tariff.

European Union

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the tariff pause in a Thursday statement, calling it an “important step towards stabilising the global economy.”

Germany

Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz said Trump’s move is a “response to the determination of the Europeans.”

Greece

“There is a European message and then there is a Greek message,” Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece told American conservative news network Breitbart on Wednesday. “On the European front there is a possibility of finding a win-win solution when it comes to trade, a solution which will be mutually beneficial. As far as Greece is concerned, we have a strategic partnership with the U.S. I have worked with President Trump before and I can work very well with him again...”

India

An unnamed Indian government official told Reuters on Thursday that the country wants to move swiftly on a trade deal with the U.S., after Trump temporarily reduced a 27% “reciprocal” tariff on the country to 10%.

Ireland

Simon Harris, the Tánaiste or second-ranking government leader of Ireland said in a Wednesday statement after meeting the same day with ComSec Lutnick in Washington, D.C. that Trump’s pause “will come as a relief to many businesses in Ireland,”

Italy

Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti said Italy, also welcomed Trump’s pause on tariff – telling reporters in Rome on Wednesday: “Within the G7 all of us outside the U.S. spoke to try to calm the situation and find a way to bring the Trump administration to the table and to a reasonable position.”

Japan

Ryosei Akazawa, Japan’s Minister for Economic Revitalization, told Bloomberg News that the country’s “position is unchanged” and that “...(w)e continue to express our strong concerns and strongly request that they be reviewed.” citing ongoing targeted tariffs on Japan’s metals and automobiles.

Trump would personally meet with Italian and Japanese representatives later this week.

Malaysia

Malaysia’s Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry posted on LinkedIn that the country welcomes Trump’s pause on higher tariffs. Malaysia had been hit with a 24% “reciprocal” U.S. tariff, and other members, including Vietnam and Thailand, of ASEAN, which Malaysia holds the rotating chairship of this year, also faced significant levies.

Poland

Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland posted “let’s make the best of the next 90 days on X... maintaining close transatlantic relations is a common responsibility of Europeans and Americans, regardless of temporary turbulences,” Tusk added.

South Korea

South Korean trade envoy Cheong In-kyo met with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and said that the tariff pause “provides room for negotiations.”

Taiwan

Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung also said Trump’s pause gives the country “breathing room for negotiations.” A bulk of Taiwan’s trade surplus with the U.S. is in its export of semiconductors, but Trump waived tariffs after Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)—the world’s largest chipmaker—pledged another $100 billion investment in the U.S.

U.K.

The U.K. will continue to “coolly and calmly” approach negotiations with the U.S., as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told Sky News that “What we want to see is a reduction in barriers to trade, so countries can trade effectively.”

Vietnam

The U.S. and Vietnam agreed to begin negotiations for a trade agreement as Deputy Prime Minister Ho Duc Phoc said the two countries, “should work towards creating a framework to allow for mutual trade relations.”

Vietnam had earlier offered to cut its tariff rates on U.S. goods to 0%, Trump said on Truth Social, but White House trade advisor Peter Navarro... accusing the Vietnamese of being cheaters... said the offer was not good enough.

The German publication DW further reported that they and, in fact, the entire EU would suspend its own retaliatory tariffs to allow "time" for negotiations. (ATTACHMENT TWENTY FIVE)

Their timeline of tariff happenings included Trump’s April 9^th tariff pause after EU trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic said that the Euros consider US tariffs “unjustified and damaging, risking economic harm to both sides, as well as (to) the global economy”; Chinese leader Xi’s arrival in Hanoi to plot strategy with the Vietnamese; Japanese PM Shigeru Ishiba’s anti-American speech to parliament in advance of trade talks between Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato and SecTreas Scott Bessent - including further warnings by Trump against the Japanese attempt to buy U.S. Steel, and a rebound on the world financial markets against the U.S. dollar – sending American financial speculators out to buy more gold.

In Shanghai, anti-American sentiment on the streets was rising, according to the Guardian U.K. (April 11^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY SIX) with State media and the foreign ministry have been sharing a clip of the former US president Ronald Reagan decrying tariffs in 1987. On X, foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has been trolling the US, posting a meme of a Make America Great Again baseball cap increasing in price from $50 to $77.

The most telling propaganda has been the resurfacing of a video clip of former Chinese leader Mao Zedong from 1953. “As to how long this war (the Korean) will last, we are not the ones who can decide,” Mao says. “No matter how long this war is going to last, we will never yield,” he’d said to applause.

Historians are comparing the present moment to the Opium Wars, which were fought over an unsavoury mix of addictive opiates and anger about trade imbalances – just like in 2025. GUK included admonitions by Ren Yi, an influential commentator who writes under the name Chairman Rabbit, who wrote: “The trade war is a war of public opinion, public sentiment, and information … China should adopt a ‘wartime’ state of tension in terms of public opinion, and all sectors should move in one direction and one goal. This issue is by no means a joke.”

For proof, Beijing banned the import of Hollywood movies last week and Chinese comedians... yes, there are a few... joked that Trump’s new slogan should be “MCGA” – Making China Great Again.

Some of GUK’s Shanghai sources also warned that, “without the linchpin of trade keeping the US and China on co-operative terms, the reasons for avoiding more dangerous conflicts, such as war in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, are becoming less compelling.”

Reuters (April 13^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY SEVEN) went a little bit further in reporting that the Chinese have put civilian government officials in Beijing on “wartime footing” and – short of invading Taiwan, have ordered a diplomatic charm offensive “aimed at encouraging other countries to push back against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, according to four people familiar with the matter.”

Their gang of four described how Beijing's diplomats have been engaging other governments targeted by Trump tariffs, including sending letters seeking cooperation to several countries. “Longstanding U.S. allies in Europe, Japan and South Korea have also been contacted, two people said.”

Most of the people spoke on condition of anonymity to describe confidential government deliberations.

"China is a responsible major country. We stand up against hegemony, not only to safeguard our own rightful interests, but also to uphold the common interests of the international community," the Chinese foreign ministry said in a faxed statement.

Reuters, looking back to Trump 1.0 recalled that, between 2017 and 2021, Beijing had several high-level channels of communication, “most notably between then-ambassador Cui Tiankai and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.”

There isn’t an equivalent channel this time around, according to a Beijing official familiar with Sino-American ties, who added that China wasn’t sure who spoke for Trump on their relationship.

Chinese ambassador to the U.S. Xie Feng made unsuccessful attempts before the election to reach Trump’s billionaire ally Elon Musk, according to another anonymous “U.S. scholar”. Musk did not return the Brits’ request for comment nor Reuters reported, did assorted curiosities from Trump’s cabinet including NatSec’s Mike Waltz and SecState Marco Rubio, whom they describe as a “China hawk”.

The most the world, the media and Don Jones learned regarding the potentiality of trade war or even real war with China came during an appearance by ComSec Howard Lutnick on ABC Sunday, where Lutnick merely surmised that “intermediaries” expected that the President of the United States and President Xi of China would “work this out," Lutnick said.

Instead, Reuters opined, the Chinese... “(d)rawing on lessons from Trump’s first term,” have created “a retaliatory playbook that includes tariffs as well as restrictions on about 60 U.S. companies and curbs on exports of rare earths,” which embargo probably impacts American tech jockeys even more than “Minecraft” will disappoint Chinese chicken jockeys.

DW (above) reported that Asian stocks rose after Trump's weekend announcement of an exemption of tariffs on electronics. In Tokyo, the Nikkei 225 Index was up 1.6% while in Hong Kong, the Hang Seng Index rose 2.4%. The Shanghai Composite Index also rose 0.8% on Monday morning. Stocks in Sydney, Seoul, Singapore, Taipei and Manila also went up before going down, again, today.

Time’s Philip Elliott fingered the one person... aside from Trump “who could definitely put an end to this economic chaos...” and his name is (Speaker) Mike Johnson. (ATTACHMENT TWENTY EIGHT)

Phil added that Trump continued to “goad a global meltdown” (Donnie, perhaps being the “Greatest Of All Dunces”) and that his antics have triggered a “circus” that “may haunt GOP lawmakers for a generation and retirees into their graves.”

Here’s looking at you, Chuck Grassley.

“If Johnson were to give the green light to a measure reasserting Congress’ authority over tariffs,” Elliott fantasizes, “things would change really quickly on Capitol Hill. There would likely be majorities in both chambers for such legislation—perhaps even large enough to override the veto Trump promised on Monday to issue if such a bill reached his desk.

“But such a bold move could very well lead to Johnson getting a pink slip from his caucus, as his Speakership barely happened, and only then with Trump’s intervention.

The chances? Nil! Phil noted a “top hand” among House Republicans who texted him that “President Trump is still the leader of the party. Speaker Johnson has the gavel. Leader [John] Thune runs the Senate. And the Supreme Court is our friend. As the kids say: STFU.”

So the decision to postpone Trump’s tariffs on mostly everyone except China could not help but inspire relief.

“Republicans were otherwise pleased with the apparent retreat a week after Trump’s Rose Garden announcement threw the financial and political worlds into a frenzy,” reported a trio of politicos from Politico (April 9^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY NINE)

“I think jubilation is too strong a word, but ... it was positive,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who described fellow senators “checking in on the balances of their retirement account as stocks surged.”

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer Greer, “who spent Tuesday and Wednesday morning defending the tariff rollout and insisting the president shouldn’t let the stock market drive his economic decisions,” told the House Ways and Means Committee that he knew a pause on the tariffs was under discussion when he entered the hearing in the morning “but that he only learned of the pause in real time.”

Other lawmakers “also appeared to have little insight into what, exactly, changed Trump’s mind. Several lawmakers pointed to Trump, himself, saying he was ultimately responsible for setting the policy.”

“As he promised, he’s going to use these tariffs to leverage good, strong trade agreements, just like he got finished before in Trump 45,” said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). “So I’m excited.”

The Polititrio next channeled Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most vocal opponents of tariffs in the Senate, (who) was more blunt: “Ten percent tariffs are bad, but they’re better than 60 percent.”

“Behold the ‘Art of the Deal,’” Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X.

Privately, though, others in the GOP saw little method to the madness. “What a shitshow,” said a conservative House Republican granted anonymity to react candidly to the pause, “and after [Greer] just testified how we need the tariffs?”

Elliott, again, contended that “President Donald Trump blinked. Sort of.” (Time, April 9^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY)

“While markets acted with giddiness and the White House took a victory lap, it was an obvious climb-down but not a full-on retreat. And, like so much else in Trump’s hour-by-hour zigzag, both global leaders and millions of businesses have no confidence that the latest rules will still be in place by the time I finish typing this sentence,” Elliott opined, further declaring that the President has been made “the new king of the sandbox after throwing a tantrum that traumatized his bullied rivals.”

Trade Rep Greer, as described in Elliott’s previous treatise, noted the 10% tariff is on the low end. “We should be running up the score,” he told the Senate Finance Committee – saying the proceeds could help reduce the national pile of red ink.

Cato-mite Scott Lincicome, having included the President’s voluntary pause among three options (perhaps excluding the reality of permanent reciprocity as too grisly to contemplate) told Elliott that Trump’s “sudden lurch” against the “coin-toss” SCOTUS and feckless Congress was the least worst of all possible worlds.

“It sucks, but it’s not Armageddon,” Lincicome said.

A CBS poll on the long-term impacts found Americans split according to partisanship, but both factions made the assumption that the tariffs wouldn’t be permanent... that Trump was just using them in his long-term strategy of expressing dominance and then cutting deals. (April 13^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY ONE)

“But in the short term, a big majority of Americans think new tariffs are going to raise prices, and many think that's the case in the long term, too. So, an inflation-weary public is bracing for that to hit their bottom line: a growing number think Trump's policies are making them financially worse off, not better,” most think that tariffs will make the economy worse more immediately, too and a majority finally agrees that Donald Trump now owns the issue, the economy and the future.

Old Joe’s ghost has finally been exorcised... for better or for worse. “A majority say his policies, not Joe Biden's, are responsible”

Bouncing from issue to issue to issue, short and/or long term, the CBS/YouGov numbers found more people saying they liked Trump's goals with tariff and trade policy than liked his approach; that Republicans and most independents believed “judging Trump's trade policies will take at least a few months (or even years) to evaluate”, while Democrats were more ready to evaluate them sooner; that, while all factions believed that “the wealthy and corporations” would benefit, effects on the middle and working class were divided by their biases (and Trump’s trending, like the markets, was pointing down).

For the large majority who think the economy was worsening, prices and general lack of confidence were cited as top reasons, along with Donald Trump specifically. Those who think the economy is good — a group that includes a lot of Republicans — listed Mr. Trump, along with general confidence, and the job market. 

“(C)urrent views of the U.S. economy have been majority negative for years and still are. More Republicans are calling it good now, a partisan effect we often see over the years when the White House changes hands. And Republicans say that's in part due to their confidence in general and because of Donald Trump in particular. Those Republicans pushed the overall economy rating up a bit, even as Democrats and independents rated it worse.”

Along with economics and jobs, “Republicans also see tariffs and trade as a matter of fairness and patriotism.”  And most Republicans don't want Congress involved, even though it's a Republican-controlled Congress.

(See all the charts, graphs and more numbers than even a gopher can eat here!)

While businesspeople have tended to trend Republican, key industrial, service and financial sectors largely approved of the tariff can-kick – which approval, openly expressed or not, extended to Congress (Politico, April 9^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY TWO) even if many lawmakers “also appeared to have little insight into what, exactly, changed Trump’s mind.” Several pointed to Trump, himself, saying he was ultimately responsible for setting the policy; Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said he’s been “seeking information from the administration on who, ultimately, is helping to shape Trump’s plan.” A growing number of media-ites, especially among the financial presses, believe it was the weakening Treasury Bond status that prompted the pivot.

“Behold the ‘Art of the Deal,’” Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X.

Billionaires and businesspeople, especially retailers who long have marched cheap Chinese warez to middle and lower-income customers remained angry and fearful when interviewed by the liberal GUK.

These ranged from a baby-supply mercher in Minnesota now experiencing “suicidal thoughts” (April 10^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY THREE), to a quartet of Richie Richmen (April 7, ATTACHMENT THIRTY FOUR) and one outlier who has profited from the chaos and confusion.

The losers...

Elon Musk: whose estimated wealth has fallen by $130bn, although he still comfortably remains the world’s richest person, with a net worth of $302bn despite some Americans torching his Teslas...

Mark Zuckerberg: the world’s third richest (after Musk and Jeff Bezos’ $193bn) and now worth $179bn lost many of his component suppliers and customers in Asia to the tune of $28bn.

Bezos: lost $23.5bn in two days, $45bn so far this year.

Bernard Arnault: Europe’s richest (at $158bn) has lost $18.6bn this year – including “$6bn on Thursday and more than $5bn on Friday as Trump’s tariffs hit the Asian factory hubs that underpin (his) global garment industry.”

Not all billionaires have seen their net worth decrease, despite the two-day rout.

Warren Buffett, the world’s sixth richest person, (whom GUK calls the “sage of Omaha”) has seen his wealth increase by $12.7b to $155bn this year. On Friday, Trump shared a video on his social media site, Truth Social, that erroneously claimed Buffett had praised his recent economic policies. Berkshire Hathaway subsequently denied the contention and saying that comments attributed to Buffett were false.

The MAGAminions at New York’s Post reported that Trump’s base was “sticking with him” (April 13^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY FIVE) even as the liberals “were beginning to blame him for economic strife that has bubbled up during his tariff push,” according to the CBS poll (above).

Fox (ATTACHMENT THIRTY SIX) interpreted the CBS numbers as proving that Trump’s tariffs were ‘aggressive, but probably needed’ (according to “Nancy from North Carolina”) while two men from Michigan disagreed...

"They're great," ‘Steve’ said. "I think they're great for our country and going to be great for our country in the long run. Little hiccup right now, but in the long run, we'll be way better off."

"He's bullying our friends and all the country, the whole world, and he's trying to get things to change by bullying people," ‘Ford’ replied.

Biting the hand that slaps them, more liberal losers whined about the duties, ‘Shane’ complained that Trump was “...trying to take advantage of our influence in the world,” while ‘Mary’ doubted that they were “appropriate” and ‘David’ called them too “broad.”

But hope springs eternal, once spring has sprung. "In the long run, they're going to be good," contended ‘Glen’. "I think that right now we're going to feel the effects of it from the economy, but it will probably for a few months. But I think, in the longer run, it's going to work out."

The news was not very good, said the professionals. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon opined that the broad tariff program “would lead to a recession.” (1440, ATTACHMENT THIRTY SEVEN)

The good news, Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin said, is that price hikes from tariffs may not arrive until the summer “as companies work through existing inventory.” Which, of course, augurs more weeks (or months or years) of belt-tightening and higher prices until American manufacturers can catch up with the Chinese (unless they can lower labor costs via wage cuts, or robots or skimping a bit, here and there, on quality, transparency or safety).

NPR’s take on Trump’s pauses focused on his remarks at the White House – widely transmitted – that the “bond market” had factored into his decision.

"Well, I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy, you know. They're getting a little bit … afraid," Trump told reporters.

Earlier, in a hastily arranged gaggle with reporters outside the White House, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted that the market chaos caused by Trump's hefty tariffs was not the reason for the policy shift.

"This was driven by the president's strategy. He and I had a long talk on Sunday, and this was his strategy all along," Bessent told reporters. (April 9^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY EIGHT)

Bessent said China was the "biggest source" of trade issues for the United States and the rest of the world.

"I'm not calling it a trade war, but I'm saying that China has escalated, and President Trump responded very courageously to that, and we are going to work on a solution with our trading partners," he said.

Yahoo’s ‘yippy’ yokels quoted POTUS as having said: "We decided to pull the trigger and we did it today and we are happy about it," he said. "If you keep going, you are going to be back to where it was four weeks ago," he added. (ATTACHMENT THIRTY NINE)

The sharp move upward in markets came after Trump paused many tariffs but kept 10% baseline duties in place that came into effect last weekend for all countries.

That baseline does not apply to Mexico or Canada, which still face a separate set of duties related to fentanyl.

The President said this was not a negotiation by saying "sometimes it's not a negotiation until it is."

A new Yale Budget Lab study released Tuesday estimating that the tariffs could push prices up by 2.3% and translate to an average of $3,800 more in costs this year for families.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called it evidence the administration is "feeling the heat" from Democrats, and claimed "irretrievable damage" had already been done to the U.S. economy – but pivoted just as the news broke.

"It's still an issue, but not today," he told the Fox (ATTACHMENT FORTY).

"Volatility in our economy is so destructive,” New York’s other Senator Kirsten Gillibrand toldPresident Trump may have paused these reciprocal tariffs, but he's maintained a 10% tariff on all of them. Businesses will now not invest in new projects or expand their workforce because they have no idea of what is coming next," Gillibrand warned.

"A 90-day pause means they don't know what's gonna happen at the end of the 90 days.”

Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) claimed that "America First" had translated to "America alone."

"I've never seen this level of isolation of the United States as I do right now, and that is so damaging on so many different fronts," Kim claimed.

Polling from Quinnipiac University shows that 72% of voters thought the tariffs would hurt the U.S. economy in the short term. (USA Today ATTACHMENT FORTY ONE) A smaller majority (expected a long-term impact.)

Trump may have “blinked” but, reported US News (ATTACHMENT FORTY TWO), the real headache remains China, “the world’s top exporter (ahead of No. 2, the United States) and a global rival in economic, military and diplomatic terms.”

ComSec Lutnick says Donnie “expects to have conversations” with Chinese President Xi Jinping,

Chinese officials have watched Trump suddenly change his mind, and they “don’t want to own responsibility for setting Xi up to be humiliated by Trump on [the] world stage,” said Ryan Hass, a Brookings Institution scholar.

The Trump administration's 145% tariff on Chinese goods "could hardly have come at a worse time" for China, where – as Lily Kuo reported for The Washington Post – exports have been "a rare bright spot" in a struggling economy, As the U.S. accounts for about 15% of China's total exports, some financial analysts are predicting the trade war could halve the country's projected GDP growth.

“So we may be in this mess for a while,” U.S. News ventured.

A quartet of New York Timepieces blamed (or credited) the government bond yields for Trump’s reverse course on everyone but China despite his resistance to rethink the levies. (ATTACHMENT FORTY THREE)

“I know what the hell I’m doing,” he told Republicans on Tuesday as the massive tariffs he had imposed sent global markets into a tailspin. “BE COOL!” he said in a social media post Wednesday morning. “Everything is going to work out well.”

At 9:37 a.m. Wednesday, the president was still bullish on his policy, posting on Truth Social: “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!”

But, by that afternoon, the markets were “yippy” and, soon, the lawyers were jumping like fleas over his “yeepy” decree... the afternoon before Tax Day, Libertarians became first in line to file suit against “Liberation Day” – challenging the President’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute which provides a president with the authority to impose “necessary economic sanctions” to combat an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” never before used to impose tariffs. (The Hill, ATTACHMENT FORTY FOUR)

“Our system is not set up so that one person in the system can have the power to impose taxes across the world economy. That’s not how our constitutional republic works,” Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center, told The Hill.

The Libs, conjoined with the Antonin Scalia Law School, now join Canada’s Blackfeet Nation, the New Civil Liberties Alliance to create an omnipartisan opposition to “Liberation Day.” More plaintiffs will inevitably arise.

Finally, the WashPost, yesterday, compliled a roster of American imports from China, along with an estimated value of how much each could cost Don Jones. (Attachment Forty Five).

Stephen Moore, a longtime ally of Trump’s who is co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, which supports the tax cuts to benefit billionaires, worries that the tariff overload might rouse the sheeple from the sleeple.

“We’re trying to steer Trump away from some of these protectionist tariffs — the steel and aluminum tariffs, for example, are not very effective. If you want to save manufacturing jobs, this is not the way to do it,” he’d told the Post a few days earlier. “There’s danger all the tariff stuff is drowning out the tax stuff.”

We’ll take a look at the math next week and determine who’ll benefit from Trump’s Tariffs, and who will not.

	Our Lesson: April 10 through April 16, 2025
Thursday, April 10, 2025 Dow: 39,593.66	Adter a week of tariff-toll declines, the Dow takes its biggest upward leap since 2008 as the result of President Trump’s sudden 90-day pause on all increases (with the exception of those imposed on China – which bans Hollywood movies for retaliation). Trump claims victory, Peter Navarro boasts of “beautiful deals” but Dems say T quit because of “yippiness” of the bond markets. NECSec. Kevin Hassett says all the countries of the world are lining up to make deals, but farmers remain worried about what and how much to plant. Russia swaps US ballerina who donated to Ukraine and got 12 years for a spy and arms dealer. They they resume bombing Ukraine’s schools and hospitals. Masters week begins as 4 year old Poppi McElroy scores a hold-in-one on the par 3 children’s tournament and the day ends with Justin Rose taking the lead.
Friday, April 11, 2025 Dow: 40,212.71	It’s National Pet Day. Death toll in Dominican Republican roof collapse hits 221 as rescue turns to recovery. Bankruptcy and near bankruptcy toll in USA strikes Weight Wartchers, Publisher’s Clearing House and Prada takes over Versace.. Dems accused Republicans for anti-vaxxing as RFK junior says that the measles outbreak has “plateaued” and promises that he will search for and find a cure for autism (which is up 400% since 2000). Stupid criminal tricks include the Georgia muder accidentally freed – who went directly to his mother’s house, was arrested and sent back to jail (hopefully after at least one home-cooked meal). In Wisconsin, 17 year old neo-Nazi Nikita Casap is arrested for thinking Trump weak and has to be assassassinated to set off a coup that will set a new leader in charge... himself!... but succeeds only in killing his parents (perhaps justifiably – for naming him after a Russian dictator), stealing their car and driving off with the family dog. He was quickly located and busted.
Saturday, April 12, 2025 Dow: Closed	It’s Passover. After celebrating seder with family, Gov. Shapiro’s home in Harrisburg, PA is set on fire by an arsonist who is arrested and who hated the Governor... either for being a Democrat and promoting the namby-pamby Proud Boys or for beng a Jew. Israel celebrates Holy Week by bombing and strafing Gaza as America moves “military assets” closer to Iran to guard against nuclear research, envoy Steve Witkoff to hold polite discussions with Mad Vlad. These and other wars continue. Trump pivots again to exempt tach and electronics from 145% China tariffs which UBS says, will double the costs of iPhones. Farmers and small businesses relieved, but still fearful, “Be cool!’ Trump says, “everything is going to work out OK.” But he also warns, “sometimes you have to take medicine.” Doctors and sick people remind him that the universal tariffs will also raise the price of medicine. Courts hand POTUS a split decision... ruling for the DOJ’s deportation of Columbia anti-Israel, maybe anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist Islamic student protester Mahmed Kahlil. But another orders that Trump bring back the wrongly deported Amado Garcia, whom the Feds say is a terrorist – Djonald UnResponsible say the matter is in the hands of El Salvador’s Bukele amd goes off to a UFC match
Sunday, April 13, 2025 Dow: Closed	And now, for the Christians, Palm Sunday. President Trump pivots again, taking palms off Apple and ilk by pausing tariffs on Chinese made or pared iPhones for an undisclosed epoch – maybe a month. Shopper scurry to buy phones and other electronics, as also new cars and ibuprofen. Witkoff (above) terms Iranian talks “positive”, but those dastardly Danes (still defiant over Greenland) arrest American tourists and have held them in jail for two weeks for disputing an Uber bill. Is a hostage swap in the works? On the Sunday talkshows, ComSec Lutnick says Trump always wanted to pause tariffs on Chinese electronics and the 145% was a ploy to get Xi to deal – which he has refused to do. Taiwan, too, because he expects them to be conquered by the ChiComs, sooner or later. Constipated anal-ists say it could take years to “re-shore” cellphone manufacturing, but 47 might not even give them a whole month. “He has the ball. I want him to have the ball. He’s the right person.” Sen. Elizebeth Warren (D-Ma) disagrees, citing Veep Vance’s insult that the Chinese are a bunch of “peasants”, She says we’ll need the courts to prevent recession because there will be a budgeting vote and the question is whether Republicans will bend the knee to support the “chaos or corruption” after Trump threw “a bucket of paint” over the economy – a bad thing, unlike some former “modern artists” who threw buckets of paint, even bananas around, and reaped millions, ABC roundtabler and former RNC chair Reince Priebus says Speaker Mike, not Trump, was behind the tariff pauses; former DNC chair Donna Brazile credits (or blams) bent-knee Republicans in Congress for passing a pro-billionaire budget by 2 votes. Panelist Rachel Bade says tariff 180° pivot happened “because markets spoke” – other panelist Sara Isgur said Trump won on ending grants to DEI, lost on immigration. On “Face the Nation” trade rep Jamison Greer said “we’ve shifted from one bucket of tariffs to another bucket of tariffs.” Or paint, as above
Monday, April 14, 2025 Dow: 40,524.77	Arsonist Cocy Balmer, a neo-Nazi mechanic “who expressed disdain for Democrats” fails in his attempt to assassinate Josh Shapiro by firebombing the Pennsylvania Governor’s mansion Passover night; authorities unclear whether the attempt was political or religious. Trump denies responsibility, calls him a nut. His problems are with China, who rejects deal offer and refuss to sell magnets newly pandering AI bosses at Apple, Google and Nvidia need. Doctors decry drug cutoffs to Big Pharma as small businesss worry about lack of cheap Chinese clothes, toys and novelties. Farmors worried about exporting soybeans as egg prices rebound – just in time for Easter. (TV e-con-mystics suggest dying potatoes or marshmallows,) Rory McIlroy wins Masters and sweep of majors on playoff after more twists and turns than tariff policy. WNBA holds draft of college athletes – Uconn’s Paige Bueckers goes #1 (see here for list). “Minecraft” tops B.O. but draws complaint as rowdy fans throw chickens and trash theaters. 5.2 EQ strikes near San Diego, but the only casualties are wines and bourbons in liquor store bottles. AFTSec Kash Patel fired for not showing up at his job. White House doctor calls Trump “fit to serve.” Devil cashes in as Cash 3 Lotto winning ticket is 666.
Tuesday, April 15, 2025 Dow: 40,368.96	It’s Tax Day. (See above) Estimators estimate that 1/3 of all IRS employees have quit or been fired. Celebrity female astronauts (Katy Perry, Gayle King, Aisha Bowe and three others) return from short, safe sojourn in space. Gayle kisses the earth and gets trolled, Katy sings “What a Wonderful World”. Back on Earth, President Trump angrily pulls $2.2B from Harvard for defying him on DEI and threatens to end their tax exempt status, calling it a terrorist training school. After El Salvador refuses to return the migrant sent to prison by mistake, Trump suggests he might round up un-cooperatives American citizens and deport them. The Democrats’ old guys, Former President Joe and the Bern rock out... Biden calls on GOP to defend Social Security, Sanders trips at Coachella (which, recovering from traffic problems makes tickets almost worth the cost. A big green dumpster takes up residence beside Gov. Shapiro’s firebombed mansion as balmy bomber Balmer blows the blarney in court, begging bail by saying he hates both Trump and Goneaway Old Joe. He doesn’t get it. Also in the dock: a Mangione wannabee who invaded United Healthcare “to make a statement” and a school shooter in Dallas (on the one year anniversary of a 2024 killing), a man arrested for cutting off kittens’ tails. Animals retaliate, an Easter Bunny hops into the engine of a Boeing 737 in Denver and starts a fire.
Wednesday, April 16, 2025 Dow: 39,669.39	Judge Paula Yunis orders Trump to bring back Garcia, but SecPress @ insists he’s a member of the M-13 cartel... thus a terrorists, thus non-returnable. Some Dems want the President held in contempt, more join after he pulls funds from Hahvahd for its DEI policies – TV lawyer Dan Abrams says what Trump really wants is to be President of Hahvahd. It all goes back to SCOTUS for more litigation and delays. No Show Kash (Patel) is replaced by @ Schackley, Hunter Biden’s former prosecutor. CalGov Newsome – already politicking for 2028 – asks: “Where the hell is Congress” as tariffs mount, optimists despair after finding out how much American stuff is made in China and prices on needles doubles, angering junkies. TIME selects its “100 Most Influential” and Top Five cover boys and girls... including @, @, @, @ and... Snoop Dogg? Yup! Out of Order: massive blackout in Puerto Rico leaves three million powerless, utility workers predict it will take three days to fix. Spotify also disappears, but has already come back. More angry animals include a bear invading a shopping mall in Hartford, CT, a wild turkey invading a grocery and liquor store in @, and investigators searching the home of deceased actor Gene Hackman and his hantavirus-killed wife find plague rats in the garage.

THE DON JONES INDEX

CHART of CATEGORIES w/VALUE ADDED to EQUAL BASELINE of 15,000

(REFLECTING… approximately… DOW JONES INDEX of June 27, 2013)

Gains in indices as improved are noted in GREEN. Negative/harmful indices in RED as are their designation. (Note – some of the indices where the total went up created a realm where their value went down... and vice versa.) See a further explanation of categories HERE

ECONOMIC INDICES		(60%)
CATEGORY	VALUE	BASE	RESULTS by PERCENTAGE			SCORE		OUR SOURCES and COMMENTS
INCOME	(24%)	6/17/13 revised 1/1/22	LAST	CHANGE	NEXT	LAST WEEK	THIS WEEK	THE WEEK’S CLOSING STATS...
Wages (hrly. Per cap)	9%	1350 points	4/10/25	+0.23%	5/25	1,564.72	1,564.72	https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wages   30.89 .96
Median Inc. (yearly)	4%	600	4/10/25	+0.057%	4/24/25	741.64	742.06	http://www.usdebtclock.org/   43,530 555 580 608
Unempl. (BLS – in mi)	4%	600	4/10/25	+2.38%	4/25	543.13	543.13	http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000/ 4.1 4.2
Official (DC – in mi)	2%	300	4/10/25	-0.12%	4/24/25	220.48	220.22	http://www.usdebtclock.org/      7,291 304 313 7,110
Unofficl. (DC – in mi)	2%	300	4/10/25	+12.25%	4/24/25	210.95	236.79	http://www.usdebtclock.org/     15,154 194 234 13,571
Workforce Participation Number Percent	2%	300	4/10/25	+0.027% -0.0051%	4/24/25	298.47	298.46	In 163,469 3,513 557 604 Out 102,646 689 732 544 Total: 266,202 289 61.428 424 421
WP % (ycharts)*	1%	150	4/10/25	+0.32%	4/25	151.19	151.19	https://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate 62.40 .50
OUTGO	(15%)
Total Inflation	7%	1050	4/10/25	+0.1%	4/25	942.43	941.49	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.2 -0.1
Food	2%	300	4/10/25	+0.4%	4/25	268.10	267.03	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.2 0.4
Gasoline	2%	300	4/10/25	- 6.3%	4/25	238.51	253.54	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm    -1.0 -6.3
Medical Costs	2%	300	4/10/25	-0.5%	4/25	283.68	282.26	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.3 0.5
Shelter	2%	300	4/10/25	+0.2%	4/25	255.61	255.10	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.3 0.2
WEALTH
Dow Jones Index	2%	300	4/10/25	+5.43%	4/24/25	292.37	308.25	https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/index/ 42,225.32 37,625.61 39,669.39
Home (Sales) (Valuation)	1% 1%	150 150	4/10/25	+4.41% +0.68%	4/25	128.69 282.27	128.69 282.27	https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics Sales (M):  4.26 Valuations (K):  398.4 NC
Debt (Personal) CANCELLED 3/27	2%	300	4/10/25	+0.043%	dead	265.30	265.30	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    75,162 CANCELLED crypto, credit card debt border encounters gold &silver
GOVERNMENT	(10%)
Revenue (trilns.)	2%	300	4/10/25	+0.14%	4/24/25	433.42	434.03	debtclock.org/       5,070 078 085 094
Expenditures (tr.)	2%	300	4/10/25	+0.11%	4/24/25	291.25	290.93	debtclock.org/       7,076 084 092 101
National Debt tr.)	3%	450	4/10/25	+0.08%	4/24/25	366.28	366.05	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    36,646 675 704 738
Aggregate Debt (tr.)	3%	450	4/10/25	+0.07%	4/24/25	384.79	384.52	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    102,747 893 3,039 3,206
TRADE	(5%)
Foreign Debt (tr.)	2%	300	4/10/25	-0.13%	4/24/25	278.98	278.62	http://www.usdebtclock.org/    8,649 660 671 697
Exports (in billions)	1%	150	4/10/25	+3.22%	5/25	173.21	173.21	https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 269.8 278.5
Imports (in billions))	1%	150	4/10/25	+0.025%	“	135.96	135.96	https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 401.2 401.1
Trade Surplus/Deficit (blns.)	1%	150	4/10/25	+7.09%	“	171.99	171.99	https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 131.4 122.7
SOCIAL INDICES		(40%)
ACTS of MAN	(12%)							5353
World Affairs	3%	450	4/10/25	-0.2%	4/24/25	475.45	474.64	Defiant Danes take two Americns hostage over Greenland and Uber bill. Russia swaps ballerina hostage for neo-Soviet spy. Americans plotting failed Congo coup to face trial in U.S., 32 USAID workers fired during Ebola outbreak in Uganda. Vengeful Danes arrest US tourists for Uber fare dispute. Hungary bans gatherings of gays.
War and terrorism	2%	300	4/10/25	-0.2%	4/24/25	288.42	287.84	Protests in Pocatello escalate after autistic teen shot by cops dies. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue with no end in sight, nobody seriously talking peace or even ceasefires.
Politics	3%	450	4/10/25	+0.1%	4/24/25	471.85	472.32	After skipping Carter funeral, Michelle Obama denies she’s divorcing Barry. Joe Biden makes “remember me?” video calling MAGAboys and girls “heartless.” Or running in 2028. Trump envoy Witkoff meets Iranians in Oman, says talks went well. Hegseth aide fired for leaking classified docs, Kash Patel quietly fired for repeated no-shows on the job.
Economics	3%	450	4/10/25	+0.1%	4/24/25	438.77	439.21	Prada buys out Versace for $1.4B California legislators debate allowing people who can’t afford kited rents to sleep in their cars. Bankruptcies include Publishers’ Clearing House, @ Angry Canadians and Euros cancel American tourism.
Crime	1%	150	4/10/25	-0.2%	4/24/25	217.06	216.63	In other crime news, cops shoot Weezer bassist’s wife and then arrests her for threatening them, school shooting in Dallas on one year anniversary of 2024 massacre at same school. South Carolina executes Mikal Mahdi by fireing squad, prison guard killed by mystery inmate in Groveland Prison in Syracuse, NY.
ACTS of GOD	(6%)							5467
Environment/Weather	3%	450	4/10/25	nc	4/24/25	369.36	369.36	Spring snow strikes New York, New Jersey and New England. Heat and fire danger return to Southwest – but no fires, yet. 5.4 quake rattles Puerto Rico.
Disasters	3%	450	4/10/25	-0.3%	4/24/25	414.88	413.64	Dominican dead 184 last Thursday after nightclub roof collapse – 231 today as rescue pivots to recovery. Six die in NYC copter crash, three in Boca Raton Fl. plane attacked by birds. With egg prices still rising for Easter, a truckload crashes and burns in Illionois. Detroit boy killed ty ice cream truck
LIFESTYLE/JUSTICE INDEX		(15%)						5532
Science, Tech, Education	4%	600	4/10/25	+0.1%	4/24/25	615.23	615.84	Mystery object from the skies crashes through a New Jersey auto body shop. ET needs repairs?
Equality (econ/social)	4%	600	4/10/25	+0.1%	4/24/25	658.50	659.16	Aisha Bowe becomes first Bahmian in space. DoE opens website for students to report DEIstic teachers.
Health	4%	600	4/10/25	-0.2%	4/24/25	433.77	432.90	White House doctor says Trump is fit. Pharmacies stop carrying drugs that sick people can no longer afford as fake Ozempic abounds and Pfizer abandons one weight loss pill due to liver damage, but touts another. Johnsonvlle recalls plastic-ky brats, Frito Lay recalls toxic Tostitos. Target recalls lead-ly baby food, Fischer-Price recalls crashworthy baby strollers,
Freedom and Justice	3%	450	4/10/25	+0.1%	4/24/25	482.60	483.08	Menendez DA’s display of crime photos causes elderly aunt to collapse and be hospitalized. Facebook antitrust trial essentially over after the Zuck pivots, sucks up to ’47.
CULTURAL and MISCELLANEOUS INCIDENTS			(6%)
Cultural incidents	3%	450	4/10/25	+0.3%	4/24/25	555.80	557.47	Lorne Michaels to produce a British version of SNL. “60 Minurtes” profiles comedy baseball team “Savannah Bananas” while May’s Cannes Filmfest adde a Stunt Man Prize. “Minecraft” wins BO despite chicken jockey fans vandalizing theatres. Hollywood will remake “The Bodyguard”, release a Backstreet Boys exposé docudrama. Michael Crichton’s widow calls Noah Wylie’s “The Pitt” a rip off of E.R. In sports, Rory McIlroy wins Masters, Page Buchner is first selected in WNBA draft, RIP actor Nikko Katt (“Dazed and Confused”) , LSU hoopster Kyra Lacy, talkshow host Wink Martindale and Fyre Fest Two.. Barry Manilow announces farewell tour.
Misc. incidents	4%	450	4/10/25	+0.1%	4/24/25	536.12	536.66	Devil cashes in on winning lotto ticket: 666. Starbucks imposes a dress code on its baristas.

The Don Jones Index for the week of April 10^th through April 16^th, 2025 was UP 58.41 points

The Don Jones Index is sponsored by the Coalition for a New Consensus: retired Congressman and Independent Presidential candidate Jack “Catfish” Parnell, Chairman; Brian Doohan, Administrator. The CNC denies, emphatically, allegations that the organization, as well as any of its officers (including former Congressman Parnell, environmentalist/America-Firster Austin Tillerman and cosmetics CEO Rayna Finch) and references to Parnell’s works, “Entropy and Renaissance” and “The Coming Kill-Off” are fictitious or, at best, mere pawns in the web-serial “Black Helicopters” – and promise swift, effective legal action against parties promulgating this and/or other such slanders.

Comments, complaints, donations (especially SUPERPAC donations) always welcome at feedme@generisis.com or: speak@donjonesindex.com.

ATTACHMENT ONE – FROM TAXFOUNDATION.ORG

TAXES: THE ORIGIN STORY

Taxes can be complicated and understanding them requires going deeper than knowing the current tax code and how it impacts behavior. The history of taxation, why it was used, and how it influenced previous societies can help us to understand the potential benefits and consequences to current and proposed taxes. This history can also help policymakers draft better legislation based on outcomes and patterns from the past.

Today’s tax codes are extensive and ever-changing, but many of the basic tax types governments depend on today, including sales taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes, have been around since early civilization.

About 5,000 years ago, we see the first record of taxation in ancient Egypt, where the Pharaoh collected a tax equivalent to 20 percent of all grain harvests. At the time, Egypt was without coined money, so grain represented a tangible store of value that could easily be collected, traded, and redistributed throughout society.

As with many modern innovations, the Greeks were responsible for taking the idea of taxation and spreading it throughout the developed world, as they expanded their realm and civilization evolved.

Fun Fact: The Rosetta Stone, our key to unlocking the meaning of hieroglyphics, was mostly a tax document that explained new tax laws decreed in 196 BCE.

The Start of Familiar Taxes

Sales Tax

Ancient Rome administered a sales tax. Julius Caesar was the first to implement a sales tax: a 1 percent flat rate that was applied across the entire Empire. Under Caesar Augustus, the sales tax was 4 percent, closer to a rate we see today in many U.S. state sales taxes.

Income Tax

Ancient Roman Emperor Augustus changed the tax system in the late 1^st century BCE. The collection had originally been done through “tax farmers” who collected taxes from their respective regions based on the assessment of the region as a whole and turned them over to the government. This system was tough to continue, and Augustus switched to a direct taxation system that resembled an income tax. This began as a direct tax on an individual’s wealth, but when it was clear this too was difficult to execute, the income tax replaced that collection.

Property Tax

In ancient times, property taxes were levied in Egypt, Persia, and China. Originally, these taxes were based on the production value of the land, or how much the plot was expected to yield in goods, and therefore were typically paid by farmers. Property taxes continued in Medieval Europe under William the Conqueror in England. Famously, Lady Godiva rode a horse through the streets naked in protest of the property tax rate her husband was forced to pay.

Inheritance Tax

Inheritance taxes originated in the Roman Empire and funded the pensions of veterans, levied at a rate of 5 percent on inherited property. The inheritance tax as we recognize it evolved from the “relief,” a payment made in the Middle Ages to a feudal lord when a fief was transferred to an heir at death.

Tariffs

Tariffs have been dated to the 3000s BCE on trade of metal and wool between the ancient city of Kanesh in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) and Assyria (in modern-day Iraq). The Roman Empire also levied tariffs, both on goods traded within the empire and imported from outside. Foreign goods were taxed at five to 25 times the rate of internal trades. Throughout history, tariffs have been levied to control the trade of certain goods like wool, leather, butter, cheese, and more.

The History of the American Tax System

Much of the start of America’s history centered around taxation. Originally, America was without its largest source of modern revenue: the income tax. Additionally, many original colonists and traders in the 17^th century were exempt from tax collection from their parent countries for a few years, and some for up to 20 years.

American colonies levied property taxes, excise taxes, poll taxes, and some early forms of income taxes, though tax rates and burdens were far less than their counterparts in Great Britain. While American governments were faring well financially, the British government faced debt from many wars worldwide.

This led to the British government turning to the American colonies for additional revenue, and the beginning of the tax struggle we are familiar with that led to the American Revolution. These included:

· Sugar Act of 1764: tax on molasses, sugar, and wine

· Stamp Act of 1765: taxes on important printed material like legal documents, newspapers, and pamphlets

· Townshend Acts of 1767: taxes on 72 items, including the tax on tea that led to the Boston Tea Party

The issue of “taxation without representation” played a large role in the development of the American legislative system and is seen in Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which granted the elected representatives in Congress the exclusive power to impose taxes on all citizens. While rates in the colonies were still far lower than those in England, the colonies lacked a formal representative body. State and local taxes were developed under the same guidelines.

Tariffs were the original pipeline of tax revenue for the U.S. government, including the “Tariff of Abominations” in 1828, which increased tensions between the North and South leading up to the Civil War. Post-Civil War, and due to rapid industrialization, exports became more common than imports, causing revenues to decline. In 1913, as a result of declining tariff revenues and as part of a political push to shift tax burdens onto the wealthy, the 16^th Amendment was ratified, which allows for federal taxes to be levied on individual and business incomes. The World Wars led to the expansion of the federal income tax to boost the national budget and further increase progressivity in the federal tax code. Today, the income tax is the top stream of government revenue.

This period saw the implementation of various new taxes that are familiar today: the estate tax (1916), the gift tax (1924), and Social Security payroll taxes (1937). State sales taxes began in Mississippi in 1930 as a response to lower property tax collections (until then the primary form of state tax revenue) during the Great Depression, and quickly spread to other states nationwide.

Gross receipts taxes also gained popularity in 1930s America; they were first implemented in West Virginia in 1921. Many of these were repealed by court decisions in the 1970s and today, only seven states still levy a gross receipts tax at the state level.

To learn more about some of the weirder taxes throughout history and their unintended consequences, check out our Tax Policy 101 Primer: The Weird Way Taxes Impact Behavior.

ATTACHMENT TWO – FROM BAKERTILLY.COM

ELECTION OUTCOMES IMPACT FUTURE TAX POLICY DECISIONS AND, IN 2024, THE STAKES ARE EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH.

The United States is facing a pivotal fiscal cliff next year, as numerous Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 provisions are scheduled to expire. Absent Congressional action, most TCJA provisions affecting individuals, estates and pass-through entities will sunset at the end of 2025, resulting in increased tax burdens for the majority of taxpayers. Additionally, businesses have been grappling with a trio of provisions that have already changed (unfavorably for taxpayers) as scheduled under the TCJA. The recent failure of a bipartisan bill that would have provided relief from those changes only adds pressure to enact comprehensive tax reform before the end of next year.

How the expired and expiring provisions are ultimately addressed will have pervasive and significant impacts on both individual and business taxpayers. The shape and contents of any potential tax reform is dependent upon the outcome of the upcoming elections and the balance of power heading into the 119th Congress. The range of possible solutions also varies widely, with sharp contrasts in general Republican and Democratic approaches, as well as variances in priorities and principles within parties. Adding to the complexity is the exorbitant price tag associated with a blanket extension. Because of the cost, solutions are not limited to the expiring provisions; everything, including permanent tax provisions, will be on the table during negotiations.

The impending TCJA expirations are creating instability in the tax policy landscape and hindering taxpayers' ability to make informed long-term decisions. Understanding the factors affecting decision-makers and tracking developments can help taxpayers overcome some of the uncertainty by assessing and planning for potential tax policy outcomes.

Our pages linked below dive further into the importance of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on today’s tax policy debate, discuss the 2024 elections and the implications of possible election outcomes, provide details on the tax policy platforms of both major parties and suggest a few steps taxpayers can take today.

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and its impact

When the TCJA was signed into law, it was the most sweeping tax legislation in three decades. Because of the process Congress used to pass the bill, not all TCJA provisions were made permanent; some were only enacted temporarily. How the TCJA’s impending expirations are handled is likely to have ramifications for almost every taxpayer in the United States.

Visit our Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and its impact page to learn more about the TCJA, details about its expiring provisions and the cost of extension.

Looking to 2025

The new Congress will inherit an unstable tax policy landscape and a limited time frame to address it. While the TCJA’s expiring provisions are driving the immediate need for tax reform, it’s important to understand the prohibitive cost of extension means everything will be on the table during negotiations, including the corporate tax rate.

The timing of any potential reform will depend on whether the election results in a unified or divided government. Republicans have stated, if they were to sweep, they hope to pass a tax bill within the first 100 days of the new administration. This timeline may be aspirational for either party in a unified government, as an approaching deadline is often a key motivator to finding compromise. Should the election result in a divided government, it’s likely we won’t see a tax bill come together until the second half of 2025.

While the magnitude of the approaching fiscal cliff and ramifications of a TCJA expiration should force legislative action, even “must pass” bills can get stuck in Congressional gridlock. Taxpayers should prepare for the possibility that Congress will not be able to come to a resolution before the expirations take effect.

Baker Tilly’s tax policy specialists will continue to bring you updates and analysis throughout the election and TCJA negotiations so you can assess and plan for potential tax reform.

Election details and possible outcomes

With the White House and both chambers of Congress up for grabs in 2024, there is a wide range of potential election outcomes, the results of which will determine the future of tax policy. Policymakers in the 119th Congress will face difficult negotiations within their own parties and, if the election results in a divided government, between parties.

Visit our election details and possible outcomes page to learn more about the upcoming elections and the ramifications.

Tax policy platforms

Understanding each party’s tax priorities can help taxpayers anticipate the range of possible post-election outcomes. Generally, Republicans and Democrats approaches to tax reform vary widely; however, there are a few areas that garner bipartisan support.

Visit our tax policy platforms page to learn more about Republican and Democrat tax policy priorities.

ATTACHMENT THREE – ALSO FROM BAKERTILLY.COM

2024 ELECTION INSIGHTS: COMPARING TAX POLICY PLATFORMS

Sep 04, 2024

The results of the upcoming election will have a substantial impact on the future of tax policy. Given tax policy’s influence on the economy and the magnitude of the potential Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 expirations, a comparison of party platforms offers valuable insights into the possible post-election landscape.

Presented below is a broader focus on party tax policy platforms rather than the individual plans of presidential candidates. While presidential budgets and tax proposals often influence legislation, only Congress has the authority to enact it. Financial measures originate in the House of Representatives and may be altered by the Senate. Identical bills must pass both chambers before the president can sign a bill into law; accordingly, tax legislation is often driven by lawmakers’ priorities. However, presidential platforms are briefly discussed at the end of this section.

Jump to:

· Business tax

· Individual tax

· Trust, estate and gift tax

· International tax

· Other items

· Presidential platforms

Tax policy platforms

The charts and discussion in the sections below are primarily based on:

Republicans

A primary goal of making the temporary TCJA provisions permanent (as outlined in the RNC 2024 platform), significant comments from influential Republican lawmakers (including Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), and others), notable comments from Former President Donald Trump, support for and opposition of the recently quashed bipartisan tax bill, and other relevant information.

Democrats

A primary goal of rolling back the temporary TCJA provisions for taxpayers making over $400,000, the FY25 Green Book (released by President Joe Biden’s administration), the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), significant comments from influential Democratic lawmakers (including Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR), Ways and Means Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-MA), Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), and others), notable comments from Vice President Kamala Harris, support for and opposition of the recently quashed bipartisan tax bill, and other relevant information.

The positions discussed below are the generally supported tax policy proposals by party; though, in both groups there may be lawmakers who disagree with and/or support a different version of a proposal. Republicans and Democrats have recently begun organizing and strategizing around the 2025 fiscal cliff and are in the process of developing more comprehensive plans. Ways and Means Republicans, led by Smith, have formed “tax team” working groups and are seeking taxpayer comments on the impact of the potential 2025 expirations, which can be submitted on the Ways and Means portal. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats, led by Wyden, have begun meeting and are developing a “revenue menu” of ideas and priorities.

Business tax

The largest difference in the Republican and Democratic business tax policy platform is the proposed corporate tax rate. Republicans would like to maintain or even decrease the current 21% corporate rate, while Democrats would like to see an increase to 28%, which is still well below the pre-TCJA 35% rate. Though they are not listed in the chart below, some Democrats have supported other business revenue raisers, such as an increase to the 1% stock buyback tax rate, an increase to the 15% corporate alternative minimum tax rate, limitations on the deductibility of executive compensation, etc.

There are several areas of consensus among Democrats and Republicans, including reform for the deductibility of business interest expense and domestic research and experimental expenditures. These were highlighted in the bipartisan tax bill, which received overwhelming support in the House but failed to advance in the Senate, where Crapo opposed the bill due to the Child Tax Credit (CTC) provisions.

Provision	Republicans	Democrats
Corporate tax rate	Most are in favor of maintaining or reducing the corporate tax rate. Proposals for a decrease range from 20% to 15%. Only a few members have voiced support for a minor increase.	Most support an increase in the corporate tax rate. The FY25 Green Book and Harris both proposed a corporate rate of 28%.
Section 199A/qualified business income (QBI) deduction	Many would like to make this provision, currently set to expire after 2025, permanent.	Some have been critical of allowing the deduction for higher-income taxpayers. Democrats’ pledge not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $400,000 presumably includes maintaining the QBI deduction for taxpayers in those income brackets.
Research and experimental (R&E) expenditures	Support the immediate expensing of domestic R&E expenditures.	Support the immediate expensing of domestic R&E expenditures. Some also support immediate expensing of foreign R&E (as proposed in the BBB framework).
Business interest deduction limitation	Support a return to calculating adjusted taxable income (ATI) with the pre-2022 parameters that allowed for addback of depreciation and amortization.	Support a return to calculating ATI with the pre-2022 parameters that allowed for addback of depreciation and amortization.
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) renewable energy credits	Many support a full or partial repeal of the IRA's renewable energy credits.	In favor of retaining the IRA’s renewable energy credits.

Individual tax

Most of the TCJA’s expiring provisions impact individual taxpayers.

Republicans would like to make all of the expiring individual provisions permanent. However, the cost associated with a full extension is substantial – of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) $4.6 trillion estimate presented earlier, $3.7 trillion is attributable to the TCJA’s individual provisions. It may be difficult for Republicans to find “pay-fors” to cover some or all of the cost of extension.

In recent months, Harris has pledged to honor Biden’s campaign promise not to raise taxes for taxpayers making less than $400,000. Democrats would like to see rate increases for taxpayers over that threshold, returning to a pre-TCJA maximum of 39.6%. Additionally, many Democrats support additional revenue raisers targeted at wealthy individuals such as the expansion of the net investment income tax and/or a wealth tax for ultra-high-net-worth taxpayers.

Provision	Republicans	Democrats
TCJA rates and brackets	Support making TCJA bracket sizes and tax rates permanent.	Support making TCJA bracket sizes and tax rates permanent for taxpayers making less than $400,000. The FY25 Green Book proposed a top rate of 39.6% for single and married filing jointly taxpayers to $400,000 and $450,000, respectively.
Child Tax Credit (CTC)	In favor of extending the current CTC amount ($2,000 per child) and thresholds, which were increased under TCJA and are set to expire after 2025.	Most would like to see the CTC expanded to provide a benefit of $3,000 per child ($3,600 per young child) and to make it fully refundable, as it was in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan. Harris also proposed a $6,000 credit for the first year of a child’s life.
Other TCJA Items (Standard deduction, personal exemption, itemized deductions)	Support a permanent extension of the TCJA’s individual provisions.	Support a permanent extension of the TCJA’s individual provisions for taxpayers making less than $400,000.
State and local tax (SALT) limitation/cap	Most oppose repealing or increasing the SALT cap, with the noted exception of several lawmakers who live in high-state taxes like NY, NJ, and CA.	Some support a repeal of or increases to the SALT cap. Biden opposed changes to the SALT cap, but Harris has not yet provided a position.
Wealth tax	Generally oppose a wealth tax or minimum tax rate for ultra-high-net-worth taxpayers.	Some would like to institute a wealth tax or a minimum tax rate on ultra-high-net-worth taxpayers. There is not consensus or consistency among proposals and Harris has not endorsed any wealth tax.
Taxation of gratuities	Trump proposed “no tax on tips.” Republicans in both chambers have introduced bills that would effect this change.	Harris also proposed eliminating taxes on tips, along with an increase in the minimum wage.
Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies	Most oppose an extension of the subsidies, set to expire after 2025. Some support a full repeal of the ACA.	Support an extension of the ACA subsidies, set to expire after 2025.
First time homebuyer credit	No significant proposals.	Harris proposed a $10,000 credit for first-time homebuyers, along with other home building and buying incentives.

Trust, estate and gift tax

The estate tax exemption is the primary focus in this area. Generally, Republicans would like to see the current amount ($10 million per taxpayer, indexed for inflation; $13.61 million for 2024) extended or the entire estate tax repealed and Democrats prefer to make it more restrictive; however, this is an overly simplified view. Each party has a myriad of proposals from members, each of which may address an individual exemption amount, a spousal exemption amount, the tax rate, treatment of unrealized capital gains and step-up basis treatment.

Provision	Republicans	Democrats
Exemption amount	Typically support a continuation of the current estate tax exemption levels; however, many would prefer a full repeal of the estate tax.	Opinions vary and there is no consensus or consistency in proposals from lawmakers who would like to see changes.

International tax

While both Democrats and Republicans are concerned with multinational entities (MNEs) shifting their profits to lower-tax countries, they fundamentally disagree on the best approach to foreign tax policy.

The primary dispute centers around whether the United States should adopt the Pillar Two framework. Under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Inclusive Framework, approximately 140 countries have agreed to a two-pillar global solution. The second pillar of the solution, often referred to as Pillar Two, applies to large MNEs, ensuring they pay a global minimum effective tax rate of 15% on income arising in each jurisdiction in which they operate.

The Biden administration was involved in the development of the global tax agreement and fully supports its adoption. Correspondingly, most Democrats would like to shift foreign tax policy to align with the OECD’s Pillar Two. They believe it will result in the best outcome for the United States in the long run for both tax collection and global trade relations.

Republicans oppose Pillar Two and believe it will lead to the United States losing tax revenues to foreign countries. Instead, Republicans favor the current TCJA foreign tax provisions. Several of those provisions have scheduled rate changes that will go into effect in 2026 absent Congressional action. Republicans would prefer to avoid these tax increases, in addition to making a few other tweaks to how MNEs are currently taxed.

Below is a comparison of the current rates, which Republicans would prefer to keep, scheduled changes to rates under TCJA and portions of Biden’s FY25 Green Book foreign tax proposals, which generally align with Democratic priorities.

Provision	Current TCJA treatment	Planned 2026 TCJA treatment	Green Book proposed treatment
Global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI)	Effective tax rates are typically between 10% and 13.125%.	Effective tax rates increase to between 13.125% and 16.406%.	Making adjustments that, coupled with an increase in the corporate tax rate, would result in an effective rate of 21% to 22.105%.
Foreign-derived intangible income (FDII)	Deduction of 37.5% of a domestic corporation’s FDII.	Deduction scheduled to decrease to 21.875% deduction.	Repeal the FDII deduction.
Base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT)	Minimum tax rate of 10% of modified taxable income.	Schedule to increase minimum tax rate to 12.5% of modified taxable income.	Replace BEAT with an undertaxed profits rule (UTPR) similar to Pillar Two.

The rates in the table above are applicable to domestic corporations. Global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) rates would also apply to individual taxpayers under a section 962 election.

Other items

There are two additional items where Democratic and Republican tax priorities diverge that are worth noting:

Deficit creation

As previously discussed, the cost of extending all TCJA expiring provisions approaches $5 trillion over 10 years. Republicans and Democrats are not aligned on whether, or how much of, any tax reform bill should be offset, or paid for, by revenue raisers.

Republicans

Are not united in their approach. Some are concerned with the rapidly increasing national debt levels while others are less bothered and/or do not believe CBO scoring of revenue and expenses is accurate. Some Republicans argue the CBO does not account for additional economic output that results from stimulating policies.

Democrats

Largely want to ensure that tax reform is offset, or paid for, and does not increase the national debt. For Democrats, increases to taxes on large businesses and high-income individuals would ideally cover or exceed the cost of additional tax cuts.

Internal Revenue Service funding

Republicans and Democrats disagree on the level of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) funding needed, particularly for the IRS’s enforcement functions. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provided approximately $80 billion in supplemental funding for the IRS, approximately $46 billion of which was allocated to enforcement. Earlier in 2024, Republicans were successful in clawing back $20 billion of funding as part of a bipartisan government funding deal.

Republicans

Would like to continue to reduce both the special allocation as well as annual government funding. The most recent Republican FY25 budget proposal reduced annual funding for the IRS by $2.3 billion (16%) and came in $2.5 billion (17%) below the President’s proposal. The vast majority of proposed funding reductions came from enforcement.

Democrats

Would like to maintain annual IRS funding levels and the remaining $60 billion of the special allocation. Democrats are championing investment in IRS enforcement, stating every $1 spent on enforcement generates between $5 and $9 in revenue.

Presidential platforms

Neither presidential candidate has released a comprehensive tax plan; however, both have made several notable proposals, and Harris released some broader economic plans. Below is snapshot of each candidate’s stated tax policy priorities:

Trump

Extend all expiring TCJA provisions, decrease the corporate tax rate to 15% for companies who manufacture within the United States, expand R&D credits and other manufacturing provisions, eliminate tax on social security benefits, eliminate tax on gratuities, eliminate tax on overtime pay, restore the SALT deduction, reform the U.S. expatriation tax regime, implement a 10% to 20% tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on Chinese imports, unwind the IRA renewable energy credits

Harris

Allow TCJA provisions for taxpayers making over $400,000 to lapse, increase the corporate tax rate to 28%, eliminate taxes on gratuities, increase the child tax credit, extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies, provide incentives for first-time homebuyers and renters, increase deductions for start-up businesses, implement the America Forward credit targeting "key strategic industries," supports tax increases proposed by Biden administration (which can be found in the Green Book) aside from the capital gains rate, which Harris would cap at 28%

Tax policy and the 2024 election

Tax policy can have significant economic implications and is often a key driver of decision-making for business and individual taxpayers alike. An understanding of tax policy is critical to navigating uncertainty and planning for changes in the tax landscape. With that in mind, Baker Tilly is pleased to provide details and insights on tax policy and the 2024 election.

2024 election insights: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and its impact

Explore the impact of expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions. Learn about key changes, financial implications and the effect on U.S. taxpayers.

2024 election insights: Election details and possible outcomes

ATTACHMENT FOUR – FROM FIDELITY.COM

November 6, 2024

Key takeaways

· President-elect Trump may seek to extend key provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire at the end of 2025. Changes to Social Security taxes and corporate taxes have also been proposed.

Tax policy will be front and center for the next administration and Congress, given that individual rate cuts from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 are currently set to sunset at the end of 2025. The act made substantial changes to the tax code, including expanding tax brackets, lowering the top tax rate, increasing the standard deduction, eliminating personal exemptions, capping the mortgage interest and state and local tax (SALT) deductions, as well as increasing the federal gift and estate tax exemption.

President-elect Donald Trump’s Republican victory could give him the upper hand in driving his agenda through Congress. Here's a look at what was proposed on the campaign trail.

President-elect Trump's tax platform

President-elect Donald Trump has expressed support for extending the income tax provisions that are part of the TCJA, and has made certain additional proposals on the campaign trail.

Income taxes. Trump has expressed support for extending the income tax provisions of the TCJA, perhaps on a short-term basis as Congress debates a larger tax-reform package. That could mean federal tax brackets would stay where they are today, with a top marginal rate of 37%. The SALT deduction cap and elimination of personal exemptions might also be reconsidered as part of congressional negotiations.

Qualified dividends and capital gains rates. The TCJA lowered taxes on long-term capital gains by setting up separate tax brackets for assets held longer than 1 year and for qualifying dividends, though the rates remained the same at 0%, 15%, and 20%. The TCJA also retained the 3.8% net investment income tax, or NIIT, for higher-income people. There has been some discussion among Republican tax policy experts about making the top rate 15% and eliminating the NIIT.

2024 capital gains tax rates
	Single (taxable income)	Married filing separately (taxable income)	Head of household (taxable income)	Married filing jointly (taxable income)
0%	Up to $47,025	Up to $47,025	Up to $63,000	Up to $94,050
15%	$47,026 to $518,900	$47,026 to $291,850	$63,001 to $551,350	$94,051 to $583,750
20%	Over $518,900	Over $291,850	Over $551,350	Over $583,750

Child Tax Credit. Vice President-elect JD Vance has expressed support for increasing the credit to $5,000 per child.

Caregiver credit. In a speech at Madison Square Garden in October, Trump proposed a new tax credit for family caregivers taking care of a parent or loved one.

Estate taxes. Trump has expressed support for extending and making permanent the 2017 TCJA changes to the estate tax exemption, which doubled to their existing levels of $13.61 million for single people and $27.22 million for couples compared to 2016.

Without an extension, the estate tax would return to its pre-2017 levels of $5.5 million for single people, and $11.1 for married couples.

Social Security benefits. Trump has proposed eliminating all taxes on Social Security benefits. Currently up to 85% of benefits is taxed for a single filer with income above $34,000 or a married filing jointly couple with combined income of $44,000. (Below these thresholds a smaller percentage of benefits is taxed, or not taxed at all.)

Corporate taxes. Trump has expressed support for lowering corporate taxes to 15% from their current 21% rate.

ATTACHMENT FIVE – FROM U.S. NEWS

Trump Is Right About Tariffs on China

Former ambassador to Beijing: Tariffs are a tool to counter China’s unfair industrial policies that threaten us all.

Jorge Guajardo Jan. 28, 2025

Once our pollsters informed those surveyed of the impending tax increases, an overwhelming 75% responded that they favor making the tax cuts permanent, agreeing with the statement that “stability is crucial for families and businesses planning their futures.”

Americans also strongly support extending some of the most pro-growth tax policies passed almost eight years ago. For instance, 60% endorse allowing businesses to immediately deduct expenses for investment and research instead of letting the deduction expire and raising taxes on American investments. More than two-thirds also favor keeping the 2017 reduction of the corporate income tax rate or lowering it further. Before the tax cuts under Trump, the U.S. had the world’s highest corporate income tax rate, at 35%. Now, that rate is 21% – an amount that’s slightly above average. A full 60% agreed with the statement that we should lower the corporate tax rate even further “because it brings businesses and jobs back to the United States” rather than locating them overseas to avoid the U.S. government taking such a large cut.

Moreover, Americans strongly favor simplifying the tax code and eliminating tax credits that benefit only certain taxpayers, such as for home improvements, college or electric vehicles. Three-quarters say they would happily trade existing tax deductions and credits for lower overall rates and a simpler tax system.

For example, 64% of those polled supported extending the $10,000 cap on deductions for state and local taxes, or SALT, meaning that if someone’s local tax burden is, say, $12,000, they can only deduct the first $10,000 against their federal taxes. Some in Congress want to expand the deduction, but that subsidizes high-income taxpayers in high-tax states. Support for repealing about $1 trillion in energy and environmental tax subsidies is also high, with nearly half of Democrats and 59% of all respondents favoring repeal.

With federal budget deficits set to surpass $2 trillion annually, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, keeping taxes low over the long term requires spending cuts to offset the tax money the government would otherwise need to collect.

That’s an exchange a large majority of those we polled are willing to make. A full 61% said spending cuts are necessary and worthwhile to lock in the 2017 tax cuts. And a remarkable 3 in 4 said the federal government spends too much, estimating that 59 cents of every federal dollar is wasted.

A6 us clausing

What Trump Doesn’t Get About Tariffs

International trade doesn’t work the way the White House thinks it does.

Kimberly Clausing April 8, 2025

Given that more than half of the federal budget goes to Social Security, health care entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and national defense, the public perception of wasted federal spending shows a clear openness to making hard fiscal trade-offs. Even liberal voters acknowledge the need for spending restraint, with Democratic poll respondents stating they'd willingly cut about a third of federal expenditures to achieve greater fiscal responsibility.

Americans seem to understand the nation's dire fiscal situation. Many know that preserving our financial future means drastically shrinking the size and scope of government. Two-thirds of voters correctly conclude that cutting spending strengthens rather than hurts the economy, rejecting the Washington tax-and-spend orthodoxy.

Policymakers in Washington are less clear-eyed. While some Republicans rightly aim to prevent tax hikes, many have resisted pairing permanent tax relief with spending reductions. However, the new Cato Institute polling shows voters strongly disagree with this approach.

Congress must heed voters’ clear mandate: Be more disciplined about spending and make tax relief permanent, all with the goal of providing stability and certainty for American families. Lawmakers must extend the 2017 tax cuts and sharply reduce federal spending. With that, come Tax Day next year, Americans will be well on their way to lasting economic prosperity.

Adam N. Michel is director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a nonpartisan think tank supporting individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.

Tags: taxes, tax cuts

ATTACHMENT SEVEN – FROM INDEPENDENT U.K.

TRUMP’S PROMISES

Trump launches queasy market on a wild tariff rollercoaster ride

Monday, April 14, 2025

Right as Wall Street opened for trading on Monday, the unpredictable President Donald Trump posted his latest cryptic message on Truth Social.

“THE BEST DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENCE IS THE ABILITY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE!!!” he wrote.

But Trump’s own actions have made it difficult for many to see any intelligence these days. As for predictions, Trump appeared taken aback by the stock market plunge after he imposed massive “Liberation Day” tariffs early this month.

During a pool spray with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele Monday, Trump floated the idea of slapping tariffs on pharmaceuticals the same way he imposed a 25 percent tariff on cars and steel.

“We’re doing it because we want to make our own drugs,” he said “We’re doing it because we want to make our own steel and aluminum, lumber, other things.”

But Trump’s announcement likely killed any momentum that markets had after his administration announced new exemptions for his tariffs just last week. The latest threats of another round of tariffs are just the latest drop in the Trump tariff rollercoaster.

After the hoopla of announcing his global “Liberation Day” tariffs April 2, Trump then announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs.just seven days later. Yet at the same time he imposed a 145 percent tariff on China and kept an across-the-board 10 percent tariff on other countries.

That did not lead to de-escalation from China, but rather retaliation, with the People’s Republic of China halting vital rare earth mineral exports to the United States.

Then, late last Friday, the administration announced a flurry of exceptions to Trump’s massive 145 percent tariff against Chinese goods. The guidance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection noted that smartphones, flash drives, computers, semiconductors, solar cells would all be exempt from the tariffs against China.

On Sunday Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick proclaimed on ABC’s This Week that those exemptions would soon be removed. By the afternoon, Trump had posted on Truth Social to insist: “There was no Tariff ‘exception’ announced on Friday” —even though the presidential action announced was named “Clarification of Exceptions Under Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025, as Amended.”

There are signs that the American people are getting more fed up with the erratic nature of all of the tariffs. Ray Dalio, the founder of the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, warned that a recession could be the least of the United States’ worries, and that a reorganization of the global trade structure could have catastrophic results for the nation.

Read more here. 

• Sam Kiley: Why is Trump trying to excuse Russia’s latest massacre?
• Katie Hawkinson and James Liddell: Possible motive revealed after arson attack on PA Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home

ATTACHMENT EIGHT – FROM U.S. NEWS

BRACE FOR MORE TRUMP TARIFFS AND CHAOS

By Olivier Knox  April 14, 2025.

Not only does President Donald Trump’s trade war with China show no sign of ebbing, with Beijing refusing (at least for now) to come to the table, but it appears on track to escalate with new tariffs on medicine and consumer electronics, pushing prices ever skyward.

Trump has sown chaos in global commerce and financial markets with a chaotic on-again, off-again approach to imposing duties on products from … basically the entire world. He has shaken investors’ faith in the U.S. dollar and in federal bonds, while major stock markets have plummeted. Experts are increasingly warning the U.S. may be entering a recession – or worse.

But the president is far from done, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick indicated this weekend, predicting that electronic devices newly exempted from import duties announced earlier this month would face “semiconductor tariffs” set to be imposed in “a month or two.”

Trump amplified Lutnick’s comments later on social media, saying: “NOBODY is getting ‘off the hook’ for the unfair Trade Balances, and Non Monetary Tariff Barriers, that other Countries have used against us, especially not China which, by far, treats us the worst!” He also told reporters he’d be announcing the tariff rate for semiconductors “over the next week.” 

How We Got Here

On April 2, Trump announced what he called “reciprocal tariffs” of up to 50% on American trading partners. The president also set a baseline 10% tariff on imports from scores of other countries and territories. Then, under pressure from the bond market, he suspended the former for nearly everyone for 90 days.

Trump import duties of up to 25% on imported autos, steel and aluminum persist, roiling ties with major allies like Canada, where anger at the U.S. shows no sign of subsiding.

He’s also ratcheted up tariffs on China, the world’s top exporter and America’s third-largest trading partner, ultimately to 145%. Beijing has responded with 125% tariffs on U.S. exports, as well as export controls meant to humble the high-tech sector in the United States.

 Then, on Friday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials announced a carve-out for high-tech items such as smartphones, laptops and television displays, many of which come from China. (They’d still face other Trump tariffs, like the 20% duty on Chinese goods he imposed in response to China’s role in the production of the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl.)

That was seen as a victory for major American tech companies, like Apple, that manufacture in China then ship to the U.S.

But it appears that’ll be a short-lived reprieve.

Lutnick said Trump wants to see high-tech products – along with pharmaceuticals and cars – made in the United States and will use tariffs (import taxes) to convince companies to move here, a process sometimes called “reshoring.”

"All those products are going to come under semiconductors, and they're going to have a special focus-type of tariff to make sure that those products get reshored,”  Lutnick told ABC’s “This Week,” adding that “this is not like a permanent sort of exemption.” 

"So what [Trump's] doing is he's saying they're exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, but they're included in the semiconductor tariffs, which are coming in probably a month or two,” the commerce secretary said. “So these are coming soon."

“Semiconductors and pharmaceuticals will have a tariff model in order to encourage them to reshore, to be built in America,” Lutnick said. “We can't be relying on China for fundamental things that we need.”

Trump’s trade war seems to be pivoting to a sectoral approach – targeting families of products he sees as critical to American national security, not just individual countries he has accused of ripping off America by running trade surpluses with the U.S. (Again, this is simplistic, but consider the trade deficit you run with your supermarket. Are they ripping you off?)

“Over the past couple of months President Trump has called out pharmaceuticals and semiconductors and autos,” Lutnick said. “He called them sector tariffs. And those are not available for negotiation.”

Talks, or No Talks?

One of the biggest X factors is whether the president will reach some kind of trade ceasefire with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Senior Trump aides in recent days have talked up the importance of the two leaders speaking to each other, while also insisting that Xi must make the first move.

Lutnick told ABC there had been “soft entrees … through intermediaries.” He did not detail what that means.

But, he said, “We all expect that the president of the United States and President Xi of China will work this out.”

ATTACHMENT NINE – FROM U.S. NEWS

You think tariffs are bad? Wait till you see what's next.

By Adam Michel | ContributorApril 14, 2025, at 4:52 p.m.

Adam N. Michel is director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a nonpartisan think tank supporting individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.

President Donald Trump’s tariffs aren’t the only form of financial pain facing Americans. Trump’s tariffs are raising prices on imported goods, roiling financial markets and many U.S. consumers who now have to pay what is an extra tax on those items from abroad. But an even larger tax hike is looming on the horizon: the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts passed during Trump’s first term.

My organization, the Cato Institute, last month conducted a nationally representative poll of 2,000 Americans in collaboration with YouGov. The results show overwhelming support for making those tax cuts permanent. Americans, regardless of their political differences, say they can't afford higher taxes and prefer to cut spending rather than hike taxes to make up for the loss of income to the federal government.

In 2017, Congress delivered sweeping tax relief to families across all income brackets, revitalizing American businesses and jump-starting economic growth. Since then, these tax cuts have contributed to increased investment, boosted wages and strengthened families' finances. Yet despite the successes, the poll found that only about 10% of Americans are fully aware that the cuts are on the brink of expiration.

But lawmakers in Washington know well that unless Congress acts decisively families will face painful tax hikes. Starting next year, the average taxpayer will have an annual bill about $3,000 higher. Republicans in the House and the Senate recently passed a budget framework that will extend the tax cuts and allow for significant spending cuts – although the spending cuts are not required. Next, lawmakers need to determine the details: which taxes to cut permanently, which tax credits to eliminate, and how much spending reform to pair with the package.

ATTACHMENT TEN – FROM TAX POLICY CENTER

UNPACKING THE TCJA: WHO BENEFITS AND WHO LOSES FROM EXTENDING MAJOR PROVISIONS

By Margot Crandall-Hollick, Joseph Rosenberg December 19, 2024

Next year, nearly all of the individual provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will expire unless Congress acts. Congressional scorekeepers have estimated that fully extending the TCJA would cost $4.6 trillion over ten years. The Tax Policy Center has shown that, on average, all income groups would get a tax cut relative to current law, but higher-income households would receive a larger benefit. 

But it is important for policymakers to understand more than the average impact of TCJA extensions, especially as they consider changes to specific provisions of the 2017 law. Below we unpack how extending each of the TCJA’s major provisions would affect taxpayers in different income groups. The key takeaway is that specific provisions of the TCJA have very different distributional effects depending on a household’s income level.

The TCJA was a sweeping piece of legislation that made major temporary changes to many individual tax provisions, including reducing marginal tax rates, expanding the standard deduction, expanding the child tax credit, modifying the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and introducing a new deduction for businesses organized as pass-through entities (199A). It raised taxes by repealing personal exemptions and limiting itemized deductions.

Figure 1 shows the net effect of extending the expiring TCJA provisions (left panel), further breaking down the average effect of provisions that reduce taxes and those that raise them (right panel).

The following figures show how these provisions contribute to the net change in taxes by income group, with positive changes (tax increases) on the right side of the vertical line and negative changes (tax cuts) on the left side and different provisions identified by color. 

First, low- and middle-income households primarily benefit from the TCJA’s larger standard deduction and expanded child tax credit (Figure 2). These gains are partially offset by the loss of personal exemptions. Taken together, extending these provisions would reduce taxes for households in the bottom income quintile by an average of 0.5 percent of their after-tax income, the net effect of a 0.9 percent income boost offset by 0.4 percent reduction.

Figure 3 also highlights the effects of extending TCJA’s rate cuts, which provide significant benefits for middle- and upper-income taxpayers. For example, middle-income households receive a 1.2 percent boost in after-tax income from the TCJA extension. This net effect is a combination of tax cuts (totaling 2.8 percent of after-tax income relative to current law) from a higher standard deduction, larger child credit, and lower tax rates, that are offset by tax increases (of 1.6 percent of after-tax income), driven largely by the repeal of the personal exemptions.

Figure 4 shows the effects of TCJA’s rate cuts along with other provisions that mostly affect higher-income households, including the limits on itemized deductions, changes to the AMT, and the 20-percent pass-through income deduction (199A). The highest-income taxpayers would benefit the most overall from these extensions, seeing net tax cuts of 2 percent of after-tax income for those in the top quintile (2.5 percent for those in the top 1 percent).

The bottom line: the individual provisions of the TCJA involve a combination of gives and takes that affect households differently depending on their income and other characteristics. Unpacking the effect of extending these provisions offers insights about how the overall cost and impact on households would differ if policymakers consider changing the core structure of the TCJA.

ATTACHMENT ELEVEN – FROM SALON

AMID TARIFF CHAOS, REPUBLICANS PLOT "MASSIVE REDISTRIBUTION" OF WEALTH FROM WORKERS TO THE RICH

The cost of tariffs will eclipse any tax cuts most households see, experts say

By Russell Payne

Staff Reporter

Published April 12, 2025 6:00AM (EDT)

While conservatives hail the Republicans’ budget plan as the “biggest tax cut in history” and say that President Donald Trump’s tax plan is necessary tax relief, Trump and his allies are working to execute an enormous transfer of wealth from working Americans to the wealthiest.

Elizabeth Pancotti, a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and a managing director at the Groundwork Collective, described the current GOP plan as a “triple whammy of massive redistribution in a society that is already tilted toward the wealthy.”

“The end goal here is to redistribute trillions of dollars from the middle and working class at the bottom to the one percent and the wealthy folks,” Pancotti said. “They’re doing that in three different ways.”

Related

"People are terrified": Fear over Medicaid cuts across rural America could sway some Republicans

The first is through tariffs. Although Trump’s decision to roll back his so-called “reciprocal tariff” plan was often referred to as a pause on tariffs, this isn’t exactly the case. His administration is maintaining a 10% tariff on all imports as well as a 145% tariff on imports from China, alongside a handful of tariffs on specific industries.

Tariffs, Pancotti said, are a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts lower earners because, in essence, a tariff is a sales tax on imported goods. Because lower-income Americans spend a larger proportion of their income on goods, they will also spend a larger proportion of their income paying the tariffs on affected goods.

At the same time, Pacotti said, the Trump tax cuts, which Republicans were planning to extend, were skewed to benefit the wealthiest Americans. While the top 1% of households received an average tax cut of $60,000, according to the Tax Policy Center, the bottom 60% of households received an average tax cut of less than $500.

For comparison, the Yale Budget Lab estimated that Trump’s tariff plan will likely cost the average American household around $4,689 a year, a sum that eclipses the tax cut that most households received in the GOP’s budget plan while only being about 8% of the average tax cut the wealthiest households received. In practical terms, this means the Trump administration and his Republican allies in Congress are planning to hike taxes on most Americans while cutting taxes for the wealthiest households.

Pancotti pointed out, however, that this isn’t the only part of the GOP’s budget plan. They also passed a budget that will almost certainly result in dramatic cuts to services like Medicaid or CHIP, which serves as a safety net for the poorest Americans.

Dean Baker, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Salon that, in addition to this dynamic, cuts at the IRS, supported by Republicans and spearheaded by billionaire and Republican megadonor Elon Musk, will also make it easier for the wealthy to avoid paying the taxes they owe. Baker said that, in practice, it’s much easier for the wealthy and those who make money from capital investments to avoid paying taxes, saying, “Most of us have our tax deducted from our wages. We don’t have much choice in the matter.”

:

“So you both have, you know, the legislative changes that reduce their tax liability, but also, you know the fact of change is that if you don't have much by way of enforcement, you have a lot of people that don’t pay their taxes,” Baker said.

ATTACHMENT TWELVE – FROM GUK

UN calls on Trump to exempt poorest countries from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs

Unctad says many countries targeted with high tariff rates are unlikely to be a threat to US

· Business live – latest updates

Heather Stewart Economics editor

Mon 14 Apr 2025 07.50 EDT

Share

The UN’s trade and development arm, Unctad, is calling on Donald Trump to exempt the world’s poorest and smallest countries from “reciprocal” tariffs, or risk “serious economic harm”.

In a report published on Monday, Unctad identifies 28 nations the US president singled out for a higher tariff rate than the 10% baseline – despite each accounting for less than 0.1% of the US trade deficit.

These include Laos, which is expected to face a 48% tariff; Mauritius, on 40%; and Myanmar, to be hit with 45%, despite trying to recover from a devastating earthquake.

The White House shocked many developing countries with the punitive tariff rates announced this month.

Trump claimed rival economies had “looted, pillaged, raped, plundered” the US with unfair trade practices, and he wanted to create a level playing field.

Unctad said many of the countries targeted with high tariff rates were unlikely to be a threat to the world’s largest economy, given their small size and modest levels of exports.

The White House last week put the higher tariff rates on pause for 90 days, after unleashing chaos on world financial markets, leaving a 10% levy in place across the board.

But the administration’s formal position remains that the “reciprocal” tariff rates will come into force, subject to negotiations.

“The current 90-day pause presents an opportunity to reassess how small and vulnerable economies – including the least developed countries – are treated,” Unctad said.

“This is a critical moment to consider exempting them from tariffs that offer little to no advantage for US trade policy but risk causing serious economic harm.”

Unctad’s analysis said many of these economies were so small that they were likely to generate little demand for US exports, even if they lowered tariffs, as the White House appears to be demanding.

Malawi, facing 18% tariffs, bought just $27m of US exports last year; Mozambique, which faces 16% tariffs, $150m; Cambodia, set for 49% tariffs, $322m.

Unctad’s experts added that 36 of these small and poor countries were likely to generate less than 1% of total US tariff revenue, even if the US did not cut imports from them as the tariffs took effect.

Part of the logic of the tariff policy is meant to be to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. But for several tiny countries, their key exports are agricultural commodities, for which the US is unlikely to be able to find substitutes elsewhere – let alone develop a domestic industry.

Unctad highlighted the $150m in vanilla imported from Madagascar, close to $800m in cocoa from Ivory Coast and $200m in cocoa from Ghana.

With Madagascar set to face 47% tariffs, for example, the report said the main impact on the US was likely to be higher prices for consumers.

Some of the countries hit by the 10% tariffs – and due to face higher rates when the pause is over – were previously beneficiaries of a US policy called the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

The scheme had been in place since 2000 and gave sub-Saharan African countries tariff-free access to US markets in order to encourage economic development. As many as 32 countries were eligible, before Trump’s announcement appeared to tear up the scheme.

Financial markets and manufacturers in developing countries are continuing to wrestle with the changeable nature of US trade policy.

Trump sowed fresh confusion over the weekend by appearing to revisit an announcement made on Friday, that some hi-tech goods, including laptops, would be exempt from tariffs.

In a post on his social media site Truth Social on Sunday, the president said no one was getting “off the hook”, and the administration would be investigating the “whole electronics supply chain”.

ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN – FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

REPUBLICANS PONDER THE UNTHINKABLE: TAXING THE RICH

The idea of raising taxes on rich Americans has caught the Republican Party between its populist ambitions and low-tax instincts.

By Andrew Duehren

Reporting from Washington

April 14, 2025Updated 3:32 p.m. ET

As Republicans prepare to cut trillions of dollars in taxes, they are grasping for ways to keep down costs. There are the typical conservative ideas for doing so, like cuts to health care programs, and the inventive ones, like changing how the budget is measured in the first place.

And then there is an unorthodox option Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the Trump administration are quietly considering: a tax increase on the rich.

The idea is one of many tax changes Republicans are floating. Lawmakers and lobbyists expect the party’s anti-tax antibodies to kick in and eventually block it. But even the possibility of raising taxes on high-income Americans has stirred a debate among Republicans about the party’s relationship with the richest Americans as its base of support increasingly comes from the working class.

ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN – FROM THE NEW YORK POST

MIKE JOHNSON POURS COLD WATER ON CALLS TO HIKE TAXES ON THE RICH, DESPITE TRUMP TELLING GOPERS HE’S OPEN TO IT

By Ryan King

Published April 13, 2025, 2:31 p.m. ET

House Speaker Mike Johnson is pouring cold water on the prospect of Republicans hiking taxes on the rich to help pay for President Trump’s “big, beautiful” agenda package.

Despite Trump previously telling Republicans that he is open to a tax increase for the wealthy, Johnson (R-La.) argued that he’d prefer to find payfors elsewhere and underscored that the GOP needs to hustle on finishing the Trump agenda bill due to bond market jitters.

“I’m not a big fan of doing that,” Johnson told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” when asked about ratcheting up taxes on the rich. “We’re the Republican Party and we’re for tax reduction for everyone. So, I mean, that’s a general principle that we always try to abide by.”

Republicans are staring down a difficult arithmetic problem to fund Trump’s marquee agenda package, which includes tax cuts, stepped-up energy supply, border security and bolstered defense spending.

Fiscal hawks are adamant that the agenda package doesn’t add to the deficit, but moderates are skittish about deep cuts to programs like Medicaid, creating a predicament for Johnson, given the slim GOP control of the House and Senate.

“We’re going to protect Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid,” Johnson stressed. “At the same time, we have to root out fraud, waste, and abuse.”

About 61% of the roughly $6.75 trillion federal budget is mandatory spending such as Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. Another 13% is interest on the debt.

Given that Republicans want to increase defense spending in the agenda package, that leaves less than $1 trillion of annual discretionary spending to cut based on fiscal year 2024 spending levels.

House Republicans were hoping to cut a minimum of $1.5 trillion over 10 years. And between the two chambers, Republicans had been eyeing somewhere between $5.8 trillion and $4.5 trillion worth of tax cuts and spending increases (for border security and defense) over the same period.

Tax hikes on the rich have been floated as a means of making that math work. Hardliners such as Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) have expressed openness to it.

Privately, Trump had told Senate Republicans that he is open to jacking up taxes on high-income earners, Semafor reported.

Trump ally Steve Bannon insisted that Republicans will jack up taxes on the rich, telling “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday that “Trump and the MAGA movement will raise taxes on the wealthy.”

“People have different thoughts and theories on how we can find this perfect — solve this perfect equation to get all of this done,” Johnson added. “I would say, just stay tuned.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) had similarly cast doubt on soaking the rich, telling reporters, “We’re not looking for tax increases; We’re looking for locking in current rates so there is not a tax increase,” per CNBC.

During the development of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Republicans helped pay for the tax reductions in part by capping the state and local tax deduction (SALT), which imposed a stiffer burden on high-income earners.

Last week, Johnson managed to take a big first step towards advancing Trump’s agenda package. The House adopted a budget resolution — a blueprint that unlocks the reconciliation process, which allows Republicans to bypass the 60-vote threshold needed to break a filibuster in the Senate.

But that budget resolution gave House and Senate Republicans completely different frameworks about what the Trump agenda package should look like.

The speaker is hoping to get the final bill across Trump’s desk by Memorial Day, despite many unanswered questions about spending cuts and the contours of the tax cuts.

“The timing’s critical,” Johnson said, “because for all the reasons you know and you have discussed on your show all the time and that we know, we have to show that stability to the markets.”

We have to send a message to the bond market, the stock market investors, to our allies around the world and our enemies as well that America is on sound fiscal ground. And so we can bend the debt trajectory curve, get us back on a path to fiscal sanity.”

Johnson predicted that passing the Trump agenda package will help “calm” the economy “and start us back on that path to real recovery.”

If Republicans fail to act, key provisions in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will expire by the end of the year, resulting in a significant tax increase. Additionally, the Trump agenda package is the GOP’s plan to raise the debt limit.

Uncle Sam is expected to face a credit limit on borrowing at some point over the summer.

ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN – FROM GUK
TOP US COMPANIES SPENT THREE TIMES AS MUCH ON BUYBACKS AS TAXES AFTER TRUMP CUTS – REPORT

As president proposes new cuts, data shows 11 corporations collectively recorded nearly $500bn in profits since last cuts

Tom Perkins Wed 9 Apr 2025 07.00 EDT

Share

Eleven top US consumer goods corporations spent more than three times as much on share buybacks as they did on taxes, using their savings from the 2017 Donald Trump tax cuts to supercharge purchases that enriched investors instead of lowering prices on goods essential to daily life, according to a new report.

The findings are part of a new analysis of company filings by the Groundwork Collaborative economic thinktank. They come as the US president proposes $5tn in new tax cuts that would again lower the corporate tax rate, and likely lead to more buybacks.

PepsiCo, Comcast, United Healthcare, personal care giant Kimberly Clark and the other companies have collectively recorded nearly $500bn in profits since the last cuts. They enacted $463bn in buybacks and paid just $140bn in federal taxes.

The figures are “startling”, said Liz Pancotti, a study co-author and director of policy with the Groundwork Collaborative, and highlight how the cuts incentivize buybacks.

“The companies are now throwing massive amounts of money at investors who are largely already wealthy people,” Pancotti added. “This is how you get the staggering wealth inequality in this country.”

Buybacks are a company’s purchase of its outstanding stock shares, which reduces the number of shares available on the market. That juices the stock’s value and investors’ wealth. By one estimate, publicly traded companies now collectively spend as much as 90% of their earnings on buybacks instead of reinvesting to keep prices down, or raising workers’ wages.

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act nearly halved the effective corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and was among Trump’s most unpopular initiatives because it largely benefited the wealthy and corporations.

Undeterred, Trump is now proposing lowering the corporate rate to 17%, which could generate a $50bn annual windfall to the 100 largest US corporations.

Food prices have shot up since the last cuts, in part driven by price gouging during and after the pandemic and Ukraine war.

General Mills and PepsiCo, two of the biggest packaged food and beverage companies, have returned $66bn to shareholders and paid just $16bn in taxes since the cuts.

As inflation hit its peak, the two companies drew ire as they increased prices and shrunk some of their product sizes. The tax cuts and price hikes have been good for their bottom lines: compared with the two years prior to the tax cut’s enactment, PepsiCo’s effective tax rate is now 11% lower and profits are up 58%.

Similarly, personal good giants Kimberly Clark and Procter Gamble have together returned $125bn to shareholders and paid just $18bn in taxes. They’ve seen their profits soar by at least 70% as they raise prices across their multitude of brands and consumers pay about one-third more overall on personal goods.

The two companies control up to 80% of the diaper market. The average US family in 20204 paid about $1,000 more each year per child than prior to the pandemic, prompting some state governments to start covering the costs under Medicaid.

But Republicans are proposing to in part pay for the next round of tax cuts by slashing Medicaid and other social service programs, which disproportionately benefit lower- and middle-income families. The cuts create a massive transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper, Pancotti said, and companies are incentivized to spend their earnings this way.

“If you get to keep a larger piece of the pie because Uncle Sam takes even less and, then, it’s a lot more fun to rake in these profits and distribute them to the shareholders,” Pancotti said. “Now Trump is planning to reward them with even more tax cuts for doing just that.”

Housing costs have soared in recent years, in part fueled by a 30% jump in the price of new builds since the last tax cut. DR Horton and Lennar, the two largest US homebuilders, have returned $17bn to shareholders and paid $13bn in taxes.

Similarly, Comcast has blasted customers with a torrent of base price increases and new junk fees, even as it returned billions to shareholders. Its effective tax rate is 12% lower and its profits are 88% higher than prior to the cuts.

Meanwhile, AutoZone’s effective tax rate is now 37% lower and profits are 116% higher, and it used the windfall to triple the level of returns to shareholders.

The spending is part of the larger pattern, said Lenore Palladino, a University of Massachusetts economist who has authored several papers on the issue. She said buybacks are a symptom of the larger problem: “shareholder primacy”.

“It’s the legal fact that corporations exist solely to make money for shareholders – that’s their purpose,” Palladino said, labeling buybacks “legal manipulation” of stock price. “It’s weird that it’s totally legal because we have all these other rules against manipulating the price of stocks.”

Executives’ compensation is tied to stock price, and higher share prices keep activist shareholders at bay, so there’s plenty of reason for company leadership to enact them.

While lawmakers have proposed solutions that nibble around the edges, anything short of a ban on buybacks, or limits similar to those in other countries’ advanced stock markets, won’t address the problem, Palladino said.

“In today’s political climate, calling attention to how much these practices contribute to widening economic inequality and how buybacks are a huge waste of money is important,” she said. “When we have the political will to do policy … we need at a bare minimum bright line limits on these.”

· This article was amended on 9 April 2025. The previous version incorrectly said that the corporations in the analysis spent more than three times more on buybacks than taxes, instead of three times as much.

ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN – FROM FOX

TRUMP TAX CUTS SURVIVE KEY HOUSE HURDLE AS FISCAL HAWKS THREATEN REBELLION

Fiscal hawks who support this procedural vote may withhold that support later

By Elizabeth Elkind Fox News Published April 9, 2025 4:14pm EDT

Legislation setting the stage for Republicans to pass a broad swath of President Donald Trump's agenda survived an important hurdle on Wednesday afternoon.

House GOP lawmakers voted to allow for debate on the legislation, known as a "rule vote," a framework that serves as one of the first steps in the budget reconciliation process.

It's still unclear whether House Republicans have enough support to pass the legislation itself, though GOP leaders have indicated they're moving full steam ahead in a matter of hours.

"I think we can get this job done. I understand the holdouts. I mean, their concerns are real. They really want to have true budget cuts and to change the debt trajectory that the country is on," Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters ahead of the first vote.

HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS CHAIR URGES JOHNSON TO CHANGE COURSE ON SENATE VERSION OF TRUMP BUDGET BILL

The legislation advanced through the procedural hurdle in a narrow 216 to 215 vote, with three Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.; Victoria Spartz, R-Ind.; and Mike Turner, R-Ohio — voting with Democrats to block it.

Trump has directed Republicans to work on "one big, beautiful bill" to advance his agenda on border security, defense, energy and taxes.

Such a measure is largely only possible via the budget reconciliation process. Traditionally used when one party controls all three branches of government, reconciliation lowers the Senate's threshold for passage of certain fiscal measures from 60 votes to 51. As a result, it has been used to pass broad policy changes in one or two massive pieces of legislation.

Rule votes are traditionally not indicators of a bill's final passage, and they generally fall along party lines. 

Several Republicans who voted to allow debate on the measure have said they will still oppose its final passage.

Passing frameworks in the House and Senate, which largely only include numbers indicating increases or decreases in funding, allows each chamber's committees to then craft policy in line with those numbers under their specific jurisdictions. 

The House passed its own version of the reconciliation framework earlier this year, while the Senate passed an amended version last week. House GOP leaders now believe that voting on the Senate's plan will allow Republicans to enter the next step of crafting policy.

But fiscal hawks have raised concerns about the differences in minimum mandatory spending cuts, which they hope will offset the cost of new federal investments and start a path to reducing the deficit.

The Senate's version calls for at least $4 billion in spending cuts, while the House baseline begins at $1.5 trillion — a significant gap.

Conservatives have demanded extra guarantees from the Senate GOP that it is committed to pursuing deeper spending cuts in line with the House package.

"They don't have a plan that I've seen. So until I see that, I'm a no," Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital. 

SENATE GOP PUSHES TRUMP BUDGET FRAMEWORK THROUGH AFTER MARATHON VOTE SERIES

Trump himself worked to persuade holdouts both in a smaller-scale White House meeting on Tuesday and in public remarks at the National Republican Congressional Committee.

He also fired off multiple Truth Social posts pushing House Republicans to support the measure, even as conservatives argue it would not go far enough in fulfilling Trump's agenda.

"Republicans, it is more important now, than ever, that we pass THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL. The USA will Soar like never before!!!" one of the posts read.

ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN – FROM the BBC

TRUMP-BACKED BUDGET BILL APPROVED IN US HOUSE

The US House of Representatives has passed a budget bill that includes trillions of dollars in cuts to both taxes and government spending, despite opposition from Democrats and Republican hard-liners.

The spending plan is a key plank in Donald Trump's legislative agenda and he has called it a "big, beautiful bill".

After the 216-214 vote on Thursday, Trump posted on social media: "Congratulations to the House on the passage of a Bill that sets the stage for one of the Greatest and Most Important Signings in the History of our Country."

However the House bill has deeper spending cuts than the one passed by the Senate, and the two versions must be merged into one bill for Trump to sign into law.

The merger process is called "reconciliation" - and further legislation will be needed to enact the bigger tax cuts that Trump has asked for.

The House plan, currently a broad blueprint with many details still to be worked out, would cut taxes by about $5 trillion (£3.9 trillion).

Over the next decade, it would also add $5.7 trillion to the US government's debt, according to Reuters. The Treasury reports that US debt currently stands at around $36 trillion.

The possibility of ballooning government debt led a number of Republican hard-liners to initially oppose the bill and demand deeper spending cuts.

Earlier in the week, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Republican, had to push off a vote on the bill for fear that it would not pass in a chamber that is only narrowly controlled by his party.

On Thursday the Republican "no" votes had been whittled down to two: Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Victoria Spartz of Indiana.

The Senate version of the bill was passed on Saturday and calls for a minimum of $4bn (£3.1bn) in spending cuts - a fraction of the $1.5 trillion in cuts that the House has demanded.

Republican leaders in the Senate have described the $4bn figure as a minimum.

"We'll certainly do everything we can to be as aggressive as possible," said John Thune, the party's leader in the chamber.

The scale of the spending cuts laid out in the bill would be many times greater than those already made under Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency - which claims to have saved $150bn so far, although that figure has been disputed.

The budget measure will also slash the money coming into the US federal government. If it eventually passes, the bill will extend tax cuts that were passed during Trump's first term in 2017.

President Trump has also asked for additional tax cuts on tips – to make good on a campaign promise to end income taxes on tips for service-industry workers – as well as on overtime wages and Social Security retirement benefits.

Those tax cuts, if passed, would further increase US government debt.

The White House has said that money collected through tariffs will help plug the gap, however that plan is far from certain as Trump's tariff plans continue to evolve with changing rates and dates for taking effect. There is also the possibility that high tariffs may lead to lower imports and, in turn, fewer goods to tax.

· Is the US making $2bn a day from tariffs?

In a statement after the House vote, the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said: "This vote is more than a budget win; it's a statement of purpose and strength, which affirms the Trump administration's commitment to delivering growth and opportunity."

A rise in federal borrowing requires another vote by Congress to increase the debt ceiling. Although such measures have been contentious, Bessent said during a cabinet meeting on Thursday that he was confident that Congress would raise the ceiling again later this year.

However the leader of the House Democrats, Hakeem Jeffries, called the budget bill a "disgrace" and criticised potential cuts to Medicaid, the US government program that funds health care for low-income Americans.

"House Democrats are going to aggressively push back every day, every week, every month, so we bury this reckless Republican budget resolution in the ground, never to rise again," he told reporters.

ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN – FROM REUTERS

REPUBLICAN BUDGET PLAN PASSES BUT HURDLES AHEAD TO EXTEND TRUMP TAX CUTS

By Bo Erickson and Richard Cowan

April 10, 20253:09 PM EDTUpdated a day ago

WASHINGTON, April 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a budget plan that lays the groundwork for extending President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, overcoming opposition from Republican hardliners who worried that it does not cut spending sufficiently.

The 216-214 House vote is a preliminary step that would enable Republicans to bypass Democratic opposition in the Senate and pass tax cut legislation along party lines later this year.

The legislation is a broad budget blueprint, which includes few details, and Republicans will fashion their tax cuts over the coming months. The bill will also accomplish other parts of the Trump agenda, including tightening border security and seeking to boost U.S. energy production.

It would cut taxes by about $5 trillion and add approximately $5.7 trillion to the federal government's debt over the next decade.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had hoped to pass it on Wednesday, but postponed action when some of his Republicans objected that it does not cut spending enough. Two House Republicans voted against it on Thursday.

The legislation, which passed the Senate on Saturday, calls for a minimum of $4 billion in spending cuts. That is far less than a previous version approved by the House that mandates $1.5 trillion in cuts.

Senate Republicans say the $4 billion figure is simply a minimum that does not prevent Congress from passing much larger spending cuts in the months to come.

Trump urged House Republicans to vote yes, and after passage, declared on social media that the vote "sets the stage for one of the Greatest and Most Important Signings in the History of our Country."

FISCAL FIGHT AHEAD

The intra-party fight comes amid chaos in financial markets set off by Trump's imposition of tariffs on imported goods. Prospects of a shrinking U.S. economy as a result of a world trade war, as some economists have projected, spilled over into Congress' budget debates because of the possibility of falling revenue in an economic downturn.

The Treasury on Thursday reported that gross customs duties in March totaled $8.75 billion, up by about $2 billion from a year earlier and the highest since September 2022. The increase is partly due to Trump's tariff increases since February, a Treasury official said.

But the figures suggest that tariff revenue is running far short of what would be needed to offset the effects of the extended tax cuts.

The bill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's primary first-term legislative achievement. Johnson said this legislative step forward is a "very strong signal to the markets, to investors, job creators, entrepreneurs and the people that make the economy run."

Republican leaders said that if the tax cuts are not renewed, Americans will face a tax hike of trillions of dollars. It is unclear how much additional stimulus could result from extending already-in-place cuts.

Republicans are also working to pass additional tax breaks for overtime wages, tipped income and Social Security benefits, that Trump promised on the campaign trail. Nonpartisan analysts say that could drive the bill's cost north of $11 trillion.

Even with this Republican legislative detente for now, the hardline tactics of the fiscal hawks in the House Republican conference this week were spurned by some of their colleagues.

"I don't care how philosophically principled you are, I don't care how bold and dramatic the legislation is, if it never makes it to the president's desk, it's never going to become a law," Republican Representative Frank Lucas of Oklahoma said in a Thursday interview.

Before Thursday's vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune tried to sway the concerns of the House hardliners, pledging, "we'll certainly do everything we can to be as aggressive as possible" with spending cuts.

Johnson, twice in the past 24 hours, held hour-meetings with the hardliners near the House chamber, signaling he took their concerns seriously.

Looking ahead, higher spending cuts could put key Senate votes in jeopardy. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries argued the Republicans' budget "will set in motion some of the most extreme cuts to health care, nutritional assistance and the things that matter to everyday Americans in our nation's 250-year history."

Some moderate Republican senators have said they also worry about deep cuts to the Medicaid healthcare system for low-income, elderly and disabled Americans.

Johnson on Thursday pushed for work requirements for able-bodied young men who "play video games all day" and said the rest of the cuts would come from a clearing away of waste, fraud, and abuse in the system.

Senator Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, expressed skepticism about that idea.

"I'm sure there's some fraud, and we certainly should go after that, but I don't see how you get to $880 billion," Collins said, referencing the top-line spending cuts number for the House committee that oversees the healthcare program.

Congressional Republicans also intend to use the budget blueprint to raise the federal government's debt ceiling, which they must do by sometime this summer or risk default on the nation's $36.6 trillion in debt.

“What they’re doing in reality is giving billionaires the national credit card and telling them to go hog wild,” said Representative Angie Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, during the legislative debate.

Reporting by Bo Erickson and Richard Cowan, additonal reporting by David Lawder, writing by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Scott Malone, Mark Porter and Alistair Bell

ATTACHMENT NINETEEN – FROM USA TODAY

TRUMP'S AGENDA KICKSTARTED BY CONGRESS. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

BY Riley Beggin

WASHINGTON – Congress has cleared the first major hurdle in their efforts to pass a sweeping party-line bill to enact President Donald Trump's agenda.

Now the work begins.

The resolution approved Thursday in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives outlines how much lawmakers can spend and how much they must cut spending in the final package. That sets up weeks of debate on the details of new tax cuts and how much to spend on each program, as lawmakers flesh out the bare-bones resolution.

Republicans aim to pack the bill with policies that Trump promised on the campaign trail, from strengthening border security to extending the tax cuts Trump signed in his first term, which are set to expire at the end of the year.

They plan to pass it without the help of Democrats by using a process known as "reconciliation," which allows them to skirt the Senate filibuster and its challenging 60-vote threshold.

Here's what you need to know about the path ahead.

Tax breaks

Lawmakers want to make the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, extending lower income tax rates for individuals and corporations and a higher exemption from the estate tax.

Trump also wants to create new tax breaks, such as eliminating tax on overtime, tips and Social Security benefits. He campaigned for the White House in 2024 on ending taxes on tips and highlighted the promise during visits in critical battleground states with major service economies like Nevada.

A handful of key Republicans from high-tax states like New York and California are also going to push to end − or at least raise − the cap on state and local tax deductions known as SALT that Trump's tax bill created.

All told, nonpartisan analysts estimate the tax cuts will cost between $5 trillion and $11 trillion over the next decade.

These expensive priorities are likely to put House Republicans on a collision course with some in their conference who are uncomfortable with increasing federal debt.

"This is just the beginning. We have to now go draft the reconciliation package," said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, on Thursday as he explained why he supported the resolution. The final bill "will not actually increase deficits. That is our key driving factor. We got a commitment on that and that's why we're here."

SPENDING CUTS TO BENEFIT PROGRAMS

To appease those House Republicans who are concerned about running up the tab, Republican leaders are pledging to find at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts as part of the package.

Experts say that is likely going to hit Medicaid, the healthcare program serving 72 million low-income Americans, as well as food benefits and other programs.

Cutting other major programs like Medicare and Social Security is off the table, as Trump has said repeatedly, leaving few options to find big savings.

Republican leaders say it is possible to cut hundreds of billions of dollars without impacting benefits by targeting "waste, fraud and abuse."

But several Republicans (and congressional Democrats) have said they will not vote for the package if it does result in cuts to Medicaid benefits. Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, expressed skepticism about the idea that there is enough fat to be cut without impacting benefits.

"I'm sure there's some fraud, and we certainly should go after that, but I don't see how you get to $880 billion," Collins said, referencing the top-line spending cuts number designated for the House committee that oversees the healthcare program.

Congressional Republicans also plan to use the budget blueprint to raise the federal government's debt ceiling, which they must do by this summer or risk default on the nation's $36.6 trillion in debt.

The resolution would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, which would avoid a looming default on the federal debt and help Republicans avoid negotiating on the extension with Democrats.

“What they’re doing, in reality, is giving billionaires the national credit card and telling them to go hog wild,” said Rep. Angie Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, during the floor debate over the resolution.

While Republicans want to pass the legislation as soon as possible, a potential default will provide the practical deadline for lawmakers to get the bill to Trump's desk.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY – FROM HKS.HARVARD.ORG

EXPLAINER: HOW DO TARIFFS WORK AND HOW WILL THEY IMPACT THE AMERICAN AND GLOBAL ECONOMY?

HKS international trade expert Robert Lawrence on what higher tariffs will mean for the United States and the world. 

By the Explainer April 09, 2025

Over the past week, President Donald Trump announced, and then largely paused, a new tariff regime more severe than anything seen in more than a century, and certainly out of step with the United States’ role as the creator and guarantor of an international system of free trade. (On April 9, hours after they had gone into effect, Trump announced a 90-day postponement on some tariffs to many countries, though not China.) Questions around these policies remain. Will tariffs help the U.S. economy, as the president has said? And what effect will the uncertainty and turmoil have on the United States’ role as an anchor of the international economic system? We sat down, before the latest pause was announced, to speak with international trade expert Robert Lawrence, the Albert L. Williams Professor of International Trade and Investment at HKS and author of “Behind the Curve: Can Manufacturing Still Provide Inclusive Growth?” 

Q: How do you understand the economic and political arguments behind the Trump administration's tariff policy?

President Donald Trump has told us that tariffs are a wonderful word, and I think he sees them as a multipurpose tool that can advance the variety of concerns which he has and the number of goals which he'd like to achieve. Tariffs firstly raise revenue and there's a debate over who will actually pay the money. The evidence suggests that, by and large, tariffs are likely to be passed through to American consumers who purchase the products on which the tariffs have been levied. But there's also evidence that in some cases foreigners might lower their prices and therefore implicitly pay some of the tariffs.

Although the president has proposed using the tariffs to help raise revenue for the government, he's proposed using tariffs to obtain leverage from foreign governments, for example, with Canada and Mexico over smuggling of fentanyl and immigration. There's also an idea that tariffs can level the playing field because there's a perception that is widely held that Americans have been taken advantage of, our market being more open than those of the rest of the world. So they are viewed as a multipurpose tool.

Q: Does the president have a point when he argues that the United States has been taken advantage of—that it has played by the rules but other countries have not?

I think if you look historically, the United States has typically had lower tariffs than other countries, and the U.S. is a very open society as well as economy and easier for foreigners to enter than many other places. But whether this is unfair or not really depends on whether you think this openness is a cost to the United States or a benefit.

The fact that the U.S. has low tariffs actually means that Americans can buy imports more cheaply, which I see as a benefit. The fact the U.S. is a rules-based, open society likewise brings strong advantages.  

In any case, what the president believes is that a trade deficit tells us that foreigners are unfairly taking advantage of us. However, there's another, and perhaps more relevant, way to look at a trade deficit. A country borrowing from the rest of the world can be a very good thing if it allows you to invest to build a plant or equipment, for example. You can actually enjoy an advantage from having a trade deficit.

Just as individuals who go to Harvard have student loans, we wouldn't say they're being taken advantage of. We'd actually say they're going to derive some benefit in the future. Most economists would say that the reason the United States has had prolonged deficits has little to do with whether foreigners are fair or unfair or whether American tariffs are lower or higher than those in other parts of the world. It is much more a reflection of American spending patterns.

Ironically, with the current policies of the Trump administration, on the one hand they're trying to close the deficit by raising tariffs, but on the other hand, they're trying to use the money to give tax cuts, which will mean that the U.S. government is saving less. So, our left hand is at odds with what our right hand is doing, and unless we change our spending patterns and either save more or invest less in the United States and borrow less, the trade deficit isn't going to change at all.

“It’s important to realize and recognize that only just over 8% of Americans work in manufacturing. ... Manufacturing is simply too small to have a significant impact on the American labor force.”

Robert Lawrence

Q: Among the reasons given for tariffs is the need to protect U.S. jobs and reshore or inshore manufacturing. Is there evidence that this will happen?

The central claim is that America can be revitalized and indeed the American middle class can be revitalized; workers without college education can be helped, and left-behind places can be restored if we stimulate manufacturing production in the United States. But at the moment it's important to realize and recognize that only just over 8% of Americans work in manufacturing and even if we were to entirely close the trade deficit that we have in manufactured goods, it's likely that manufacturing employment would increase by somewhere between one or two percentage points. So instead of around 8% of Americans working in manufacturing, 10% of Americans would work in manufacturing.  

Manufacturing is simply too small to have a significant impact on the American labor force and both Presidents Biden and Trump have been obsessed with restoring American manufacturing. In my own view, the claims that they make that somehow this is going to have a significant impact on the availability of jobs for the middle class is completely unrealistic.

There are some manufactured products that are very important. We need semiconductors—they're important for artificial intelligence, they're important for national security. We need to decarbonize, and so electric vehicles and solar panels are important. So there are certain kinds of products which can help us meet national goals. But it is unrealistic to see manufacturing as a policy that is going to have a significant impact on the major problems of less educated Americans.

Both Biden and Trump are in a sense appealing to nostalgia for a world that no longer exists, in which manufacturing is a major driver of access to the middle class. They're about 30 to 40 years out of date because, as a result of both automation and the way we spend our money today, manufacturing has shrunk and is a relatively small part of our economy.

Q: Will tariffs help raise revenues, as the administration has claimed?  

It's problematic, because the higher the tariffs that you impose, at some point the less revenue you're actually going to receive. The kind of estimates we're seeing from the administration are that they will raise $600 billion. I think that's an extremely optimistic view because as you make products more expensive, consumers will pay less or will be prepared to spend less on those imported products. In addition, one of the purposes of the tariffs is to get foreigners to come and invest in the United States. Well, if they do, they'll no longer be paying the tariff. So ironically, the long run achievement of goals like bringing a lot of investment into the United States to replace the imports is going to undermine the goal of raising revenue, and that's why it's very difficult to know exactly how much is going to be raised.

But it's important to point out that people, as they get richer, spend less and less on goods and more on services, and that means that tariffs have a regressive incidence because they take much more out of the pockets of poor Americans than they do of rich Americans. So to the degree that we now raise revenue using tariffs and use the money we save or the money we raise to reduce the taxes patented after the previous Trump tax cuts, this is an extremely regressive move for American households and the estimates are that the typical household is going to spend an additional $2,000 to $4,000, depending on which economist you believe.

There's also an exaggeration of the employment impact that you're going to get from tariffs. Let's take the example of a tariff on steel. You might create more jobs in the steel industry, but you will also raise input costs for the users of steel, and this in turn affects somewhere between 60 and 80 jobs for every one you save in the steel industry itself. So in the aggregate, the tariffs can be counterproductive, especially if they're put on inputs which are used in producing other products.

Q: Is the United States’ large trade deficit sustainable?

I think firstly there's an obsession with goods that isn't the right measure. What we ought to be looking at is not only our trade in goods, but also our trade in services, and we have a significant surplus in our trade in services. Therefore, when you aggregate the two together, you get a much smaller percentage and a smaller number relative to our GDP.

The second point is that we've been running deficits for 30 or 40 years, and what it means is that the United States is borrowing much more from the rest of the world than we lend, and therefore our net position has been declining over time. But remarkably, Americans earn more from, or earn just about as much from, their total investments abroad as foreigners earn in the United States. So if you look historically, we have felt no additional pressure about sustainability of our position. As long as we borrow the money and use it productively to increase investment in the United States, it is eminently sustainable, as with any investment.

Q: How would U.S. exports be impacted?

One of the effects of the tariffs is going to be over the medium term to strengthen the American dollar because Americans will need less foreign exchange in order to import, and when the dollar gets stronger, this affects all American exporters, whether they are exporting goods or whether they are exporting services.

A second point is that foreigners are not going to take these tariffs lying down. They are going to retaliate. Much of their retaliation can take the form of higher tariffs on American exports of goods, but in addition, foreigners are talking about levying taxes on the sales of American services and indeed some of the information technology company services that are being sold abroad. So there are going to be an adverse impact on exporters virtually any way you look—there are going to be higher input costs, they are going to have to sell into markets which are closing to them because of foreign retaliation, and the currency is going to get stronger and so their products are going to get more expensive.

“One view is that we’re increasingly going to see the United States separate from the rest of the world. The old debate was, do we decouple the West from China? The new debate is going to be, does the rest of the world really need the United States?”

Robert Lawrence

Q: The World Trade Organization was created to oversee international trade. What is its role now?

Since the late 1940s, under American leadership, a rules-based multilateral system has been operating, and its performance has been outstanding. It has been associated with increasing trade liberalization. It has allowed millions of people living in Asia and other poor countries to rise out of poverty, and by and large countries have respected its rules. This is how the WTO operated, I would say, until 2015 or so.

Since that time, the WTO’s attractiveness and its power have been considerably diminished. The United States, which had led this institution, became, under Donald Trump, its biggest violator. The most important principle is that all nations who belong to the World Trade Organization are “most favored.” That is to say they should all be treated equally. Secondly, America pledged to bind its tariff, as do all WTO members, at particular rates. And on average, these were around 3%. What the Trump moves indicate or represent a complete violation of those principles. It's treating trading partners completely differently, demanding reciprocity, which is a complete violation of the rules and raising tariffs at multiples of the rates which America pledged never to exceed.

In addition, the United States, starting back with President Obama, began to veto appointments to the WTO’s dispute settlement system. Today the appellate body no longer functions because they can't make appointments. So not only is the WTO in trouble because it cannot apply effective negotiations, it's also in trouble because it cannot enforce its rules.  

Additionally, we’ve seen many regional trade agreements created in the past couple of decades. Some argued these were substitutes for the WTO, others that they were complementary, but they showed that the WTO no longer had a monopoly on where the rules were being written. There are certain regional agreements—in Asia in particular, but also in Africa—that are thriving today.

Another huge problem that has confronted the trading system is how we absorb a country that operates by different rules and is the largest exporter in the world: China. How can the more market-oriented western countries coexist in a single framework with China, particularly as Chinese exports have become increasingly disruptive of labor markets around the world. This has become a very salient issue. People are calling for different solutions, but it's widely recognized that the WTO is subject to huge stress because of the different views on how the system should operate.

Q: Are we in a global trade war? What does economic tell us will happen next?

At the moment, nobody knows. One view is that we're increasingly going to see the United States separate from the rest of the world. The old debate was, do we decouple the West from China? The new debate is going to be, does the rest of the world really need the United States?

We are, after all, only about 12% of world trade. And so, can the 88% just simply get along without us? What we can expect is that if these tariffs remain in place for a long time, the goods that would have come here from China and elsewhere are going to go to third markets, and this trade deflection could in turn give rise to protectionist pressures in those other countries. That's the great danger of whether the impact spreads to the rest of the world. Moreover, there are many countries, most notably our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, who are very dependent on the American market, and they're going to experience a slowdown and perhaps recessions, and in turn, their sluggishness can be spread to the rest of the world. So, in the long run, there are negative consequences that are likely to result from these measures.

Q: How would tariffs impact the dollar?

There are kind of two effects at play. If you ask what happens when you put on tariffs, generally the answer will be the exchange rate will strengthen. So, you would expect, as I said earlier, that the dollar will strengthen. On the other hand, if this is like a big supply shock and if we have a weak American economy, that in turn could cause an increase in the price level in the United States and could feed into wages so that the Federal Reserve has to slow down the economy. And investors may find the U.S. a less attractive place, and dollars become a less attractive currency to purchase. So, it's a very tricky thing to forecast over the medium term.  

There's another question. The administration's position is to acknowledge that there may well be a slowdown and there may well be inflation, but this is short-term pain for a long-term gain because eventually these high tariffs are going to spur foreigners to come and set up their production facilities in the United States.

Firstly, even if this works, it will take a long time to plan a factory, to find the location, to get the permits, to find the workers. And it can be a very lengthy process—on the order of two to four years—before you start to see the fruits. And I don't think we would see significant effects before Donald Trump has left office.

Secondly, in order to make those investments, foreigners have to be convinced that these policies will remain permanent, but the way they've been rolled out and the kind of disruption they're going to cause is going to lead to a political reaction that is going to cause a lot of uncertainty. And with uncertainty, foreign investors are going to be unlikely to sink their capital into investments that are premised on the idea that the market will remain permanently protected.

Q: Are there concerns at all about the role of the dollar as the global reserve currency?  

Yes, we have an amazing privilege in the United States. Traditionally, as soon as there's any trouble in the world, people flee to the safe haven of the U.S. dollar. Even after the 2008 financial crisis, despite the fact we caused it in our own housing market, the dollar strengthened. All of this is based on foreign faith that the United States is a strong economy and is governed by the rule of law. And what we're seeing today in a variety of places is that Americans are starting to question the validity of rulings by courts, and I think this is a significant impact. A second danger is that foreigners sometimes see their currency holdings used against them in the form of economic sanctions, and this undermines their willingness to hold the dollar as a reserve currency.

The full faith and credit of the United States is vital in sustaining our position as the central reserve currency of the world, and the kind of instability that we're seeing today stands as a threat. In addition, picking on our allies and taking these steps is severely undermining the goodwill that foreigners have towards the United States and their faith in the United States as an economy that is a model for them. The long run undermining of our soft power, as our colleague Joe Nye refers to it, will take its toll, and that in turn will impact people's confidence in the United States as a secure and safe haven. 

Note: Harvard defunded 4/15

ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE – FROM WASHPOST

TRUMP PUSHES AIDES TO GO BIGGER ON TARIFFS AS KEY DEADLINE NEARS

The president privately tells advisers that import duties represent a generational opportunity to transform the U.S. economy.

By Jeff Stein and Theodoric Meyer March 29, 2025 at 8:27 p.m. EDTyesterday at 8:27 p.m. EDT

President Donald Trump is pushing senior advisers to go bigger on tariff policy as they prepare for what the White House has called “Liberation Day,” the April 2 date he has set for a major escalation in his global trade war, four people familiar with the matter said.

Although many of his allies on Wall Street and Capitol Hill have urged the White House to take a more conciliatory approach, Trump has continued to press for aggressive measures to fundamentally transform the U.S. economy, the people said.

Trump’s advisers are in intensive deliberations about the exact scope of the import duties to be imposed, which officials have described as affecting trillions of dollars’ worth of trade.

The option viewed as most likely, publicly outlined by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month, would set tariffs on products from the 15 percent of countries the administration deems the worst U.S. trading partners, which account for almost 90 percent of imports. Trump has also moved forward with other tariffs that apply to imports from every country, but only on specific sectors. Trump applied 25 percent tariffs to all automobile imports on Wednesday and has suggested similar measures for the pharmaceutical and lumber industries, among others.

These proposals have led to a drop in the stock market and, economists say, raised the risks of a U.S. recession.

But Trump continues to muse to advisers that his administration should continue to escalate the trade measures and has in recent days revived the idea of a universal tariff that would apply to most imports, regardless of their country of origin, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions.

In public and private, the president has said tariffs represent a win-win that will bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States and fill federal coffers with trillions of dollars in new revenue. He has also said he thinks he made a mistake in allowing advisers to talk him out of bigger tariffs during his first term, the people said, and that he thinks a single, simple duty on most imports could help prevent exemptions from weakening their impact. It’s unclear how seriously that proposal is being considered.

A White House spokesperson declined to comment.

The discussions reflect the central role Trump thinks tariffs play in cementing his legacy. Trump has publicly discussed the benefits of import taxes, characterizing “tariffs” as the “most beautiful” word in the dictionary and saying 19th-century tariffs led to the peak of the nation’s prosperity. Some allies have even mused about pushing to make the April 2 anniversary of the tariffs a federal holiday next year.

“Instead of Trump’s Birthday, make ‘Liberation Day’ a national holiday to honor the jobs, skills, and trade that returned to America and her workers,” Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s chief strategist during his first term, told The Washington Post.

The deliberations come as concerns deepen among congressional Republicans, foreign allies and investors about Trump’s global trade wars. All three major stock indexes fell sharply Friday, which many analysts attributed in part to tariff escalation and in part to related inflation fears.

Trump has said April 2 will bring “reciprocal” trade tariffs, which he and his advisers have largely described as having the U.S. match the tariff rates trading partners charge on U.S. exports.

“There’s still a lot of options still on the table. They are considering everything and trying very hard to make the idea of a reciprocal tariff both understandable to the American public and effective,” said Wilbur Ross, Trump’s commerce secretary during his first term. “They are quite correctly exploring every alternative in the hope they come to the best possible solution.”

The discussions reflect the inherent contradictions in some of Trump’s trade promises — and have revealed the tensions among his allies over his economic policy priorities.

Traditional conservatives who have aligned themselves with Trump have been happy to applaud the tariffs as a bargaining chip — designed to force concessions from allies or trading partners, and then removed. This is the approach many congressional Republicans, whose top priority is extending the 2017 tax cuts, want the president to take. It also reflects a pattern Trump frequently followed in his first term.

Trump, however, has repeatedly said that tariffs should be an ongoing source of federal revenue — which would require them to be permanent, not subject to broader negotiations that could wipe them away. Other Trump allies want him to use tariffs to create long-term incentives for companies to onshore domestic production, regardless of the trade deals he reaches with overseas partners. Luring companies to move supply chains and factories to the United States, which would involve significant investments and big changes to their logistics, also probably requires the tariffs to be permanent, but might lead to a major downturn on Wall Street.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump spoke broadly enough about his intentions that each of these camps were able to believe he would ultimately do what they hoped. But as his ambitions begin to become reality, the differences between these visions are becoming clearer.

“At some point they’re going to have to choose a strategy, because several of these stated goals are in contradiction with each other,” said Erica York, an economist with the Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank. “You can’t have a tariff for everything and everyone — in time, they will have to reveal what the real purpose is.”

Trump, for now at least, appears to be trying to demonstrate that tariffs can accomplish several goals simultaneously. He said on Wednesday that new tariffs on automobile imports would last the duration of his term, and the White House said they would raise $100 billion. On Friday, speaking to reporters, he expressed openness to cutting deals with trading partners that fall under the tariffs. Advisers say he views either outcome — a permanent tariff, or a deal in which the U.S. extracts concessions — as a victory.

In an interview with NBC posted on Saturday, Trump said he “couldn’t care less” if carmakers raised prices as a result of the tariffs. “I hope they raise their prices, because if they do, people are going to buy American-made cars. We have plenty,” Trump said.

He also insisted that the new duties would be permanent. “The world has been ripping off the United States for the last 40 years and more. And all we’re doing is being fair, and frankly, I’m being very generous,” Trump said.

But some Republican lawmakers have grown particularly uneasy about projections that suggest growth will be lower in the second quarter of this year because of tariffs, according to three people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations with members of Congress. Others are wary that the tariffs risk complicating the GOP’s focus on quickly passing an extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, most of which will expire at the end of this year if no action is taken.

“We’re trying to steer Trump away from some of these protectionist tariffs — the steel and aluminum tariffs, for example, are not very effective. If you want to save manufacturing jobs, this is not the way to do it,” said Stephen Moore, a longtime ally of Trump’s who is co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, which supports the tax cuts. “There’s danger all the tariff stuff is drowning out the tax stuff.”

Republicans in Congress remain loyal to the president but are growing increasingly concerned about the economic fallout. Some Republican senators expressed concerns during a lunch Tuesday with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer about the uncertainty over the tariffs, according to Sen. John Hoeven (R-North Dakota). Greer responded that he thought there would be more certainty after April 2 and that Trump’s approach was based on reciprocity and fairness, Hoeven said.

North Dakota farmers have not been hurt by the tariffs Trump has imposed to date, Hoeven said, but they are concerned about the potential effect of new ones. When Trump put tariffs on Chinese imports during his first term, his administration sent $23 billion to farmers hurt by the ensuing trade war — and Hoeven said he had already spoken with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins about getting more aid if needed.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) said he was highly concerned about next week’s tariffs. He has heard from manufacturers and other constituents worried about them and has conveyed those concerns to the White House, he said. He described the tariffs as a double-edged sword: “They have a purpose, but they can do some great harm as well.”

“There’s a level of unease, but I think generally giving this president the benefit of the doubt because he’s done some pretty good things,” Johnson added.

Republicans are more likely to view tariffs as a temporary cudgel to force other countries to change their trade policies than as a way to pay for tax cuts and other Trump priorities.

“I don’t see it as a revenue-raiser,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) said. “But I do see it as a way to bring jobs back into the U.S. economy.”

But some trade skeptics see a negotiated outcome that results in lower tariffs as reminiscent of the conventional trade liberalization approach that they blame for hollowing out American manufacturing communities. Instead of getting other nations to lower their trade barriers, these groups want the U.S. to protect its manufacturers by raising tariffs and discouraging imports. The nonpartisan Coalition for a Prosperous America, for instance, has called on the White House to impose an across-the-board 18 percent tariff on most goods.

“A reciprocal tariff system presented as a temporary negotiating tool to encourage other countries to lower their barriers runs directly counter to the president’s desire to rebuild America’s industrial base,” said Nick Iacovella, the group’s executive vice president.

Trump appears to be sympathetic to this approach, at least in part. He has talked about tariffs as causing short-term pain for the U.S. economy, suggesting they will not be quickly removed as part of a broader negotiation. But to what extent that view gets incorporated into policy remains to be seen.

“LIBERATION DAY IN AMERICA IS COMING, SOON,” the president posted on Truth Social at 1:39 a.m. Thursday. “FOR YEARS WE HAVE BEEN RIPPED OFF BY VIRTUALLY EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, BOTH FRIEND AND FOE. BUT THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.”

ATTACHMENT – FROM USA TODAY

TRUMP’S BIGGEST ROUND OF TARIFFS IS COMING NEXT WEEK. HERE IS HOW IT COULD SHAKE UP THE ECONOMY

By Joey Garrison

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump's long-promised plan to shake up the economy arrives Wednesday as he prepares to unleash his most significant round of tariffs yet. He already has slapped duties on imports that have roiled markets and ignited a global trade war.

Two months into his White House return, Trump has imposed tariffs on goods from neighboring Canada and Mexico as well as China, all steel and aluminum imports, and foreign cars and auto parts. He's threatened several other countries including traditional allies in the European Union with other steep tariffs ‒ even on European wine.

Yet Trump has circled April 2 as the true culmination of his "American first" trade policy as he seeks to boost domestic manufacturing by making it more expensive for companies to ship products into the U.S.

That's when Trump is set to announce his reciprocal tariffs, which will apply to countries that are the largest contributors to the $1.2 trillion U.S. trade deficit. It will officially go into effect Thursday.

Here's what to know ahead of what Trump has called "the big one."

What are reciprocal tariffs?

Trump has said his administration's suite of reciprocal tariffs will apply to nations that charge fees on U.S. exports, promising to match those countries' duties with tariffs of the same rate.

On Feb. 13, Trump signed a memorandum that directed U.S. trade officials to go country by country and put together a slate of tailored counter measures.

WHY IS TRUMP PUSHING RECIPROCAL TARIFFS?

Trump has said the reciprocal tariffs will offset trade practices of other nations that his administration deems unfair, while encouraging companies to make products in the U.S. to avoiding having to pay the new fees.

In 2024, the U.S. imported $1.2 trillion more in goods than than it exported, a record trade deficit that Trump is aiming to shrink with his action.

Trump has complained the U.S. has allowed other nations to levy tariffs on U.S. exports without any consequences.

More: Trump says no need to speed car purchases to avoid tariffs because economy will ‘boom’

WHAT IS THE 'DIRTY 15?'

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week said the Trump administration beginning April 2 will apply a reciprocal tariff number to each country based on what they charge on U.S. exports.

He said the countries most impacted will be the 15% of nations that contribute most significantly to the U.S. trade deficit and impose the largest tariffs.

"There's what we would call the 'Dirty 15,'" Bessent said on Fox Business, adding they have substantial tariffs and other unfair trade barriers. "It's 15% of the countries, but it's a huge amount of our trading volume."

The White House has not released a list of the "Dirty 15" countries. But the countries with the largest trade deficits with the U.S. are China, the EU, Mexico, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Canada, India, Thailand, Switzerland, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia and South Africa, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Bessent's remarks suggests the Trump administration could be narrowing the scope of the reciprocal tariffs from what Trump originally proposed.

And although Trump this week imposed tariffs on the auto industry, his administration is likely to exclude other sector-specific tariffs that Trump has previously discussed, according to recent reports from Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal.

More: Trump announces 25% auto tariffs amid rattled markets and a global trade war

This includes 25% tariffs on all semiconductor, microchips and pharmaceutical imports that Trump has said he intends to impose but has yet to carry out.

Asked on Friday if he expected to put any exemptions in place for life-saving medicines, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One while flying to South Florida, "Well, we'll be announcing it soon. But we have to bring pharmaceuticals, drugs and pharmaceuticals, back into our country."

The uncertainty continues a whiplash pattern when it comes to Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs, which he’s frequently threatened, only to quickly pull back, in multiple instances.

WHY IS TRUMP SUDDENLY CHANGING HIS TONE?

Amid growing economic anxieties at home and abroad, Trump this week downplayed the scale of the tariff rates in store for other nations ‒ a noticeable change in his tone after building the tariffs up for weeks.

"We’re going to make it very lenient," Trump reporters Wednesday in the Oval Office after signing the new auto tariffs. "I think people are going to be very surprised. It’ll be, in many cases, less than the tariff that they’ve been charging us for decades."

More: Auto tariffs can't realistically stick, even as Trump calls them permanent, say analysts

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed that sentiment Thursday, telling reporters, “He thinks that some of these numbers would be more conservative than many people are expecting.”

COULD THE TARIFFS PUSH THE US INTO A RECESSION?

Economists worry large-scale reciprocal tariffs could further hurt a weakening economy and lead to higher prices for consumers. Tariffs are taxes on imports that companies typically pass down to customers.

More: Trump announces 25% auto tariffs. What it means for your next car purchase

He pointed to several consequences of the new levies: higher costs for low- and middle-income earners, a new tariff tax for U.S. businesses, retaliatory tariffs from other nations, and stock market struggles that would wipe out significant wealth of high-income earners critical to consumer spending.

"If I'm right, as that becomes evident, I do think it's likely there will be a pivot and backtrack on the tariffs and a declaration of victory," Zandi said. "So I don't know that we'll ultimately ever get to a recession, but we're going to get awfully darn close."

At the same time, Zandi said it's hard to speculate too much given the uncertainty from Trump's on-and-off again record with tariffs.

HOW IS WALL STREET REACTING TO A TARIFF PLAN THAT TRUMP CALLS 'LIBERATION DAY'?

Ahead of what Trump is calling "Liberation Day," the stock market plummeted Friday as investors sold off in response to Trump's trade policy and concerns about inflation.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 700 points, or about 1.7%., its largest drop since March 10. The S&P 500 was down more than 100 points.

More: Stock market plunges on inflation, tariff uncertainty. Dow sheds 700 pts, Nasdaq 480 pts

Stock market gains that followed Trump's November election victory have been wiped out as Trump executes his trade policy.

Friday's selloffs came after news that inflation in February was 2.5% higher than a year ago, according to the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, The Fed's preferred inflation measure. While that was in line with economists' forecasts, the important so-called core PCE, which excludes the volatile food and energy sectors, rose 2.8%, more than expectations for 2.7%.

HOW WILL OTHER COUNTRIES RESPOND TO THE TARIFFS?

Trump's reciprocal tariffs are likely to escalate a global trade war that is already building even before the announcement.

Canada and China hit back at Trump's recently imposed tariffs with retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports, while the European Union has threatened to do the same next month.

And Canadian Prime Minister Mike Carney responded to Trump's 25% tariffs on automobiles this week by saying the U.S. is "no longer a reliable partner" and vowing his nation will seek to do more business with other countries.

Automobiles that fall under the umbrella of imports protected in the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement ‒ a trade deal orchestrated by Trump in his first term ‒ won’t be subject to the full tariff rate. Instead, the U.S will only levy tariffs on the foreign parts that make up vehicles imported from Canada and Mexico.

More: Car-carrying ships send added cargo to US ahead of Trump's looming tariffs

Despite those carve-outs, Carney said Canada will announce new retaliatory tariffs next week, saying, “Nothing is off the table as we defend our workers and our country."

Leaders of Germany and France have also urged the EU to respond with retaliatory tariffs.

WHAT WILL TRUMP DO IF COUNTRIES RETALIATE?

Trump said Friday the U.S. will "absolutely" respond to any additional tariffs from Canada with more retaliatory tarrifs.

"Many countries have taken advantage of us ‒ the likes of which nobody even thought was possible, for many, many decades," Trump said. "That has to stop."

More: Trump's tariffs, trade war with China could worsen prescription drug shortages in US

Still, Trump said he had a "very good" phone call with Carney Friday.

Trump also told reporters many leaders of other nations agree with his argument on tariffs. "Many of them actually apologize. They said, 'Look, we have taken advantage (of the United States).'"

Trump did not identify the names of these leaders.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY THREE – ALSO FROM TIME

TRUMP’S PROMISED ‘LIBERATION DAY’ OF TARIFFS IS UPON US. HERE’S WHAT IT COULD MEAN FOR YOU

By JOSH BOAK / AP

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump says Wednesday will be “Liberation Day" — a moment when he plans to roll out a set of tariffs that he promises will free the United States from foreign goods.

The details of Trump's next round of import taxes are still sketchy. Most economic analyses say average U.S. families would have to absorb the cost of his tariffs in the form of higher prices and lower incomes. But an undeterred Trump is inviting CEOs to the White House to say they are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in new projects to avoid the import taxes.

It is also possible that the tariffs are short-lived if Trump feels he can cut a deal after imposing them.

“I’m certainly open to it, if we can do something," Trump told reporters. "We’ll get something for it.”

At stake are family budgets, America's prominence as the world's leading financial power and the structure of the global economy.

Here's what you should know about the impending trade penalties:

What exactly does Trump plan to do?

He wants to announce import taxes, including “reciprocal” tariffs that would match the rates charged by other countries and account for other subsidies. Trump has talked about taxing the European Union, South Korea, Brazil and India, among other countries.

As he announced 25% auto tariffs last week, he alleged that America has been ripped off because it imports more goods than it exports.

“This is the beginning of Liberation Day in America,” Trump said. “We’re going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth, taking a lot of things that they’ve been taking over the years. They’ve taken so much out of our country, friend and foe. And, frankly, friend has been oftentimes much worse than foe.”

In an interview Saturday with NBC News, Trump said it did not bother him if tariffs caused vehicle prices to rise because autos with more U.S. content could possibly be more competitively priced.

"I hope they raise their prices, because if they do, people are gonna buy American-made cars," Trump said. “I couldn’t care less because if the prices on foreign cars go up, they’re going to buy American cars.”

Trump has also suggested that he will be flexible with his tariffs, saying he will treat other nations better than they treated the United States. But he still has plenty of other taxes coming on imports.

The Republican president plans to tax imported pharmaceutical drugs, copper and lumber. He has put forth a 25% tariff on any country that imports oil from Venezuela, even though the United States also does so. Imports from China are being charged an additional 20% tax because of its role in fentanyl production. Trump has imposed separate tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico for the stated reason of stopping drug smuggling and illegal immigration. Trump also expanded his 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs to 25% on all imports.

Some aides suggest the tariffs are tools for negotiation on trade and border security; others say the revenues will help reduce the federal budget deficit. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick says they will force other nations to show Trump “respect.”

What could tariffs do to the U.S. economy?

Nothing good, according to most economists. They say the tariffs would get passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices for autos, groceries, housing and other goods. Corporate profits could be lower and growth more sluggish. Trump maintains that more companies would open factories to avoid the taxes, though that process could take three years or more.

Economist Art Laffer estimates the tariffs on autos, if fully implemented, could increase per vehicle costs by $4,711, though he said he views Trump as a smart and savvy negotiator. The investment bank Goldman Sachs estimates the economy will grow this quarter at an annual rate of just 0.6%, down from a rate of 2.4% at the end of last year.

Mayor Andrew Ginther of Columbus, Ohio, said on Friday that tariffs could increase the median cost of a home by $21,000, making affordability more of an obstacle because building materials would cost more.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told “Fox News Sunday” that the auto tariffs would raise $100 billion annually and the other tariffs would bring in about $600 million per year, or about $6 trillion over 10 years. As a share of the economy, that would be the largest tax increase since World War II, according to Jessica Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has suggested that tariffs would be a one-time price adjustment, rather than the start of an inflationary spiral. But Bessent's conclusion rests on tariffs being brief or contained, rather than leading other countries to retaliate with their own tariffs or seeping into other sectors of the economy.

“There is a chance tariffs on goods begin to filter through to the pricing of services,” said Samuel Rines, a strategist at WisdomTree. “Auto parts get move expensive, then auto repair gets more expensive, then auto insurance feels the pressure. While goods are the focus, tariffs could have a longer-term effect on inflation.”

HOW ARE OTHER NATIONS THINKING ABOUT THE NEW TARIFFS?

Most foreign leaders see the tariffs as destructive for the global economy, even if they are prepared to impose their own countermeasures.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Trump's tariff threats had ended the partnership between his country and the United States, even as the president on Friday talked about his phone call with Carney in relatively positive terms. Canada already has announced retaliatory tariffs.

French President Emmanuel Macron said the tariffs were “not coherent” and would mean "breaking value chains, creating inflation in the short term and destroying jobs. It’s not good for the American economy, nor for the European, Canadian or Mexican economies.” Yet Macron said his nation would defend itself with the goal of dismantling the tariffs.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has avoided the tit-for-tat responses on tariffs, but she sees it as critical to defend jobs in her country.

The Chinese government said Trump's tariffs would harm the global trading system and would not fix the economic challenges identified by Trump.

“There are no winners in trade wars or tariff wars, and no country’s development and prosperity are achieved through imposing tariffs,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said.

HOW DID TRUMP LAND ON IT BEING CALLED "LIBERATION DAY"?

Based off Trump's public statements, April 2 is at least the third “liberation day” that he has identified.

At a rally last year in Nevada, he said the day of the presidential election, Nov. 5, would be “Liberation Day in America.” He later gave his inauguration the same label, declaring in his address: “For American citizens, Jan. 20, 2025, is Liberation Day.”

His repeated designation of the term is a sign of just how much importance Trump places on tariffs, an obsession of his since the 1980s. Dozens of other countries recognize their own form of liberation days to recognize events such as overcoming Nazi Germany or the end of a previous political regime deemed oppressive.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY FOUR – FROM TIME

‘NOTHING IS CERTAIN BUT UNCERTAINTY’: HOW THE WORLD IS REACTING TO TRUMP’S TARIFF REVERSAL

By Miranda Jeyaretnam

Hours after Donald Trump’s sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs—which were announced with much fanfare last week, jolting world leaders and roiling global markets—kicked in on Wednesday, the U.S. President pulled a 180.

Trump announced a 90-day pause on countries that have not retaliated, temporarily lowering the high tariffs on nearly all trading partners to a baseline 10%, while raising the tax rate on imports from China, which had retaliated with tit-for-tat hikes on U.S. imports, to 125%.

“I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line, they were getting yippy,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday after the reversal. Although, he added, “nothing’s over yet.”

But while Trump allies like Bill Ackman praised the move, which stoked stock gains after a week of volatility, as “textbook, Art of the Deal,” others say the abrupt climbdown has only made things more confusing. 

Here’s what to know about how countries around the world have begun responding to the whiplash.

Bangladesh

Muhammad Yunus, Bangladesh’s interim leader, thanked Trump for “responding positively to our request” for a pause. The U.S. is the biggest export market for Bangladesh, which had been hit hard by a 37% tariff. “We will continue to work with your administration in support of your trade agenda,” Yunus added.

China

Wang Wentao, China’s commerce minister, said at Thursday’s Special Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Economic Ministers’ meeting that China “firmly opposes” the U.S. tariffs and vowed to continue with countermeasures.

“If the United States is bent on waging a tariff war or trade war, China is ready to fight to the end,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said at a Wednesday briefing, according to state-run newspaper People’s Daily.

Wang added that China is ready to strengthen its ties with ASEAN trading partners. Wang also reportedly spoke with E.U. Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security Maroš Šefčovič on Tuesday about the tariffs.

Lin also said at a Thursday press briefing that China “will not flinch” when a trade war comes, according to state news agency Xinhua. The Chinese government on Wednesday announced additional tariffs on the U.S., bringing the total baseline tariff rate on U.S. products up to 84%. The government also added six U.S. firms to its “unreliable entities list” and 12 U.S. firms to its “export control list.”

China has also filed a complaint against the U.S. with the World Trade Organization, according to People’s Daily.

“If the United States really seeks to resolve the issue through dialogue and negotiation, it should demonstrate an attitude of equality, respect and reciprocity,” Lin said.

Chinese State Media Rebuke Trump’s Tariffs With AI Song and Videos

European Union

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the tariff pause in a Thursday statement, calling it an “important step towards stabilising the global economy.”

Trump’s pause came hours after the European Union voted to approve retaliatory tariffs on $23 billion in goods, starting April 15, in response to Trump’s previously announced 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum—which remain in effect. The E.U. had also faced a 20% “reciprocal” tariff—which is now a baseline 10% tariff—on top of the metals tariff and a separate 25% tariff on cars and car parts.

“Tariffs are taxes that only hurt businesses and consumers,” von der Leyen added. “That’s why I’ve consistently advocated for a zero-for-zero tariff agreement between the European Union and the United States.”

The E.U. will diversify its trade partnerships with countries that “share our commitment to a free and open exchange of goods, services, and ideas,” even as it continues to seek negotiations with the U.S., von der Leyen said.

Von der Leyen added that the E.U. will also focus on lifting barriers in its own single market. “This crisis has made one thing clear: in times of uncertainty, the single market is our anchor of stability and resilience,” she said.

Germany

Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz said Trump’s move is a “response to the determination of the Europeans.”

In an interview with broadcaster RTL Direkt, Merz said, “We are determined to defend ourselves,” echoing von der Leyen’s statement last week. “Unity helps,” Merz added.

Merz said a “trade conflict” would not benefit anyone. “Trump is currently seeing the problems of his tariff policy at home. The inflation rate is rising, imports are collapsing, and exports are experiencing major difficulties,” he added.

“The best thing is for us all to work together to achieve zero percent tariffs in transatlantic trade. And then the problem will be solved,” he said.

Read More: How Trump’s Tariffs Could Lead to a Global Recession

Greece

“There is a European message and then there is a Greek message,” Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece, which is a member of the E.U., told American conservative news network Breitbart on Wednesday. “On the European front there is a possibility of finding a win-win solution when it comes to trade, a solution which will be mutually beneficial.”

“As far as Greece is concerned, we have a strategic partnership with the U.S.,” he added. “I have worked with President Trump before and I can work very well with him again addressing regional challenges.”

India

An unnamed Indian government official told Reuters on Thursday that the country wants to move swiftly on a trade deal with the U.S., after Trump temporarily reduced a 27% “reciprocal” tariff on the country to 10%.

“India is one of the first nations to start talks over a deal with the United States and to have jointly agreed to a deadline to conclude it,” the official said.

Ireland

Simon Harris, the Tánaiste or second-ranking government leader of Ireland, a member of the E.U., said in a Wednesday statement that Trump’s pause “will come as a relief to many businesses in Ireland,” adding that “further engagement and clarification” is needed.

Harris’s comments came after a meeting the same day with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in Washington, D.C. Prior to the meeting, Harris said in a statement that “direct bilateral engagement with the United States is one of my priorities.”

He added that the meeting demonstrated “an openness on the part of the U.S. to engage” with negotiations.

In an earlier Wednesday statement prior to the pause, Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin said some Irish exporters had already seen U.S. orders “slowing or even drying up entirely, putting valuable and skilled jobs at risk.” Martin said he stood by the E.U.’s approach to safeguarding its interests while seeking negotiations.

Italy

Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti said Italy, also a member of the E.U., welcomed Trump’s pause on tariffs. He told reporters in Rome on Wednesday: “Within the G7 all of us outside the U.S. spoke to try to calm the situation and find a way to bring the Trump administration to the table and to a reasonable position.”

Japan

Ryosei Akazawa, Japan’s Minister for Economic Revitalization who was hired this week to lead negotiations on U.S. tariffs after Japan was initially hit with a 24% “reciprocal” rate, told Bloomberg News on Thursday that the country’s “position is unchanged.”

“We continue to express our strong concerns and strongly request that they be reviewed,” he said, citing ongoing targeted tariffs on Japan’s metals and automobiles, key exports for the country.

On Wednesday, Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato ruled out using Japan’s U.S. Treasury holdings as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the U.S. Akazawa told Bloomberg that no specific dates have been set yet for a visit to Washington. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he will lead talks with Japan.

Malaysia

Malaysia’s Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry posted on LinkedIn that the country welcomes Trump’s pause on higher tariffs, even as “this volatility creates significant challenges for ASEAN economies.” Malaysia had been hit with a 24% “reciprocal” U.S. tariff, and other members, including Vietnam and Thailand, of ASEAN, which Malaysia holds the rotating chairship this year, also faced significant levies, which had briefly gone into effect on Wednesday after Trump’s initial announcement last week.

“Nothing is certain but uncertainty when it comes to Trump tariffs!” Tengku Zafrul Aziz said, adding that the latest development would be discussed at Thursday’s Special ASEAN Economic Ministers’ meeting. The meeting, which was scheduled prior to the pause, was intended to deliver a coordinated ASEAN response to Trump’s trade policies.

“Malaysia is actively assessing the implications of these changes and remains dedicated to collaborating with ASEAN partners to mitigate disruptions, enhance regional economic resilience, and advocate for balanced and predictable trade relations,” Zafrul wrote. “ASEAN unity and regional economic integration will be more crucial than ever before and we welcome the support of partners that share this vision and want to see us thrive.” Malaysia will continue to diversify its trade and develop new markets as a “hedge against the current uncertainties,” he added.

The 10 ASEAN member states and Timor-Leste agreed at Thursday’s meeting not to retaliate against Trump’s tariffs, which the association said “risk eroding the foundation of fair competition and mutual benefit that multilateralism is built upon,” and added that the 90-day pause will provide “a window of opportunity to find a pragmatic and mutually advantageous solution for ASEAN in a strategic and tactful manner.”

Read More: New Southeast Asia Survey Shows Greater Trust in the U.S. Than China This Year—but There’s a Catch

Poland

Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland, which is an E.U. member state, posted on X on Wednesday, “let’s make the best of the next 90 days.”

“Maintaining close transatlantic relations is a common responsibility of Europeans and Americans, regardless of temporary turbulences,” Tusk added.

On Monday, Tusk had posted in Polish on X, “The reaction to the tariff war was predictable. The stock market earthquake from Japan through Europe to America must be survived without nervous decisions. The Polish stock market also got a ricochet, but political and economic stability are our assets in this difficult time. We will calmly persevere!”

South Korea

South Korean trade envoy Cheong In-kyo said Thursday that the tariff pause provides room for negotiations. Cheong met with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Tuesday about lowering tariff rates on South Korea.

The U.S. had imposed a 26% “reciprocal” tariff on South Korea, which is now down to the baseline 10%—although South Korea still faces blanket 25% tariffs on the auto industry, a key export.

Taiwan

Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung said Trump’s pause gives the country breathing room for negotiations. Lin told reporters at parliament on Thursday that during the 90-day pause, the two countries can “discuss Taiwan-U.S. economic and trade cooperation in a more detailed and in-depth manner.”

He added that Taiwan hopes to “take advantage of the huge U.S. market … to form a Taiwan-U.S. coalition, a joint fleet approach.”

On Thursday, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te wrote in a Bloomberg News op-ed that Taiwan is “committed to strengthening bilateral cooperation in manufacturing and innovation,” in particular by encouraging Taiwanese businesses to expand their footprint in the U.S. and “deepening commercial ties” between Taiwanese and U.S. firms.

Lai emphasized the objective of “reducing all tariffs between Taiwan and the U.S.” He said Taiwan is willing to cut its tariff rate on U.S. products from an average nominal rate of 6% to 0%. Trump had imposed a 32% “reciprocal” tariff on Taiwan based on a calculation that Taiwan imposes 64% tariffs on the U.S., though Trump’s calculation was actually based on the trade deficit.

A bulk of Taiwan’s trade surplus with the U.S. is in its export of semiconductors, which accounts for around 40% of its total exports. The U.S. previously raised the threat of tariffs on the semiconductor industry but waived them when Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)—the world’s largest chipmaker—pledged a $100 billion investment in the U.S. last month, after having previously already committed $65 billion in investment in April 2024 during the Biden Administration.

“All I did is say, ‘If you don’t build your plant here, you are going to pay a big tax. Twenty-five, maybe 50, maybe 75, maybe 100%,’” Trump said about his tariff threat on the Taiwanese semiconductor industry at a National Republican Congressional Committee dinner on Tuesday.

Taiwan will also increase its imports of U.S. goods, Lai wrote in his op-ed Thursday. “Over the past five years, rising demand for semiconductors and AI-related components has increased our trade surplus. In response to these market trends, Taiwan will seek to narrow the trade imbalance through the procurement of energy, agriculture and other industrial goods from the U.S.”

At the same time, Taiwan’s central bank chief Yang Chin-long warned at a Thursday parliamentary session that uncertainty remained in spite of the pause and that a U.S.-China trade war would still hurt the global economy.

U.K.

The U.K. will continue to “coolly and calmly” approach negotiations with the U.S., a spokesperson for Downing Street said Thursday.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told Sky News on Thursday that the government’s position “hasn’t changed.” The U.K.’s tariff rate also didn’t change with the pause, as the country previously already faced the baseline 10% “reciprocal” tariff rate that other countries have been temporarily reduced to.

“What we want to see,” Cooper said, “is a reduction in barriers to trade, so countries can trade effectively.”

Vietnam

The U.S. and Vietnam agreed to begin negotiations for a trade agreement, the Vietnamese government announced hours after Trump’s tariff pause on Wednesday. Vietnam’s Deputy Prime Minister Ho Duc Phoc said the two countries, which exchanged nearly $150 billion in goods last year, should work towards creating a framework to allow for mutual trade relations, according to the government’s official news channel.

Greer, the U.S. Trade Representative, confirmed that he met with Phoc on Wednesday to “discuss reciprocal trade and the vast economic opportunities in our bilateral relationship.” The U.S. is the biggest export market for Vietnam, which faced a 46% “reciprocal” tariff.

Vietnam had earlier offered to cut its tariff rates on U.S. goods to 0%, Trump said on Truth Social, but White House trade advisor Peter Navarro said the offer was not enough.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY FIVE – FROM DW

TRUMP TARIFFS: EU PAUSES COUNTERMEASURES UNTIL JULY

By Srinivas Mazumdaru and Mahima Kapoor with Reuters, AFP, AP Published 15 hours ago

The EU said the bloc would hold off on retaliatory tariffs to allow "time" for negotiations. Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping said there are "no winners" in trade wars. DW has more.

What you need to know

· The EU has confirmed a pause on retaliatory tariffs as negotiations progress 

· Chinese President Xi Jinping said "there are no winners in in trade wars" ahead of a visit to Vietnam

· Markets were stable amid tariff exemption announced for some electronics

· Japan says Trump tariffs threaten to disrupt global order

Here are the latest global developments regarding the Trump tariffs on Monday, April 14:

5 hours ago5 hours ago

EU holds back tariff countermeasures as talks progress

Wesley Rahn

The European Commission on Monday said it would hold off on retaliatory tariffs on US goods worth €21 billion until July 14 "to allow time and space for EU-US negotiations." 

The EU's pause will "take legal effect" on Tuesday, the European Commission said in a press statement. 

EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said the bloc would suspend the countermeasures last week, and Monday's announcement makes it official. 

The measures had been in response to US President Donald Trump's tariffs on EU steel and aluminium imports announced in February. 

Trump also slapped a 20% universal tariff on EU goods, as part of his sweeping "reciprocal" tariff announcement on April 2.

The EU has not yet announced countermeasures to that planned tariff regime, and has said it prefers to avoid retaliation.

On April 9, hours after the universal tariffs went into effect, Trump said the levies for most countries would be paused for 90 days. This included all universal tariffs impacting the EU.

EU trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic is in Washington Monday for talks with US counterparts to take steps towards hammering out an agreement before the 90 days expire. 

"The EU considers US tariffs unjustified and damaging, risking economic harm to both sides, as well as the global economy," the commission said.

US making progress with EU on tariffs, White House adviser says

6 hours ago6 hours ago

US making progress with EU on tariffs, White House adviser says

The United States and the European Union are making enormous progress in trade talks, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said.

"There have been a lot of discussions with the EU," Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told Fox Business Network. "We're making enormous progress. It's going to be very good for American workers, especially American auto workers," he added.

US President Donald Trump also targeted the European Union when he announced sweeping tariffs on US trading partners on April 2.

Trump, however, made a climbdown last week and declared a 90-day pause in the implementation of higher duties on many countries, leaving just a global baselines 10% tariff intact.

Following Trump's tariff reprieve, Brussels decided to delay its own retaliation plans, opening the door for talks between the US and the EU.  

13 hours ago13 hours ago

China's exports jumped ahead of Trump's 'Liberation Day'

Chinese exports soared higher than expected in March, according to data released on Monday, as businesses rushed to release goods before Trump's staggering tariffs kicked in. 

Exports jumped 12.4% when compared to March of 2024. This was more than double the 4.6% rise expected by experts surveyed by Bloomberg. 

Meanwhile imports fell 4.3% year-on-year, an improvement on the first two months of the year, which signals that consumption in China may be on a rebound.

"At present, China's exports are indeed facing a complex and severe external situation, but the sky will not fall down," Lyu Daliang, a spokesman for the General Administration of Customs, said in a news conference after the data was released.

However, analysts said the export is likely to take a hit as businesses feel the pressure from the tariffs.

"The strong export data reflect front-loading of trade before the US tariffs were announced," Zhiwei Zhang, head of Pinpoint Asset Management said in a note. "China's exports will likely weaken in coming months as the US tariffs skyrocket," he said, adding that uncertainty was extremely high. 

Julian Evans-Pritchard, head of China economics at Capital Economics also expects shipments to "drop back" over the coming months. "It could be years before Chinese exports regain the current levels," he said in a note to investors.

Xi Jinping arrives in Hanoi

Chines leader Xi Jinping has arrived in Vietnam for the first leg of his Southeast Asia tour. With his arrival, came his warning: protectionism "leads nowhere."

A line of well-wishers stood outside the airport waving Chinese flags as Xi gears for a meeting which Beijing says will bear "major importance" for the region.

Upon arrival, Xi said he looked forward to an "in-depth exchange of views with Vietnamese leaders on issues concerning ties between the two parties and countries that have a global impact," Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.

15 hours ago15 hours ago

Japan PM warns US tariffs could disrupt global economic order

This was the strongest warning the Japanese PM has issued against Trump's tariffs so farImage: Masamine Kawaguchi/Yomiuri Shimbun/AP/picture alliance

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told the country's parliament on Monday that US tariffs have the potential to disrupt the world economic order and that the nation must seek common ground with the US.

"I am fully aware that what's happened so far has the potential to disrupt the global economic order," Ishiba told the parliament.

"In negotiating with the United States, we need to understand what's behind Trump's argument both in terms of the logic and the emotional elements behind his views," he said.

The leader added that the government was not looking to issue a supplementary budget at the moment but will remain ready to cushion the economic blow from Trump's tariffs. 

On Thursday, Tokyo and Washington will start bilateral trade talks which will also cover tariffs and non-tariff barriers to exchange rates. The talks are likely to happen between Japanese Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. 

Economic Revitalization Minister Ryosei Akazawa will also visit Washington for the negotiations this week, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told lawmakers. 

"As some tariffs have already taken effect, Japanese companies' profits are being cut day by day," Akazawa said in parliament on Monday.

"The sooner (the issue is addressed), the better," he said. "I will do my best, bearing in mind what's best for our national interests and what is most effective," he said.

Japan is facing a 24% tariff on goods exported to the US, along with a 25% tariff on automobiles which took affect in April.

Xi tells Vietnamese media: 'No winners in trade wars'

Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated China’s position on US President Donald Trump’s trade war, in an article published in Vietnam’s Communist Party newspaper Nhandan on Monday.

"There are no winners in trade wars and tariff wars, and protectionism has no way out," he wrote.

The piece was published ahead of Xi’s arrival in Hanoi, Vietnam as he kicks off a three-nation tour to Southeast Asia. 

While the visit has been planned for weeks, it comes as Beijing faces a 145% tariff on its goods exported to the US and has in turn imposed a 125% tariff on the US. 

The Chinese President called for stronger ties with Vietnam, a key manufacturing hub in the region which exports a majority of its goods to the US. Hanoi is facing a 46% US customs duty which will come into effect in July, but is in negotiations with Washington for a reduction.

On the other hand, it imports most of its goods from China. Hanoi is working on increasing the added value on imports to justify the ‘Made in Vietnam’ tag, under pressure from Washington.

Vietnam's customs data show a long-term trend in which imports from China closely mirror the value and swing of exports to Washington.

"The two sides should strengthen cooperation in production and supply chains," Xi said, urging more trade and stronger ties with Hanoi on artificial intelligence and the green economy as well. 

Asian stocks rebound on electronics tax exemption

Asian stocks rose as investors were partially tempered by Trump's weekend announcement of an exemption of tariffs on electronics.

In Tokyo, the Nikkei 225 Index was up 1.6% while in Hong Kong, the Hang Seng Index rose 2.4%. The Shanghai Composite Index also rose 0.8% on Monday morning. Stocks in Sydney, Seoul, Singapore, Taipei and Manila also went up.

The slight relief comes after extreme market volatility seen last week in the wake of the US President's tariff flip-flops and counter-tariffs by China.

However, Trump dampened the rebound, saying the exemptions had been misconstrued. He wrote on his Truth Social platform that "NOBODY is getting 'off the hook'... especially not China which, by far, treats us the worst!" He said he would announce new tariffs on semiconductors "over the next week".

The US dollar extended its losses against major currencies with the Euro at a three-year high and the Swiss Franc at its strongest in 10 years. 

In a clear sign of ongoing investor trepidation, gold hit a new peak of $3,245.75 on Monday.Gold is a go-to asset in times of uncertainty, but the weak dollar has also helped its rising value. 

Boston Federal Reserve's chief Susan Collins told the Financial Times that officials would "absolutely be prepared" to deploy various tools to help stabilize the financial markets if required.

Trump doubles down on keeping US Steel American-owned

US President Donald Trump said he does not think a foreign company should control US Steel, repeating his views on the $15 billion bid by Japan's Nippon Steel to buy the US firm.

He made the comments to reporters on Air Force One late on Sunday as he returned from his Florida estate to the White House.

On Wednesday, Trump had said he did not want to see US Steel "go to Japan," sending the company's shares down 7%. 

In February, Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba met in person and discussed the deal.

"The difference between acquisition and investment must be carefully examined in light of the US law, but there must surely be a point where it (US Steel) remains as an American company, and where Japanese interests can also be realized," Ishiba said in a parliament session.

The deal between Nippon Steel and US Steel, first announced in December 2023, has faced headwinds from the beginning. Even former US President Joe Biden asserted that US Steel should remain American-owned.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY SIX – FROM GUK

LIFE IN SHANGHAI, CHINA’S COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, GOES ON BUT ANTI-US SENTIMENT IS HARDENING

Chinese companies are relieved Trump’s wider tariffs have been paused but on social media, posts are full of defiance

Amy Hawkins in Shanghai Fri 11 Apr 2025 00.43 EDT

On Thursday morning in Shanghai, as shoppers filled the luxury malls and delivery drivers whizzed around the winding streets at breakneck speed, financiers breathed a cautious sigh of relief. Overnight, US President Donald Trump had reversed course, announcing a 90-day pause on his so-called “reciprocal tariffs” of up to 50% for dozens of countries. Although China got no such reprieve – instead, the levy on Chinese goods was increased to 145% – the temporary return of normal trade channels showed Chinese businesspeople that all was not lost.

Trump’s announcement of punitive tariffs on countries across south-east Asia had risked closing off the routes that Chinese companies have been using since his first term in office to circumvent his levies.

Since 2017, thanks to tariffs on Chinese goods, the share of China’s exports bound for the US has dropped from about 20% to less than 15%. But much of that trade has simply been re-routed through third countries, as Chinese firms set up shop in places with cheaper labour costs and easier access to the US market.

Chinese foreign direct investment in Asean countries reached $24bn in 2023, up from less than $10bn in 2017. Several of China’s major solar companies have shifted manufacturing to south-east Asia. So despite the fact that “made in China” solar panels are virtually nonexistent in the US market, 80% of the US’s solar panels come from Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand. Next week, President Xi Jinping will visit Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia, on his first official foreign trip this year.

Hobbling those countries’ ability to export to the US would inflict more true economic pain on Chinese companies than bilateral tariffs ever could. So in Shanghai, China’s commercial capital, a return to a narrowly US-China trade war, while still unwelcome, is some comfort.

But on the ideological front, the mood in China is hardening over Trump’s imposition of 145% tariffs. State media and the foreign ministry have been sharing a clip of the former US president Ronald Reagan decrying tariffs in 1987. On X, foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has been trolling the US, posting a meme of a Make America Great Again baseball cap increasing in price from $50 to $77.

The most telling propaganda has been the resurfacing of a video clip of former Chinese leader Mao Zedong from 1953. “As to how long this war will last, we are not the ones who can decide,” Mao says. “No matter how long this war is going to last, we will never yield,” he says to applause.

Mao was referring to the Korean war, a conflict which is remembered in China as a time when China successfully stood up to the US through China’s support of North Korea. But in 2025, the combative rhetoric is being applied to the trade war, in which China has vowed to “fight to the end”. With suggestions from influential commentators that China might suspend cooperation with the US on fentanyl control as a retaliation for the tariffs, some are comparing the present moment to the Opium Wars, which were fought over an unsavoury mix of addictive opiates and anger about trade imbalances – just like in 2025.

Ren Yi, an influential commentator who writes under the name Chairman Rabbit, wrote on Thursday: “The trade war is a war of public opinion, public sentiment, and information … China should adopt a ‘wartime’ state of tension in terms of public opinion, and all sectors should move in one direction and one goal. This issue is by no means a joke.”

There is an ominous sense that the US-China relationship could still get worse. On Thursday, in a largely symbolic move, China said it would restrict the import of Hollywood movies. China’s tariffs on US goods were increased on Friday to 125%. Six US companies have been added to Beijing’s list of “unreliable entities”, restricting their ability to do business in China.

Discussion on Chinese social media, massaged by censors to ensure only the most nationalist comments are prominent, are full of defiance and bombast. One meme joked that Trump’s new slogan should be “MCGA” – Making China Great Again.

But some commentators have warned against rampant nationalism on the Chinese side. In a recent essay published in Chinese media, Zheng Yongnian, a professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in Shenzhen, wrote: “We must not underestimate the vitality of American society. The vitality of the United States has never been in the government, but in society and capital.

“There are still a large number of people in domestic media, especially social media, who feel that they have ‘won’,” Zheng wrote. “This is very dangerous. If this happens, we will be confused by the west … and in the end will make strategic mistakes.”

Offline, some fear, that without the linchpin of trade keeping the US and China on co-operative terms, the reasons for avoiding more dangerous conflicts, such as war in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, are becoming less compelling.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY SEVEN – FROM REUTERS

HOW CHINA WENT FROM COURTING TRUMP TO ‘NEVER YIELD’ TARIFF DEFIANCE

By Reuters

April 14, 20256:49 AM EDTUpdated 10 hours ago

· Summary

· Companies

· After unsuccessfully courting Trump, Beijing takes hardline stance on trade

· China orders foreign affairs and commerce officials to cancel vacations

· Trump says China has panicked

· China tried to rally international support against tariffs

BEIJING/WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) - China has put civilian government officials in Beijing on “wartime footing” and ordered a diplomatic charm offensive aimed at encouraging other countries to push back against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, according to four people familiar with the matter.

Communist Party propaganda officials have played a leading role in framing China’s response, one of the people said, with government spokespeople posting defiant clips on social media featuring former leader Mao Zedong saying “we will never yield.”

As part of the “wartime” posture, the details of which are being reported by Reuters for the first time, bureaucrats in the foreign affairs and commerce ministries have been ordered to cancel vacation plans and keep mobile phones switched on around the clock, two of the people said. Departments covering the U.S. have also been beefed up, including with officials who worked on China’s response to Trump’s first term, they said.

The combative all-of-government approach after Trump’s “Liberation Day" salvo marked a hard turn for Beijing, which had tried to avoid a spiralling trade war. For months, Chinese diplomats had tried to establish a high-level channel of communication with Trump’s administration to defend what China’s cabinet has described in state media campaigns as a “win-win” trading relationship.

Optimistic Chinese observers even held out hope for a grand bargain with Trump over trade, TikTok – and perhaps even Taiwan.

This account of how China shifted from seeking a deal to punching back with retaliatory tariffs and threatening all-out defiance is based on interviews with more than a dozen people, including U.S. and Chinese government officials, as well as other diplomats and scholars briefed on bilateral exchanges.

Four of them also described how Beijing's diplomats have been engaging other governments targeted by Trump tariffs, including sending letters seeking cooperation to several countries. Longstanding U.S. allies in Europe, Japan and South Korea have also been contacted, two people said.

Most of the people spoke on condition of anonymity to describe confidential government deliberations.

"China is a responsible major country. We stand up against hegemony, not only to safeguard our own rightful interests, but also to uphold the common interests of the international community," the Chinese foreign ministry said in a faxed statement.

It added that, "This trade war was started by the U.S. and imposed on China... If the U.S. really wants to resolve the issue through dialogue and negotiations, it should stop applying extreme pressure. Any dialogue should be established on the basis of equality, mutual respect and mutual benefit."

The South Korean and Japanese embassies in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on talks between their countries and China.

After the initial Chinese retaliation, Trump said: "China played it wrong, they panicked - the one thing they cannot afford to do!” He has also suggested that Beijing wanted to make a deal but “they just don't know how quite to go about it."

U.S. officials have also blamed China for the impasse because its trillion-dollar trade surplus with the world is the result of what they see as abuses of the global commerce system that haven’t been successfully addressed through years of negotiations.

Trump on April 2 stunned the world with massive tariffs that he said would prevent countries like China from “ripping off” the U.S. Chinese leader Xi Jinping ditched official caution and issued a patriotic message casting doubt on whether American voters could bear as much hardship as the Chinese.

The “Liberation Day” levies have since been suspended for all countries except China for 90 days. With some exceptions, trade of goods between China and the U.S. is now largely frozen, and Beijing is starting to crack down on trade of services, while warning its citizens against travel to the U.S. and putting curbs on import of American films.

POLITE START AND A QUICK STALL

Even after Trump was elected on the promise of high tariffs, relations with Beijing got off to a polite start. Trump invited Xi to his inauguration, which was eventually attended by Chinese Vice President Han Zheng.

Things started deteriorating soon after.

During the first Trump administration, Beijing had several high-level channels of communication, most notably between then-ambassador Cui Tiankai and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

There isn’t an equivalent channel this time around, according to a Beijing official familiar with Sino-American ties, adding that China wasn’t sure who spoke for Trump on their relationship.

A Trump administration official said in response to Reuters' questions that the U.S. had "made clear to China that we want working-level contact to continue... but will not engage for the sake of engagement and in dialogues that do not advance American interests."

Chinese ambassador to the U.S. Xie Feng made unsuccessful attempts before the election to reach Trump’s billionaire ally Elon Musk, said a U.S. scholar who recently visited China for unofficial exchanges that Beijing has historically used to communicate with Washington policymakers.

Musk didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi tried to meet Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a China hawk who is sanctioned by Beijing, during a February visit to New York to chair a United Nations session but did not secure a meeting. There has been no publicly disclosed exchange between the two sides’ top diplomats beyond a frosty phone call in late January.

Wang was also unsuccessful in his efforts to meet on that trip with National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, said a person familiar with the matter. Wang had held numerous talks with Waltz’s predecessor, Jake Sullivan, including an exchange that led to a rare prisoner swap.

In an interview with ABC News on Sunday, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said there have been initial discussions through intermediaries between the U.S. and China.

"We all expect that the President of United States and President Xi of China will work this out," Lutnick said.

China's commerce ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Lutnick's remarks.

Trump told reporters this week that he would be willing to meet Xi, whom he also described as a friend. He has not detailed any specifics of a possible deal.

The Trump administration official said the U.S. had repeatedly asked Chinese diplomats if Xi would request a phone call with Trump and “the answer has consistently been ‘no.’”

International relations expert Zhao Minghao at Shanghai’s Fudan University said such outreach “totally doesn’t work in terms of the Chinese policymaking system.”

“For the Chinese side, usually there is agreement and work on the working level and then we can arrange the summit,” he said.

The way “countries which have tried to negotiate have been treated so far this year also certainly has not done much to encourage China to sit down at the table,” said Lynn Song, Chief Economist for Greater China at ING Bank.

There are some ongoing conversations between lower-level officials on both sides, according to one Chinese and three U.S. officials, though some working groups put in place by the Joe Biden administration to deal with commercial disputes, as well as treasury and military issues have been frozen.

LESSONS LEARNED

While many countries were hit by U.S. tariffs this month for the first time, China honed its response during previous bouts of the Sino-American trade war.

Drawing on lessons from Trump’s first term, China created a retaliatory playbook that includes tariffs as well as restrictions on about 60 U.S. companies and curbs on exports of rare earths.

The effort was a result of weeks of preparations by Chinese government officials who had been tasked with studying Trump’s policies and suggesting countermeasures that could be gradually scaled up, according to two people familiar with the situation.

Xi opted for a strong response, hitting back with across-the-board levies even before Trump’s announced tariffs went into effect. The duties were announced shortly before Wall Street opened on April 4 - a public holiday in China. U.S. equities dropped sharply lower.

One Chinese official briefed on the deliberations described the unusually swift response as akin to COVID pandemic-era decision making that was carried out without the customary sign offs by all relevant departments.

Some Chinese opinion leaders appeared to suggest off-ramps in the trade war.

Ren Yi, a political blogger with nearly 2 million followers on the Weibo microblogging platform said in an April 8 post that countermeasures “do not require a broad increase in tariffs on American goods.”

Ren, whose grandfather was a prominent reformist leader in the 1980s, suggested targeted moves like suspension of fentanyl cooperation and further restrictions on agricultural imports and movies.

China’s finance ministry said Friday that with tariffs on U.S. goods now at 125%, it will stop matching any future hikes in duties by Washington, whose tariff strategy it branded a “joke”.

‘NEVER YIELD’

China’s foreign ministry has summoned many of the heads of its overseas missions back to Beijing for a special meeting held this week to coordinate the response, according to two Beijing-based diplomats.

China has also sent formal letters to government officials of other countries pressured by Trump to engage in trade negotiations.

The letters, which were described to Reuters by four people familiar with their contents, outlined the Chinese position as well as the need for multipolarity and for countries to stand together. The messaging also included criticism of U.S. policy that echoed China's public statements.

China has approached some G20 governments with wording for a joint declaration voicing support for the multilateral trading system, an EU diplomat told Reuters.

But the diplomat said that the messaging did not address concerns also held by non-U.S. governments about Chinese overcapacity, its subsidy regime and alleged unfair competition.

Beijing has said those concerns are overblown and that the rise of its high-tech industries is due to its comparative advantages and benefits the world.

China is also heavily focused on the domestic reaction to the tariffs, with social media users this week widely reposting an April 7 editorial in the official People’s Daily warning against panic.

China has also recently started encouraging households to spend more and has dramatically changed its language about domestic consumption. Beijing is aiming to shift the engine of growth from exports to consumers at a time when the economy remains hobbled by a crisis of failed real estate development.

“The real battlefield is on the domestic front, rather than bilateral negotiations,” said Zhao of Fudan University.

Chinese officials also published on Musk’s X platform a clip of Chairman Mao giving a speech in 1953 - the last time the U.S. and China were in direct military conflict during the Korean War.

In the clip, Mao, whose oldest son died in the war, says peace is up to the Americans.

“No matter how long this war is going to last, we’ll never yield,” he said. “We’ll fight until we completely triumph.”

ATTACHMENT TWENTY EIGHT – FROM TIME

MIKE JOHNSON COULD SHUT DOWN TRUMP'S TARIFFS

BY PHILIP ELLIOTT
Senior Correspondent, TIME

There is one person aside from Donald Trump who could definitely put an end to this economic chaos. His name is Mike Johnson. And the House Speaker would really, really like it if you could keep his name out your mouth.

As the President continues to goad a global meltdown unseen in decades, Speaker Johnson is trying to keep the MAGA meltdown away from his fellow House Republicans. Trump has triggered an utter circus that may haunt GOP lawmakers for a generation and retirees into their graves. Even Trump allies like Sens. Rand Paul and Chuck Grassley—for different reasons, sure—are sounding an alarm about the repercussions of these add-ons.

Rep. Don Bacon, an Omaha Republican, has legislation teed up in the House to make a move against Trump’s unilateral emergency tariffs. His bill lacks sufficient public support from GOP colleagues for now, but the private frustrations among lawmakers are starting to pile up. For now, most are not willing to defy the President. A similar bill in the Senate has bipartisan backing, and would almost certainly draw more Republicans if they could be sure they weren’t walking the plank only to see Johnson toss it in a desk drawer to die. 

If Johnson were to give the green light to a measure reasserting Congress’ authority over tariffs, things would change really quickly on Capitol Hill. There would likely be majorities in both chambers for such legislation—perhaps even large enough to override the veto Trump promised on Monday to issue if such a bill reached his desk. But such a bold move could very well lead to Johnson getting a pink slip from his caucus, as his Speakership barely happened, and only then with Trump’s intervention.

For his part, Trump seems utterly undeterred by this political quagmire. 

“We’re going to get fair deals and good deals with everybody. And if we don’t, we’re going to have nothing to do with them. They’re not going to be allowed to participate in the United States,” he said Monday.

It is, to be clear, an entirely avoidable cul-de-sac of chaos that Trump is steering the economy toward. And, if House members were willing to vote their conscience, this would end in short order. Also to be clear: they are not.

Access to international markets is the lifeblood for a lot of red districts’ economies—think tractors, soy beans, medical devices—and making those products less appealing as exports is a first punch in a one-two combo that now includes higher costs in the aisles for imports that used to be cheaper goods from China, Singapore, and India. 

The hit hasn’t come at the check-out line just yet, but investors are seeing the trouble just around the corner and reacting with contempt. At the White House on Monday, Trump dismissed those playing the markets as stupid cowards who did not share his optimism that a golden age of American power is just off the horizon, if only they have the patience. “Tariffs will make this country very rich,” Trump said in a free-wheeling session in the Oval Office as the Israeli Prime Minister seemed to play the role of a potted plant.

As the White House continued to insist everything is fine and even floated a spin-up of tariffs on China to reach 130% penalties, Wall Street continued to slide into an open rebellion against a White House that not that long ago seemed like a natural ally. Even a European Union proposal to zero-out tariffs on some U.S. goods proved insufficient for Trump, who said “the E.U. has been very tough over the years.”

The fast-moving snowball stands to drive up prices on almost every single item in U.S. families’ cupboards. Some Trump officials continue to suggest this is merely the opening of a negotiation, while the President and others say the new tariff regime is irrevocable and righteous retaliation. 

All the while, the House seems to be sitting in a passive crouch, watching the tariff crisis gaining speed and acting as if it has no offramp at its disposal. 

The politics of this are entirely predictable and precarious. The House map has already proven frail. The Senate map is only slightly fungible. GOP holds in state races are fragile. If you’re not catching the trend, there are a lot of F-based words on the offing when it comes to Republican dominance. And it isn’t getting easier as markets flail.

Monday’s developments were greeted with grimace around town. Goldman Sachs escalated the odds of a recession to 45% in a note to investors. K Street players have been warning lawmakers of problems in their districts on goods ranging from seed oil to auto components, airplanes to wheat thrashers. If all politics is local, then all tariffs are pitfalls. 

For now, Johnson is maintaining his support of whatever Trump wants. But if the Speaker were to blink, there are very good odds that his team would shelve their red MAGA hats briefly enough to rollback Trump’s tariffs. Yet any swerve away from Trump’s blessed route risks ending with House Republicans pursuing a vote-of-no-confidence against Johnson, who has so far been impressively steady at the helm of a caucus that is unwieldy at best. 

That’s why, among some Republicans on the Hill—especially in the upper ranks of senior aides—there is a professed indifference to these rumblings. 

“Everything is garbage. That much was true last week. It is true this week. It will be true next week. Everyone needs to calm down,” a top hand in House Republicans’ Leadership texted me early Monday. “You can panic all you want. But President Trump is still the leader of the party. Speaker Johnson has the gavel. Leader [John] Thune runs the Senate. And the Supreme Court is our friend. As the kids say: STFU.”

The bifurcated Rome-is-Burning/ Steady-as-she-Goes posture is what is driving the conservative movement in Congress at the moment. No one loves that Trump has a monopoly on the party, but it’s been a marriage of necessity since 2015. But that arrangement is being tested, as the phone lines on Capitol Hill burn up with constituents worried about their retirement accounts and the future of local businesses.

Which brings us back to Johnson, an accidental Speaker whose majority is on the cusp and his loyalty is at best marginal. His rank-and-file members on Monday were feeling the burn of a Trump stunt that has cost the economy trillions in less than a week. The fall-off on markets since Trump’s Inauguration Day has been as steep as any in recent memory. And no one is credibly dismissing it as a blip any longer.

Put simply: the tariff crisis is Trump’s doing, but it’s Johnson and his Republican hostage-takers who keep it alive.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY NINE– FROM POLITICO

RELIEF SWEEPS CAPITOL HILL AFTER TRUMP’S TARIFF U-TURN

“It sounds like they are getting some good results,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said.

By Meredith Lee Hill, Ben Jacobs and Daniel Desrochers

04/09/2025 03:30 PM EDT

Updated: 04/09/2025 05:15 PM EDT

Republican lawmakers exhaled in relief Wednesday after President Donald Trump announced he was pausing most of his sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs for 90 days.

While Trump left a lower, 10 percent global tariff in place and escalated his confrontation with China — upping those duties to 125 percent — Republicans were otherwise pleased with the apparent retreat a week after Trump’s Rose Garden announcement threw the financial and political worlds into a frenzy.

“I think jubilation is too strong a word, but ... it was positive,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who described fellow senators checking in on the balances of their retirement account as stocks surged. “I think everybody can sort of identify with that going up.”

They were less pleased about how they learned the news. That would be from a Truth Social post — not from the two high-level administration officials, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender, who were addressing separate groups of lawmakers on the Hill on Wednesday as the news broke. They showed no indication they knew the announcement was coming.

Inside a Republican Study Committee lunch, Faulkender pushed House members to back the GOP budget plan set for a House vote Wednesday when news broke of the tariff pause. Members wanted to know more about the administration’s end game, but he did not have answers, attendees said — nor did Greer, who was in front of the House Ways and Means Committee for his second straight day of congressional testimony.

Greer, who spent Tuesday and Wednesday morning defending the tariff rollout and insisting the president shouldn’t let the stock market drive his economic decisions, told the committee that he knew a pause on the tariffs was under discussion when he entered the hearing in the morning but that he only learned of the pause in real time.

“I understand it’s 90 days, I haven’t spoken to the president since I’ve been in this hearing,” Greer said.

Lawmakers also appeared to have little insight into what, exactly, changed Trump’s mind. Several lawmakers pointed to Trump, himself, saying he was ultimately responsible for setting the policy. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said he’s been seeking information from the administration on who, ultimately, is helping to shape Trump’s plan.

For weeks, Republican senators have fretted about the tariffs, but few have offered any real pushback to the administration, instead holding out hope that Trump would eventually ramp down the pressure. Those lawmakers embraced Trump’s announcement Wednesday afternoon.

“As he promised, he’s going to use these tariffs to leverage good, strong trade agreements, just like he got finished before in Trump 45,” said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). “So I’m excited.”

But while Trump hit pause on the highest tariff rates since the 1930s, import duties still remain far higher than when he took office. Along with the 10 percent global tariff and 125 percent tariff on China, Trump has maintained 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum and automobiles — and has promised future tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors.

Tillis said Trump’s move Wednesday was “smart because it eliminates some of the downside speculation right now.” But, he added, “it doesn’t eliminate any of the uncertainty unless you start seeing a deal float pretty quickly over the next couple of days with some of the major trading partners.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most vocal opponents of tariffs in the Senate, was more blunt: “Ten percent tariffs are bad, but they’re better than 60 percent.”

Two tariff-skeptical South Dakota Republicans did their best to present the U-turn as part of a coherent Trump administration policy that has otherwise escaped most observers. Rep. Dusty Johnson said he was “not opposed at all to using tariffs as a negotiating tool — seems like that’s what the White House is doing.”

Added Senate Majority Leader John Thune: “I think they are checking it out and seeing what works and if they are kind of getting the response that they hope to get. I think it’s a work in progress, but it sounds like they are getting some good results.”

“Behold the ‘Art of the Deal,’” Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X.

Privately, though, others in the GOP saw little method to the madness. “What a shitshow,” said a conservative House Republican granted anonymity to react candidly to the pause, “and after [Greer] just testified how we need the tariffs?”

ATTACHMENT THIRTY ONE – FROM CBS

TRUMP TARIFF PLANS BRING CONCERN ABOUT PRICES, FINANCIAL IMPACT, BUT GOP BASE SEES JOBS LONG-TERM — CBS NEWS POLL

By Anthony Salvanto,  Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus, Kabir Khanna Updated on: April 13, 2025 / 9:00 PM EDT / CBS News

Amid a tumultuous week in the markets, the outlook on President Trump's trade and tariff policy hinges not just on what Americans think will happen, but when. 

People split on whether they believe Mr. Trump has a clear plan, and most don't think the tariffs will be permanent — rather that he's using them to negotiate. More like his goals regarding trade policy than his approach to it. For those who think he does have a plan — predominantly, Republicans — it'll take months or longer to judge the impact. Republicans stand apart from the public overall in showing that patience. 

But in the short term, a big majority of Americans think new tariffs are going to raise prices, and many think that's the case in the long term, too. So, an inflation-weary public is bracing for that to hit their bottom line: a growing number think Trump's policies are making them financially worse off, not better, and most think that tariffs will make the economy worse more immediately, too. 

In turn, Trump's ratings for handling inflation and the economy have become more negative.

Either way one lasting impression may be this: in the public mind it is Donald Trump's economy now. A majority say his policies, not Joe Biden's, are responsible for it. 

Views about the potential impact on prices are especially important in this context because in recent years inflation has consistently been a top concern for Americans, and it is still a top way people evaluate their finances and the economy.

Opinion is more mixed on how tariffs might impact U.S. manufacturing jobs: it is mostly Republicans who believe they will lead to more jobs.

Trump's trade policies

In all, more people say they like Trump's goals with tariff and trade policy than like his approach.

And new tariffs continue to get net negative — but very partisan splits — in support. 

As does the view on whether or not Trump has a plan, where almost all Republicans say so.

Most Americans don't think the tariffs will stay — they think Mr. Trump is using them for negotiations and will remove them later. Republicans especially think that — and it's related to how they view the long-term impact on prices.

Despite many anticipating short-term price increases, Republicans and most independents say judging Trump's trade policies will take at least a few months to evaluate, while Democrats are more ready to evaluate them sooner.

Support for tariffs is also connected to who people think they'll help or hurt. Either way large numbers think the wealthy and corporations will benefit. Those in favor see the middle and working class benefitting too.

Trump's job handling

When Mr. Trump was entering office, a sizable four in 10 Americans thought he'd make them financially better off — it was a key reason he won the election. That changed in March, with more seeing the impact as worse, and now that worsening view has continued today. 

The market was volatile this week while the poll was being conducted, but overall more Americans said Mr. Trump's policies were making the market go down. 

In all, the trend is for sliding ratings for Mr. Trump on handling the economy, handling inflation, and overall. (That overall number is down from its high at the start, but still higher than anything he had in his first term.)

Some of the change in Mr. Trump's overall approval has come from independents disapproving more.

As has been the case, Mr. Trump gets better marks for handling immigration than either the economy and inflation. 

Impacting the economy

Ultimately, every president's policies put their stamp on the U.S. economy. In political terms, most of the public considers this Donald Trump's economy now: the majority view his policies (not Joe Biden's) as mostly responsible for the way things are today. And combined, three-quarters assign him at least shared impact.

Here's another way Mr. Trump is a central figure in the economy: given a list of reasons why they might think the economy is either good or bad, in either case, sizable numbers give Mr. Trump as a reason. For the large majority who think it's bad, prices and general lack of confidence are top reasons, along with Donald Trump specifically. Those who think the economy is good — a group that includes a lot of Republicans — list Mr. Trump, along with general confidence, and the job market. 

Polarization also plays a role in a difference between people's assessments now and their outlook. In the last few weeks, their collective outlook has changed a little more. 

First, views about their own outlook for the economy got a little worse, with fewer expecting it to hold steady and more expecting a recession. 

And a slight majority of Americans — and slightly more than last month — said they think the economy is getting worse. That came from Democrats, as most Republicans say it's getting better. (Separately, in a different study, the consumer confidence index slipped in April.)

Meanwhile, current views of the U.S. economy have been majority negative for years and still are. More Republicans are calling it good now, a partisan effect we often see over the years when the White House changes hands. And Republicans say that's in part due to their confidence in general and because of Donald Trump in particular. Those Republicans pushed the overall economy rating up a bit, even as Democrats and independents rated it worse.

Partisan differences on trade — how the base sees it

We can see more into Mr. Trump's support from the GOP base by where people go for trusted information about the tariffs and their impact: for Republicans, they trust Trump "a lot" for that information, far more than they do Wall Street or business leaders in general.

Along with economics and jobs, Republicans also see tariffs and trade as a matter of fairness and patriotism. 

And most Republicans don't want Congress involved, even though it's a Republican-controlled Congress. Democrats and independents, who are less supportive of tariffs, likely for pragmatic reasons would call for more congressional involvement to stop them.

This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,410  U.S. adults interviewed between April 8-11, 2025. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error is ±2.4 points.

ATTACHMENT THIRTY TWO - FROM POLITICO

RELIEF SWEEPS CAPITOL HILL AFTER TRUMP’S TARIFF U-TURN

“It sounds like they are getting some good results,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said.

By Meredith Lee Hill, Ben Jacobs and Daniel Desrochers

04/09/2025 03:30 PM EDT

Updated: 04/09/2025 05:15 PM EDT

Republican lawmakers exhaled in relief Wednesday after President Donald Trump announced he was pausing most of his sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs for 90 days.

While Trump left a lower, 10 percent global tariff in place and escalated his confrontation with China — upping those duties to 125 percent — Republicans were otherwise pleased with the apparent retreat a week after Trump’s Rose Garden announcement threw the financial and political worlds into a frenzy.

“I think jubilation is too strong a word, but ... it was positive,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who described fellow senators checking in on the balances of their retirement account as stocks surged. “I think everybody can sort of identify with that going up.”

They were less pleased about how they learned the news. That would be from a Truth Social post — not from the two high-level administration officials, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender, who were addressing separate groups of lawmakers on the Hill on Wednesday as the news broke. They showed no indication they knew the announcement was coming.

Inside a Republican Study Committee lunch, Faulkender pushed House members to back the GOP budget plan set for a House vote Wednesday when news broke of the tariff pause. Members wanted to know more about the administration’s end game, but he did not have answers, attendees said — nor did Greer, who was in front of the House Ways and Means Committee for his second straight day of congressional testimony.

Greer, who spent Tuesday and Wednesday morning defending the tariff rollout and insisting the president shouldn’t let the stock market drive his economic decisions, told the committee that he knew a pause on the tariffs was under discussion when he entered the hearing in the morning but that he only learned of the pause in real time.

“I understand it’s 90 days, I haven’t spoken to the president since I’ve been in this hearing,” Greer said.

Lawmakers also appeared to have little insight into what, exactly, changed Trump’s mind. Several lawmakers pointed to Trump, himself, saying he was ultimately responsible for setting the policy. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said he’s been seeking information from the administration on who, ultimately, is helping to shape Trump’s plan.

For weeks, Republican senators have fretted about the tariffs, but few have offered any real pushback to the administration, instead holding out hope that Trump would eventually ramp down the pressure. Those lawmakers embraced Trump’s announcement Wednesday afternoon.

“As he promised, he’s going to use these tariffs to leverage good, strong trade agreements, just like he got finished before in Trump 45,” said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). “So I’m excited.”

But while Trump hit pause on the highest tariff rates since the 1930s, import duties still remain far higher than when he took office. Along with the 10 percent global tariff and 125 percent tariff on China, Trump has maintained 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum and automobiles — and has promised future tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors.

Tillis said Trump’s move Wednesday was “smart because it eliminates some of the downside speculation right now.” But, he added, “it doesn’t eliminate any of the uncertainty unless you start seeing a deal float pretty quickly over the next couple of days with some of the major trading partners.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most vocal opponents of tariffs in the Senate, was more blunt: “Ten percent tariffs are bad, but they’re better than 60 percent.”

Two tariff-skeptical South Dakota Republicans did their best to present the U-turn as part of a coherent Trump administration policy that has otherwise escaped most observers. Rep. Dusty Johnson said he was “not opposed at all to using tariffs as a negotiating tool — seems like that’s what the White House is doing.”

Added Senate Majority Leader John Thune: “I think they are checking it out and seeing what works and if they are kind of getting the response that they hope to get. I think it’s a work in progress, but it sounds like they are getting some good results.”

“Behold the ‘Art of the Deal,’” Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X.

Privately, though, others in the GOP saw little method to the madness. “What a shitshow,” said a conservative House Republican granted anonymity to react candidly to the pause, “and after [Greer] just testified how we need the tariffs?”

ATTACHMENT THIRTY THREE - FROM GUK

US SMALL BUSINESS OWNER SAYS CHINA TARIFFS ENDANGER HER COMPANY: ‘I COULD LOSE MY HOME’

Beth Benike, whose products are manufactured in China, is ‘terrified’ what Trump trade war will mean for Busy Baby

Rachel Leingang Thu 10 Apr 2025 06.00 EDT

Beth Benike knew the tariffs were coming.

The Minnesota veteran invented a placemat with bungee cords that hold toys or utensils, keeping them off the floor when babies toss them. It’s one of several products she created for Busy Baby, a company she runs with her brother. They are manufactured in China.

She expected and budgeted for about 20-30% tariffs this year. When the first round of tariffs came in at 10%, it was manageable. Then the rate on China crept up, then up again, to 54%. That was her “oh, shit moment”, but she thought she could weather it, she told the Guardian.

It didn’t stop there, though. It climbed up to 104%. She filmed a video of herself “mid-meltdown” over the extreme tariff, posting it on her social media.

Busy Baby is one of many US small businesses having to reckon with monumental tariffs that could shutter their livelihoods. Donald Trump’s escalating trade war with China now includes a 125% tariff on Chinese products coming into the US. These businesses were given little more than a week to confront a budget-busting tax on their goods.

“After today’s announcement, and the impending 104% tariff, I am abandoning my products in China. I am leaving them there because I simply cannot afford to ship them here,” Benike told her followers on Monday, before Trump hiked the tariff on Chinese goods up even further on Wednesday.

“At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday as he paused tariffs on other countries.

Benike already paid about $160,000 to manufacture her products in China, and would have to pay more than that to bring them to the US. So for now, she’s trying to figure out other options: she could try to sell them overseas, or send them to another country to repackage them.

I’m terrified for my business, and I’m terrified for all the other small businesses in the United States right now

“I’m terrified for my business, and I’m terrified for all the other small businesses in the United States right now, because we don’t know what to do, and we’re invested in our businesses. I could lose my home, and I don’t understand it, and I don’t know what to do,” she said in the video.

After Trump’s latest increase, Benike said she was looking into sending the paid-for products to Australia, where she has friends, to have them repackaged, then importing them from there during the 90-day pause because it is at least a way to get the products she already paid for to the US.

Her business has grown since she founded it in 2017, and accolades have come with it. She was named Minnesota’s small businessperson of the year by the US Small Business Administration this year. She finally got into big retailers – Target and Walmart – with small test runs. Those contracts, though, were signed before the tariffs. Walmart told her it wanted to keep and expand its offerings from Busy Baby, she said, but she had a “hard conversation” with the buyer this week to let them know she cannot add a third product to their roster because of the high tariffs.

“It has completely stifled my growth in big box retail, which has been our main goal for three years– to grow into that space,” she said. “Because as a teeny, tiny business, that’s a huge achievement, huge for our brand. And now it’s halted.”

The other option, the one Trump wants, is a pipe dream: manufacturing her products in the US. Benike would prefer to manufacture here, too. But a mountain of logistics, near impossibilities, stand in her way.

Food-grade silicone, which she uses for her products, is not available domestically. When she looked into the cost of importing the material when she first started, it was more expensive than importing a finished product, and the prices have gone up since then. Manufacturing facilities in the US with the compression mold machines she needed require much larger runs than she can commit to. The minimum requirements for factories here was 20,000 – in China, she could do a couple thousand at a time.

I wish I understood the big picture, or how they expect us to pivot in this tiny window of time. I don’t understand, I just don’t understand this

Making the molds for her products takes about two months. They also are made in China – many American manufacturers send American steel to China to makemolds because they’re better at it there, she said. The molds alone would cost up to $75,000 in the US. If she found a factory and the capital needed to get it all going, it would still take a minimum of four months until she had products ready to sell, she estimated.

“It’s financially impossible for me to manufacture here. But even if I had an angel that just dropped a million dollars in my lap, it doesn’t make sense as a business model for how much we would have to charge for the product and charge the consumer,” she said. “It doesn’t make any sense. So I wish I understood the big picture, or how they expect us to pivot in this tiny window of time. I don’t understand, I just don’t understand this.”

She said she has about two or three months’ worth of product on hand now, giving her a few months until she could theoretically go out of business if she doesn’t figure something else out. If people buy up what she has left, that at least gives her some cashflow to buy her some time to make new plans.

On Tuesday, she got a call from the Small Business Administration, she said. Someone there saw her video, so she’s sending them information on her products and the machines at the factory she uses now. The agency is going to try to find a factory in the US that could make her products, but she’s not holding her breath.

Beth Benike, founder of Busy Baby, talks with her brother and COO, Eric Fynbo. Photograph: Star Tribune/Getty Images

She decided to post her video and speak out about the way the tariffs are affecting small businesses because she has a community of supporters and other entrepreneurs who can help and commiserate, including some who know her from her appearance on Shark Tank.

I can’t fail. This is my children’s livelihood. It’s my home

Two years ago, during a different tough spot for her business, she had suicidal thoughts. The weight of being a CEO was heavy. She thought, if she was gone, at least her family would have life insurance to live on. She got help then and learned coping strategies.

The thought of life insurance surfaced again this week. She caught it quickly, reminding herself that “this is a trick my brain is playing on me right now, because it doesn’t see a way out”. She wants other entrepreneurs to know they aren’t alone as they face these tariffs. She’s heard from some, who have messaged her privately to say they are feeling the same pain, but can’t speak out because it’s a business risk.

Some of the comments on her video and on local news websites that have written about her predicament have not been kind. Some have said, you voted for this, or you deserve this if you voted for Trump. She did not vote for Trump, she said, but she does not know why her political beliefs matter.

Fact check: are US tariffs really bringing in $2bn a day as Trump claims?

“No one deserves this. No one. Regardless of who they voted for,” she said. “Trump said he was going to do tariffs. We knew that. Yes, we knew tariffs were coming. I would have never in a million years guessed it would be like this.”

She has more than 15 patents for the products she’s created for the “accidental business” she came up with after her son was born. She learned how to start a business, develop products, set up an e-commerce store. Now, digging her way out from huge tariffs is one more thing to learn.

“We’ve got a great product, and it is a great product for babies. Babies exist all over our world, all over the planet, babies everywhere. I can’t fail,” she said. “This is my children’s livelihood. It’s my home.”

ATTACHMENT THIRTY FOUR – FROM GUK

WHICH TRUMP-SUPPORTING BILLIONAIRES HAVE LOST THE MOST IN TARIFF MARKETS TURMOIL?

Wealth of world’s richest tycoons shrinks as US president’s trade war spooks investors

By Mark Sweney Mon 7 Apr 2025 10.28 EDT

With global stock markets reeling from Donald Trump’s announcement of sweeping border taxes, some of the US president’s business allies have been left counting the cost.

The world’s 500 richest people lost a collective $536bn (£417bn) in the first two days of stock market trading after Trump’s “liberation day” announcement last Wednesday. It was the biggest two-day loss of wealth ever recorded by Bloomberg’s billionaires index.

Within that, a coterie of tycoons who have supported Trump or attended his inauguration in January have seen their wealth shrink. Here, we look at the four who have been worst hit by the market turmoil – and one billionaire still riding high this year.

---

Elon Musk

The world’s richest man and the chief executive of Tesla – who has already seen his wealth drop precipitously after becoming a high-profile and controversial figure in Trump’s administration – has taken the biggest hit by some margin.

Tesla was already facing a potential buyer backlash over its CEO’s controversial behaviour, and as its shares plunged, $31bn was wiped off Musk’s net worth between the opening bell on Thursday and the market closing on Friday. The recent fall in Tesla’s stock has meant his private rockets and satellites business, SpaceX, became his most valuable asset.

So far this year, Musk’s estimated wealth has fallen by $130bn, although he still comfortably remains the world’s richest person, with a net worth of $302bn. Tesla’s shares fell nearly 5% on Wall Street on Monday afternoon, adding to these losses.

---

Mark Zuckerberg

The Facebook founder and owner of Instagram and WhatsApp had the next biggest loss, at more than $27bn.

The world’s third richest person, with an estimated net worth of $179bn, was hit by a plunge in the value of Meta. Its stock dropped almost 14% over two days as the tariff war hit tech companies particularly hard. Its stock edged slightly higher on Monday, up almost 1%.

Many of the world’s biggest companies rely on markets in Asia, which had the heaviest tariffs imposed on them by Trump, for manufacturing, computer chips and IT services.

Zuckerberg, who performed a remarkable “Trump pivot” of Meta weeks before Trump took office, has seen more than $28bn wiped off his personal fortune so far this year.

---

JEFF BEZOS

The Amazon founder and Washington Post owner had the next biggest two-day loss, at $23.5bn.

The market value of Amazon, a leading seller of imported goods from around the world, has fallen by hundreds of billions of dollars this year.

China-based sellers have more than a 50% market share of Amazon’s third-party marketplace, while its cloud services business also relies on tech produced primarily by manufacturers in Asian countries, such as Taiwan.

Bezos, the world’s second richest person, with a net worth estimated at $193bn, has seen $45bn wiped off his fortune so far this year. Amazon’s shares were marginally higher – up 0.4% - on Monday.

In February, Bezos’s $10bn climate and biodiversity fund halted funding to one of the world’s most important climate-certification organisations, in a move viewed by some as a “bowing down” to Trump and his opposition to climate action.

BERNARD ARNAULT

The owner of the LVMH luxury goods empire lost $6bn on Thursday and more than $5bn on Friday as Trump’s tariffs hit the Asian factory hubs that underpin the global garment industry. Shares fell even further on Monday, by more than 4%.

The net worth of Europe’s richest person, and the fourth wealthiest individual in the world according to Bloomberg, has dropped to $158bn – down $18.6bn so far this year.

Arnault has been friends with Trump since the early 1980s when they met at a charity dinner, and the US is his business empire’s largest market, equal in size to all European sales.

Arnault, also known as the “wolf in cashmere”, had prime seats at Trump’s second inauguration along with his wife, son and daughter.

“I have just returned from the US, and I have witnessed the winds of optimism in that country,” he said on his return. “Coming back to France is a bit like taking a cold shower.”

A 20% tariff has since been imposed on the EU, while key countries for garment manufacturing in Asia have tariffs of up to 54%.

... and Warren Buffett

Not all billionaires have seen their net worth decrease, despite the two-day rout.

The canny chair and largest shareholder in the investment company Berkshire Hathaway, known as the “sage of Omaha”, has seen his wealth increase to $155bn this year.

The world’s sixth richest person, whose annual shareholder meetings have been called “Woodstock for capitalists”, did take a $2.57bn hit in the two-day meltdown, but he has seen $12.7bn added to his net wealth so far this year.

On Friday, Trump shared a video on his social media site, Truth Social, that erroneously claimed Buffett had praised his recent economic policies.

Berkshire Hathaway subsequently issued a statement saying reports on social media attributing comments to Buffett were false. Its stock fell just over 2% in early afternoon trading on Monday.

ATTACHMENT THIRTY FIVE – FROM THE NEW YORK POST

TRUMP’S BASE IS STICKING WITH HIM THROUGH TARIFF TURMOIL — AS MORE AMERICANS START BLAMING HIM FOR ECONOMY: NEW POLL

By Ryan King Published April 13, 2025, 1:05 p.m. ET

Trump responds to question on tariff pause: ‘We don't want to hurt countries that don't need to be hurt’

Republicans are remaining firmly behind President Trump even as most Americans are beginning to blame him for economic strife that has bubbled up during his tariff push, a new poll found.

A staggering 91% of Republicans believe Trump has a plan amid his tariff blitz, while 84% of Democrats and 57% of Independents say he doesn’t, according to a CBS News/YouGov poll.

In the wake of Trump’s tariff scheme, which led to a stock sell-off that has since somewhat abated and angst in the bond market, many Americans are growing nervous about the state of the economy and fear that the protectionist policies could raise prices domestically.

President Trump’s approval rating on the economy has started to slip, a new poll reveals.

Although 54% of Americans overall now say Trump’s policies are responsible for the state of the economy after just 84 days in office, only 35% of respondents believe the economy is doing either fairly good or very good.

That’s a stark reversal from Trump’s first term and the 2024 campaign cycle, when he regularly drew high marks on the economy. Now he’s only notching a 44% approve to 56% disapprove rating.

The poll could be an early warning about the political headwinds Trump and Republicans could face if his tariff policies cause further economic tumult.

So far, like GOP voters, Republicans in Congress are inclined towards giving Trump lots of breathing room to negotiate new trade deals with foreign countries.

President Trump unveiled a suite of tariffs on “Liberation Day” earlier this month.

However, that could change over time if the mood among voters shifts. Already, some Republicans, among them Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), have backed measures to rein in his tariff authority. The measures lack the support to override a presidential veto — at least for now.

Trump has billed his tariff plan as short-term pain for long-term gain. Many Americans indicate that they are starting to feel some of that pain.

A firm 49% believe Trump’s policies are making them financially worse off, marking an uptick from 42% in March.

But they seem split on the ultimate payoff from the tariffs.

President Trump recently exempted a swath of electronics from his 125% tariff against China.AFP via Getty Images

In the short term, three-quarters of Americans expect those tariffs to increase prices on everyday goods and services but remain torn over their long-term impact.

Long term, only 42% expect tariffs to make the economy worse, while 23% aren’t expecting a significant impact and 34% believe it will make the economy better, per the poll.

Amid all those concerns, only 37% approve of his approach, while 51% favor his overall goal of bringing jobs back to the US from overseas and getting fairer trade deals with foreign countries.

A whopping 85% of Republicans believe that the tariffs will add more jobs to the US economy, compared to 43% of Independents and 20% of Democrats.

This month, the president rolled out a bevy of tariffs against virtually every country, a move that led to a dramatic market sell-off and sparked fears the country was headed toward recession.

Last Wednesday, he imposed a 90-day pause on most of those tariffs while leaving in place a baseline 10% rate against every country and a 145% total tariff against China.

On Friday, the Trump administration announced an electronics exemption for imports from China, but then on Sunday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the exemption would be temporary and that the president is mulling plans for more permanent duties on those products.

Most also do not believe that Trump intends to impose tariffs over the long run, with 59% suspecting that the president will remove them at some point, according to the poll.

This CBS News/YouGov survey sampled 2,410 adults between April 8 to 11 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 points.

ATTACHMENT THIRTY SIX – FROM FOX

'NECESSARY' OR 'BULLYING OUR FRIENDS?' AMERICANS DIFFER STARKLY ON TRUMP TARIFFS

'Little hiccup right now, but in the long run, we'll be way better off,' one Michigan man said

By Cortney O'Brien , Alba Cuebas-Fantauzzi , Elizabeth Heckman , Gabriel Hays , Joshua Nelson  4/14

Americans’ verdict on Trump tariffs: ‘aggressive, but probably needed’

Americans across the country weighed in on President Donald Trump's tariffs and ensuing trade war in interviews with Fox News Digital, offering mixed opinions on whether he's headed down the right economic track.

Trump recently raised tariffs for some of the world’s biggest economic powers, but on Wednesday announced a temporary halt in tariff increases to allow for negotiations, with the exception of China. 

With a 90-day pause, all countries, aside from China, temporarily return to the 10% baseline tariff rate, which went into effect on April 2, and applies to all imports to the U.S., a move which caused some drastic market volatility. 

"It's very unfortunate that it's come down to these tariff wars," Charles from Mississippi told Fox News Digital, before the pause went into effect. "But I think it's something that we have to endure to get back to an even playing field in this world."

Other Americans, who spoke with Fox News Digital before this week's tariff pause, offered varying responses.

"I think they're aggressive, but probably needed," Nancy from North Carolina said.

Folks from Birmingham, Mich., offered starkly different takes. While Steve said the tariffs were "great," Ford saw the president as a bully.

"They're great," Steve said. "I think they're great for our country and going to be great for our country in the long run. Little hiccup right now, but in the long run, we'll be way better off."

"He's bullying our friends and all the country, the whole world, and he's trying to get things to change by bullying people," Ford said.

TRUMP'S TARIFFS: WHAT TARIFFS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON MAJOR TRADING PARTNERS OR PAUSED

Shane of Lexington, Ky., seemed to concur.

"I disagree with them strongly," he said of the tariffs. "I believe he's trying to take advantage of our influence in the world."

"I don't think that they are the appropriate move to make," Mary in Washington, D.C., said of the tariffs.

"The changes that it brings will be negative for the people that really need the change, like people in the middle of America or people that are counting on good markets."

Some argued the tariffs were too "broad."

"You can use tariffs for a very limited purpose, which is if you have a particular country where they are dumping or doing some other, or erecting certain barriers, you can use a tariff to counteract that," David from Birmingham said. "But a broad-based tariff policy doesn't work, hasn't worked in history. It won't work now, either."

"They're too broad," Shane from Lexington, Ky., said. "I think he's kind of taken a scattering approach to imposing these tariffs where he could, if we wanted to do this to make it more fair for us."

Others were of the opinion that while at the moment there's some economic volatility, it'll eventually flatten out and have a positive effect.

"The tariffs are a necessary way to get things back to being fair in our world," Charles from Mississippi said. "I think it's unfortunate that things have gotten so far out of balance."

"In the long run, they're going to be good," agreed Glen from Knoxville. "I think that right now we're going to feel the effects of it from the economy, but it will probably for a few months. But I think, in the longer run, it's going to work out."

ATTACHMENT THIRTY SEVEN – FROM 1440

TARIFF SEESAW

China announced new retaliatory tariffs of 84% against US imports early Wednesday in response to the Trump administration’s 104% tariff on Chinese imports. The escalation came as Trump announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs over 10%—excluding China—later in the day, sparking markets to historic rallies. Trump also increased China’s tariffs to 125%.

The tariff pause came amid warnings from economists—including JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon—that the broad tariff program would lead to a recession (tariffs 101). Since last week’s announcement of increased tariffs on more than 75 nations, the S&P 500 had entered bear market territory, having shed nearly 20% off its recent high, while all US-listed stocks dropped $7.7T in value. 

Stocks popped on the reversal (S&P 500 +9.5%, Dow +7.9%, Nasdaq +12.2%), with the S&P 500 notching its biggest single-day gain since 2008. 

In related news, Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin said yesterday that price hikes from tariffs may not arrive until the summer as companies work through existing inventory. See how tariffs are implemented here.

ATTACHMENT THIRTY EIGHT – FROM NPR

TRUMP SAYS HE WILL PAUSE TARIFF HIKES FOR 90 DAYS, BUT NOT FOR CHINA

ByFranco Ordoñez Updated April 9, 2025 5:52 PM ET

President Trump abruptly announced on Wednesday that he would pause big hikes on tariffs for most countries for 90 days, except for China.

Mixed messages on tariffs raise scrutiny on Trump aides

Most countries will be left with 10% tariffs on their exports to the United States, while China — which had retaliated against Trump's moves — will now face tariffs of 125%.

The whipsawing of Trump's tariff policies has weighed heavily on financial markets, and Trump told reporters that those moves — especially in the bond market — had factored into his decision.

"Well, I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy, you know. They're getting a little bit … afraid," Trump told reporters at an unrelated event at the White House with race car drivers and team owners.

His decision, announced on social media in the middle of the trading day, caused stock prices to soar.

European Union approves new retaliatory tariffs on the U.S.

Earlier, in a hastily arranged gaggle with reporters outside the White House, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted that the market chaos caused by Trump's hefty tariffs was not the reason for the policy shift.

"This was driven by the president's strategy. He and I had a long talk on Sunday, and this was his strategy all along," Bessent told reporters.

"It took great courage — great courage — for him [Trump] to stay the course until this moment," Bessent said.

Trump defended his about-face on tariffs as a sign of his flexibility. "You have to have flexibility. I could say, 'Here's a wall, and I'm going to go through that wall. I'm going to go through it no matter what,'" Trump said. "Sometimes you have to be able to go under the wall, around the wall or over the wall."

Bessent said Trump's steep "reciprocal tariffs" had brought more than 75 countries to seek deals with the United States, and he said that the White House would pursue "bespoke" arrangements with each of them in the coming weeks.

"It is going to take some time, and President Trump wants to be personally involved. So that's why we're getting the 90-day pause," he said.

Trump trade official signals tariffs are negotiating tool amid GOP skepticism

Bessent said that a range of issues would be on the table during talks with other countries, including liquefied natural gas deals, nontariff trade barriers, currency policies and subsidies. He said he has a meeting with Vietnamese officials on Wednesday.

Bessent said China was the "biggest source" of trade issues for the United States and the rest of the world.

"I'm not calling it a trade war, but I'm saying that China has escalated, and President Trump responded very courageously to that, and we are going to work on a solution with our trading partners," he said.

When asked why White House aides insisted the tariffs weren't about negotiations prior to the pause, Trump told reporters Wednesday afternoon, "A lot of time it's not a negotiation until it is." He said he had been thinking about pausing the tariffs "over the last few days," but that "I think it probably came together early this morning, fairly early this morning."

Trump said he expects Chinese President Xi will eventually call to make a deal and doesn't expect to have to further escalate the tariffs that remain in place against China. He would not elaborate on what specifically he expects China to do before the U.S. rolls back the tariffs.

ATTACHMENT THIRTY NINE – FROM YAHOO NEWS

TRUMP SAYS HE DECIDED ON 90-DAY TARIFF PAUSE BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE 'YIPPY' AND 'AFRAID'

By Ben Werschkul · Washington Correspondent

Updated Wed, April 9, 2025 at 5:01 PM EDT 4 min read

Donald Trump stunned markets Wednesday with another quick pivot on trade, announcing he would authorize a 90-day pause on his reciprocal tariff plans for all countries except China and telling reporters he did so because people were getting "yippy" and "afraid."

"They were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid," he said Wednesday, referring to the market unrest that unfolded following his "Liberation Day" tariff announcement a week ago.

The benchmark S&P 500 (^GSPC) roared up over 9.5% in the biggest increase since 2008.

It was a move that Trump says came together early Wednesday morning after he had been considering it in recent days.

"We decided to pull the trigger and we did it today and we are happy about it," he said. "If you keep going, you are going to be back to where it was four weeks ago," he added.

The sharp move upward in markets came after Trump paused many tariffs but kept 10% baseline duties in place that came into effect last weekend for all countries.

That baseline does not apply to Mexico or Canada, which still face a separate set of duties related to fentanyl. Separate industry-specific tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos also remain unchanged.

The president's pause of "reciprocal" tariffs has one notable exception: China. Trump announced he would be unilaterally raising the rate on China further to 125% because of "the lack of respect that China has shown."

Trump additionally floated an idea Wednesday afternoon that he might consider exempting some US companies from the tariffs, saying those decisions would be made "instinctively."

It was another chaotic move in Trump's ever-shifting tariff plans and came less than an hour after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters that the president's decision had nothing to do with the turmoil in both the stock and bond markets of the past week, saying that "this was his strategy all along."

Trump was pressed on the apparent contradiction and how many aides had previously said this was not a negotiation by saying "sometimes it's not a negotiation until it is."

More than 75 countries have contacted the US to start talks on the reciprocal tariffs, Trump and his aides say, with Trump's team promising that the 90-day pause that will allow the US to create a "bespoke" solution for all of them.

But Trump seemed to acknowledge the market reaction was part of his calculus for announcing the pause, saying he noticed last night in the bond market that "people were getting a little queasy" and "you have to be flexible."

The move puts also even more focus on China as the White House appears to try to isolate the world's second-largest economy by beginning talks with China's neighbors while continuing to raise duties faced by China itself.

"China is the most imbalanced economy in the history of the world," Bessent added to reporters Wednesday afternoon, calling it the "biggest source" of US trade troubles.

Wednesday's move will also lower duties on the European Union from a rate of 20% to the 10% baseline that went into effect on April 5. That lessening comes even as the group approved their own retaliatory tariffs earlier Wednesday but Trump says they will get a reprieve because those duties hadn't gone into effect yet.

"These Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States, I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately," Trump said in his initial post announcing the move.

Terry Haines of Pangaea Policy added in the immediate aftermath of the news that another fact that could be boosting markets is that "Bessent is the main adviser, while [Commerce Secretary Howard] Lutnick is in charge of the negotiating details, something that’s likely soothing to the Street."

It was a partial reversal of what economic observers warned could move pocketbooks, with a new Yale Budget Lab study released Tuesday estimating that the tariffs could push prices up by 2.3% and translate to an average of $3,800 more in costs this year for families.

Around the world, 185 countries have been impacted by 10% duties implemented last weekend, and those duties appear set to continue.

Trump and his aides have repeatedly touted the sheer number of countries that have called to negotiate, with Bessent saying they are "overwhelmed."

Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam are apparently first in line with talks commencing this week. Other talks could drag out for weeks or months with the timeline unclear, especially if they will be finished before the 90-day pause ends in July.

As for the path ahead for still jittery markets, Bessent added Wednesday that "the only certainty we can provide is that the US is going to negotiate in good faith."

Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance.

ATTACHMENT FORTY – FROM FOX BUSINESS

SCHUMER SAYS TRUMP 'FEELING THE HEAT' AFTER RECIPROCAL TARIFF PAUSE

Trump pauses some tariffs, but Senate Democrats say the damage is done

By Charles Creitz Fox News Published April 9, 2025 3:49pm EDT

Schumer blasts economic "chaos" as Trump pauses some tariffs

Minutes after President Donald Trump announced a pause on some reciprocal tariffs, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called it evidence the administration is "feeling the heat" from Democrats, but claimed "irretrievable damage" had already been done to the U.S. economy.

Schumer said he and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., were going to talk to reporters about the effects of Trump's tariffs on personal IRAs and brokerage accounts – but pivoted just as the news broke.

"It's still an issue, but not today," he said.

"We're going to talk about what just happened… Let's be clear. Donald Trump is feeling the heat from Democrats and across America about how bad these tariffs are. He is reeling. He is retreating, and that is a good thing," Schumer claimed.

SCHUMER MOCKED FOR ‘CORONA & GUAC’ CLIP WARNING TARIFFS WILL HURT SUPER BOWL PARTIES

Joined by Sens. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Andy Kim, D-N.J., the New York lawmakers jointly condemned what they called "chaos" in the White House.

"Volatility in our economy is so destructive. President Trump may have paused these reciprocal tariffs, but he's maintained a 10% tariff on all of them. Businesses will now not invest in new projects or expand their workforce because they have no idea of what is coming next," Gillibrand warned.

"A 90-day pause means they don't know what's gonna happen at the end of the 90 days. A 10% is still going to hurt our families. These tariffs and this trade war are absurd. They're going to increase costs for everyday goods, from food to housing to anything you buy for your family or your children. It's going to fuel inflation."

SCHUMER SUPPORTS DEMS DELAYING ALL TRUMP NOMINEES THAT LACK UNANIMOUS SUPPORT

Schumer said Trump's White House is "governing by chaos" and that the president lacks the understanding of world affairs and "the facts."

He said unpredictability in the markets will and has stymied investment and job creation, and that American businesses cannot map out their future.

Hirono echoed her fellow Democrats, describing Trump's second term as "one damn thing after another."

"Governing by executive order: most of them are illegal. There are over 100 lawsuits now to prevent them from doing all these things that he shouldn't even be doing. But the result of all this is chaos," she said.

"We can throw out all the numbers, how much of these tariffs will cost a typical family. Do you think he cares? Because if he did, he wouldn't do it. He doesn't even look. That is the thing that has to sink in with the American people," Hirono added, comparing the current executive economic policy to a game of craps.

Kim said he is hearing from people all across New Jersey that Gillibrand's claim "the damage has been done" is correct.

"When it comes to these small businesses, because the uncertainty remains, we don't know what's gonna happen after the 90 days," he said.

Kim said the U.S. is no longer a global leader due to Trump, and that the White House should be joining Democrats in building an economy that can rival China.

He later claimed that "America First" had translated to "America alone."

"I've never seen this level of isolation of the United States as I do right now, and that is so damaging on so many different fronts," Kim claimed.

A FOX Business reporter later asked Schumer about appearing "at a loss for words" upon the news.

"We know that Donald Trump doesn't think things through…" Schumer replied. "But on something so vital, like the whole economy of America, the amount of money people have in their pockets, in their livelihoods, on something as vital as this. Yes, it leaves you agape…"

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately hear back.

When asked by reporters about Schumer's criticisms, Trump said Democratic leaders "knew you had to do it."

Trump went on to say long-term benefits of the tariff regime will "take a little conditioning" as part of a "transition to greatness."

ATTACHMENT FORTY ONE – FROM USA TODAY

A TARIFF TIMEOUT – AND A NEW IRAN DEAL?

Hi, all. Elliott Davis here filling in for Olivier, whose insights will be back in your inboxes tomorrow. Before we dive into today’s topic, let’s not ignore the Big News:

Markets cratered. Allies were angered. Americans disapproved.

And Trump blinked.

A week after his much-ballyhooed “Liberation Day,” the president announced on his social media platform a 90-day pause on tariff hikes and a “substantially lowered” reciprocal tariff rate for many countries. Not included in that relief? China, which saw its duty increased to 125% in another dramatic escalation of the trade war between the two rivals.

The response to Trump’s about-face was swift: Stocks rallied and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was ready with the spin, saying Trump had “great courage” and telling reporters that this was the president’s strategy “all along.” Dozens of countries, the White House says, are hoping to negotiate (though that list appears to be tightly held). Also: People were “getting a little bit yippy,” Trump said.

Indeed. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found a majority of respondents at least somewhat opposed to Trump’s plan, while close to 75% said they expected prices on items they buy every day to increase in the next six months. Separate polling from Quinnipiac University shows that 72% of voters thought the tariffs would hurt the U.S. economy in the short term. (A smaller majority expected a long-term impact.)

Recession warning lights blared, markets were roiled by the tariffs themselves and by confusion surrounding their rollout, and even key Trump advisers caustically sparred over the plan.

In short, the art of this deal wasn't pretty. And with frayed relations and 10% tariffs still in effect, let’s see what tomorrow brings.

(Be sure to check out more on the tariff turmoil below from my colleague Tim Smart.) 

###

____

Now for a brief respite from the t-word. 

Potentially lost in the shuffle around President Trump’s you-know-what frenzy was his revelation that the U.S. on Saturday will participate in talks with Iran in an attempt to tame the country’s advancing nuclear program. Trump framed the dialogue as “direct,” while Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated on a certain social media hellscape that they’d be “indirect high-level talks,” signaling he wants intermediaries shuttling back and forth. 

· The meeting is “as much an opportunity as it is a test,” Araghchi added.

· “I think it’s touching base,” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said Tuesday.

· “It’s not a negotiation,” Bruce continued. “It’s a meeting, and that’s what the commitment is.”

So the confab in Oman will feature talks about maybe, possibly holding some sort of talks later. They might be face-to-face. Or they might not be. Got it.

Regardless, as Vali Nasr – a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and co-director of its Rethinking Iran Initiative – tells me: “The definition of success here is a next meeting.” 

Getting another meeting/touch-base/negotiation on the books could be tough, though. Here’s what else you need to know about the U.S.-Iran summit and why it’s important.

How Did We Get Here?

Trump in 2018 pulled the U.S. out of an international agreement brokered under former President Barack Obama and also agreed to by China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action aimed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program would remain exclusively peaceful, but Trump castigated the accord as weak and justified his first-term decision by saying Iran had violated its “spirit.”

Nasr says U.S.-Iran relations often have a lot to do with Israel’s security, noting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also was fiercely critical of the agreement reached under Obama. If Israel had its way, he adds, Iran would “give up all of its nuclear program – lock, stock and barrel,” which is a non-starter for the Islamic Republic. 

· The fact that Trump this week announced the start of new talks with Iran while he was right next to Netanyahu had “its own symbolism,” Nasr says.

There are plenty of other sticking points likely to come up if talks progress: With Trump almost assuredly wanting to one-up Obama with a tougher deal, Iran’s missile program and proxy forces like Hamas and Hezbollah figure to factor in.

And it’s worth noting that Iran reportedly hacked Trump’s 2024 campaign and was allegedly behind a plot to assassinate him. Trump, for his part, has moved to restore his “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign against Iran since returning to office – he levied fresh ones on Wednesday, to boot – and raised the prospect of military action against the country.

To state the obvious: We’re not starting on friendly footing here.

What’s at Stake?

Nuclear bombs are scary. (Thank you again, Captain O.) But there are plenty of other big-picture nuances to this meeting.

Similar to the Trump administration facilitating (in)direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, the U.S. reengaging with Iran acts as the president’s next “big diplomatic initiative,” and success or failure matters, Nasr says. 

· That means it’s a big test for special envoy Steve Witkoff, who will reportedly lead the U.S. delegation but has no known nuclear know-how.

· It’s also a test for Iran, whose economy has already been battered by sanctions and is facing the prospect of “snapback” international measures.    

Nasr adds that these talks offer evidence that Trump prefers to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran, whereas Israel has pressed for military action. If the negotiations do succeed, it will mean a major de-escalation in the Middle East and allow the administration to focus on China and domestic issues, which Trump’s “base has been demanding,” Nasr says. 

If the talks fail, well … 

· “Starting a war with Iran then gets the United States entangled in the Middle East for an unknown period of time,” Nasr says. “It has enormous amounts of risk for President Trump, for his presidency, for the United States. It puts everything else, from tariffs to domestic sets of things – it will change the dynamic on everything.”

(Sorry, dear readers. Tariffs find their way into everything these days.)

The president’s advisers declared it a victory for Trump’s negotiating style while others said he had buckled under the pressure of the markets.

ATTACHMENT FORTY TWO – FROM U.S. NEWS

Trump’s Trade War Is Far From Over

ICYMI:

· The Social Security Administration is moving public communications to X.

· A judge ruled that Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil can be deported.

· A tech glitch means some import tariffs are not being collected in the U.S.

 ____

President Donald Trump blinked. That’s not a bad thing.

Days after imposing large tariffs on virtually every U.S. trade partner – and an island chain inhabited chiefly by penguins – Trump paused most of the duties in response to a stock market collapse and turmoil in the bond market that presaged long-term economic pain at home.

No, it wasn’t a clever plan, no matter how the White House wants to spin it. Trump publicly admitted the bond market forced his hand. His trade representative learned of the suspension partway through congressional testimony in which he had been defending Trump’s global approach.

And while Trump may have averted the worst with his 90-day suspension, his trade war is still raging:

· The president didn’t freeze his 10% across-the-board tariff on pretty much every country’s exports to the U.S. (Tariffs are an import tax covered by the American importer of a foreign good, with costs typically passed on to the consumer.)

· His tariffs of up to 25% on imported autos, steel and aluminum persist, roiling ties with major allies like Canada, where anger at the U.S. shows no sign of subsiding.

· America’s most serious global rival, China, has imposed duties of 125% on U.S. goods in retaliation for Trump’s decision to hike tariffs on Chinese goods, now at 145%. 

· The rest-of-the-world tariffs are only suspended, and (for now) only until July 9, which leaves little time to negotiate what the president has predicted will be agreements shifting the balance of trade in America’s favor.

So far, the White House has portrayed the mere fact of foreign offers to negotiate as a victory, but it has not shared which countries have come forward seeking new deals. It appears that there may be opening bids, but no locked-in concessions. Everything is TBD.

The China Syndrome

Countries bordering the Pacific Ocean that had joined the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Trump scuttled, may find an easier road to satisfying the president. The TPP, which was never ratified by Congress, would have lowered or eliminated tariffs on American manufactured goods and on almost all U.S. agricultural products.

So nations like Vietnam, Singapore or Australia may have a smoother road to new trade arrangements, with the caveat that Trump has not laid out his requirements in detail and may not agree to reciprocal concessions.

But the real headache is China, the world’s top exporter (ahead of No. 2, the United States) and a global rival in economic, military and diplomatic terms.

Beijing hasn’t just retaliated with its own tariffs and export controls, looking to humble some high-tech American businesses. It’s also sending signals of defiance.

A spokeswoman for China’s foreign ministry, Mao Ning, recently shared footage on social media of a speech by Chinese leader Mao Zedong during the Korean War. “No matter how long this war is going to last, we’ll never yield,” he says.

In another post, Mao Ning shared footage of President Ronald Reagan praising free trade. In yet another, she shared a cartoon of a “Make America Great Again” cap, the original price of $50 crossed out and replaced with $77, as if to account for U.S. tariffs.

Disagreement on Talks

There’s plenty of fodder for those skeptical that we’re heading for a happy ending.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNN this week that he and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are not engaging with their Chinese counterparts. Traditionally, the contours of a deal would be negotiated at the ministerial level, with the national leaders mostly left with the job of signing the agreement.

But Trump “expects to have conversations” with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Lutnick said. “If we get a contact, we will just pass it to the president.”

“The answer really is: It’s a phone call between the two leaders of these giant countries, and that they can work it out together,” Lutnick said.

That’s not likely, according to Ryan Hass, a Brookings Institution scholar on China, Taiwan, Asia.

“Chinese President Jiang Zemin sent a telegram of condolence to George W Bush on September 11, 2001, but beyond that, it is exceedingly rare for a PRC leader to initiate outreach to a US president,” Hass noted on social media.

Chinese officials have watched Trump suddenly change his mind, and they “don’t want to own responsibility for setting Xi up to be humiliated by Trump on [the] world stage,” said Ryan Hass, a Brookings Institution scholar.

We may be in this mess for a while.

 

How Bad Is Inflation? A Quick Data Snapshot

President Donald Trump promised to lower costs on his first day in office. This is how it’s going so far.

How Will Trump's Tariffs Affect Homebuyers?

How much more expensive could a new home be if new tariffs are added to a range of imported goods? Read on to find out.

– Geoff Williams

ATTAaA

ATTACHMENT FORTY THREE – FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

INSIDE TRUMP’S REVERSAL ON TARIFFS

Economic turmoil, particularly a rapid rise in government bond yields, caused President Trump to reverse course on the steep levies.

By Tyler Pager, Maggie Haberman, Ana Swanson and Jonathan Swan April 9, 2025

For the past week, President Trump has been urging calm in the face of the financial chaos that he created and resisting calls for him to rethink his approach.

“I know what the hell I’m doing,” he told Republicans on Tuesday as the massive tariffs he had imposed sent global markets into a tailspin. “BE COOL!” he said in a social media post on Wednesday morning. “Everything is going to work out well.”

At 9:37 a.m. Wednesday, the president was still bullish on his policy, posting on Truth Social: “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!”

But in the end, it was the markets that got him to reverse course.

The economic turmoil, particularly a rapid rise in government bond yields, caused Mr. Trump to blink on Wednesday afternoon and pause his “reciprocal” tariffs for most countries for the next 90 days, according to four people with direct knowledge of the president’s decision.

Asked to explain the decision, Mr. Trump told reporters: “Well, I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy, you know, they were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid.”

Behind the scenes, senior members of Mr. Trump’s team had feared a financial panic that could spiral out of control and potentially devastate the economy. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and others on the president’s team, including Vice President JD Vance, had been pushing for a more structured approach to the trade conflict that would focus on isolating China as the worst actor while still sending a broader message that Mr. Trump was serious about cracking down on trade imbalances.

Tyler Pager is a White House correspondent for The Times, covering President Trump and his administration.

Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent, reporting on the second, nonconsecutive term of Donald J. Trump.

Ana Swanson covers trade and international economics for The Times and is based in Washington. She has been a journalist for more than a decade.

Jonathan Swan is a White House reporter covering the administration of Donald J. Trump.

ATTACHMENT FORTY FOUR – FROM THE HILL

TRUMP SUED OVER ‘LIBERATION DAY’ TARIFFS 

by Zach Schonfeld - 04/14/25 2:13 PM ET

President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs came under their first major legal challenge Monday, brought by a libertarian public-interest firm that argues the president overstepped his authority. 

Trump’s April 2 announcement imposed a baseline 10 percent tariff on imports and targeted dozens of countries with higher “reciprocal” tariffs. 

The announcement has rattled stock and bond markets, and Trump later announced the steeper tariffs would be reduced to 10 percent for 90 days to allow time for negotiations. 

Monday’s lawsuit contests Trump’s ability to impose the tariffs unilaterally by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The 1977 law provides the president with the authority to impose necessary economic sanctions to combat an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” but no previous president has leveraged it to impose tariffs. 

“Our system is not set up so that one person in the system can have the power to impose taxes across the world economy. That’s not how our constitutional republic works,” Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center, which is leading the lawsuit, said in an interview. “

And so that is the thing that we’re very concerned about. Because today it’s tariffs, but could it be something else in the future,” Schwab continued. 

The Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian public-interest firm that regularly represents conservative causes, filed the lawsuit in partnership with Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. 

They did so on behalf of a group of five small businesses impacted by the tariffs: wine and spirits company VOS Selections, sportfishing e-commerce business FishUSA, electric toy designer MicroKits, pipe maker Genova Pipe and women’s cycling apparel brand Terry Precision Cycling. 

The suit was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, which has exclusive jurisdiction over certain lawsuits involving import transactions. 

Four members of the Blackfeet Nation previously sued over Trump’s Canada tariffs, including the Canadian aspects of his April 2 announcement. But Monday’s suit is far broader and challenges Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs across the globe.

It adds to a lawsuit filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance earlier this month challenging some of Trump’s additional tariffs imposed on China.

“If starting the biggest trade war since the Great Depression based on a law that doesn’t even mention tariffs is not an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power, I don’t know what is,” Somin said in a statement.

Updated 2:17 p.m.

ATTACHMENT FORTY FIVE – FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

HERE’S WHAT THE U.S. IMPORTS FROM CHINA AND WHAT COULD GET PRICIER WITH TARIFFS

The goods the U.S. imports from China more than other countries and the cost to Americans thereon...

Smartphones

$41B

Computers

$34B

Toys, games and sporting goods

$31B

Electric apparatuses

$26B

Health-care devices and other miscellaneous

$23B

Apparel, textiles, non-wool or cotton

$20B

Computer accessories

$16B

Other parts and accessories of vehicles

$15B

Household appliances

$15B

Telecommunications equipment

$13B

Furniture and household goods

$12B

Industrial machines and parts

$11B

Cookware, cutlery, tools

$10B

Pharmaceutical preparations

$9B

Industrial supplies, other

$8B

Footwear

$8B

Photo, service industry machinery

$8B

Other consumer nondurables

$8B

Medicinal equipment

$7B

Stereo equipment

$6B

Organic chemicals

$6B

Cotton apparel and household goods

$6B

Minimum value shipments

$5B

Generators, accessories

$5B

U.S. goods returned and reimports

$5B

Finished metal shapes

$4B

Industrial engines

$4B

Camping apparel and gear

$4B

Apparel, household goods-nontextile

$4B

Materials-handling equipment

$4B

Iron and steel, advanced

$3B

Semiconductors

$3B

Passenger cars, new and used

$3B

Artwork, antiques and stamps

$3B

Televisions and video equipment

$2B

Engines and engine parts

$2B

Tobacco, waxes

$2B

Shingles, wallboard

$2B

Measuring, testing, control instruments

$2B

Books, printed matter

$2B

Excavating machinery

$2B

Toiletries and cosmetics

$2B

Glassware, chinaware

$2B

Agricultural machinery, equipment

$2B

Photo equipment

$2B

Non-textile floor tiles

$2B

Inorganic chemicals

$2B

Fish and shellfish

$2B

Iron and steel products

$2B

Wood, glass, plastic

$1B

Jewelry

$1B

Other chemicals

$1B

Plastic materials

$1B

Trucks, buses and special purpose vehicles

$1B

Metalworking machine tools

$1B

Other foods

$1B

Finished textile supplies

$1B

Motorcycles and parts

$1B

Fertilizers

$1B

Note: Trump has announced tariff exemptions for some categories of goods, but the exact policies remain in flux.