Although the mainstream media has simply accepted that Trump is imposing unconstitutional tariffs, I am not going to let it pass. Trump has no authority to impose unilateral, reciprocal tariffs. Despite that fact, the US media is reporting the imposition of new tariffs on Wednesday as if doing so is a lawful exercise of presidential authority.
On Wednesday morning, Trump announced that the US would impose a 100% tariff on semiconductors imported by US companies. Reuters, Trump says US will charge tariff of about 100% on semiconductor imports.
On Wednesday evening, Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” went into effect for goods imported into the US from 90 countries. See NYTimes, Staggering U.S. Tariffs Begin as Trump Widens Trade War | Sub-headline: The duties, which the president announced last week, took effect for about 90 countries just after midnight. (This article is accessible to all.)
The president of the United States has no authority to unilaterally impose reciprocal tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) or the Constitution. See Legal Sidebar, Congressional Research Service, Court Decisions Regarding Tariffs Imposed Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Per the Congressional Research Service,
In May, two federal trial courts ruled that the tariffs imposed under IEEPA exceeded the scope of the President’s authority . . . . .Both of the trial courts’ orders are currently stayed (paused) as higher courts consider appeals by the federal government.
While it is true that both decisions are on appeal, the only two federal courts to consider the legality of Trump’s tariffs have concluded that they are illegal. That seems like a relevant fact to be mentioned in any stories about new tariffs.
Unbelievably, Trump has normalized unconstitutional conduct merely by repeating it in the face of adverse judicial decisions. Who knew that it would be so easy to overturn the Constitution? Media outlets have presumably stopped discussing the unconstitutional nature of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs because they fear their readers are tired of hearing about the subject.
But there is no “boredom” exception for violations of the Constitution. God help us if the bar is that low for normalizing Trump’s unconstitutional behavior.
Even former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan believes that the tariffs are illegal and will be invalidated by the Supreme Court. See The Hill, Paul Ryan predicts disruption to Trump’s tariff regime.
[Ryan] said Wednesday that Trump’s emergency tariff authority, which is the legal basis for Trump’s country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs that are set to go into effect Thursday, is likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court.
“It’s more than likely that the Supreme Court knocks out IEEPA, the law that’s being used for these tariffs, which doesn’t have the word ‘tariff’ in it.
All of Trump’s tariffs, including those on semiconductors, are illegal. They are not paid by foreign countries. They are paid by US companies—like Walmart and Best Buy—that import computers manufactured outside the US. The tariffs are passed onto US consumers in the form of higher prices.
Readers have sent me correspondence with MAGA family members who are celebrating the billions in revenue collected in tariffs since May. Those tariffs were paid by US companies and consumers.
Why would MAGA followers celebrate billions in new taxes paid by US consumers?
Answer: Because they do not know the facts. Educate them.
See Forbes, The Impact Of Trump’s Tariffs: Who Will Benefit And What Consumers Can Expect.
Per Forbes,
Nearly all economists agree tariffs are a tax on consumers. [¶]
Trump’s tariff proposals would cost middle-class U.S. households $1,700 in increased taxes each year, as projected by the nonpartisan think tank Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Remember: Tariffs are taxes paid by US consumers!
More on Democrats fighting back.
There has been a fair amount of press on the fact that the Democratic elected officials at the federal and state levels have begun to push back against Trump’s antidemocratic efforts. A good example is Josh Marshall’s discussion in Talking Points Memo, There’s a Big Sea Change Underway Among Even the Most Conventional Dems.
Marshall notes that Senator Chuck Schumer stared down Trump over judicial nominations and prevailed, sending the Senate home for its summer recess with dozens of stalled nominees. Marshall also discusses efforts by Democratic governors to fight Trump’s demand for Texas Republicans to deliver five more House seats through partisan gerrymandering.
Marshall writes,
Democrats are at least signaling they’re going to go to war with Trump in the coming big budgetary showdown that will arrive next month. . . . I’m highlighting it here not simply or primarily because Democrats stiffed Trump on his [confirmation] demands, though that is a plus and something new. Instead, it’s that Schumer . . .is pushing out this concentrated message that they not only didn’t cave but that Trump got mad — that Trump was pissed that he’d been handed a defeat. [¶]
[W] hen asked at a press conference whether New York Democrats would gerrymander in kind, Hochul said, “This is a war. We are at war. And that’s why the gloves are off and I say, bring it on.” In another comment, she even claimed she wanted to get rid of New York’s independent redistricting commission, saying, “I’m tired of fighting this fight with my hand tied behind my back” and insisted on “fighting fire with fire.
Although it took way too long, Democratic leaders have finally found their voice. Let’s hope that we hear much more from them in the coming days.
Trump flails as he tries unsuccessfully to contain the Epstein scandal
Trump is flopping like a fish out of water as he attempts unsuccessfully to contain damage from the Epstein scandal. Worse, insiders in his administration appear to be leaking damaging details of those unsuccessful efforts.
For example, senior administration officials planned to meet at the vice president’s residence at the Naval Observatory to prepare a charm offensive designed to make Americans forget about the fifteen-year friendship between Trump and Epstein. See ABC News, Vance expected to host Epstein strategy dinner with Bondi, Blanche, Patel.
Before the planned strategy meeting could take place, someone leaked details regarding the meeting, which was promptly canceled. See CNN, Planned dinner for Trump officials to discuss Epstein appears to have been moved amid media scrutiny.
But the damage was done. Someone in the president’s inner circle—cough, cough, Vance—leaked embarrassing details. Per the Daily Beast, one brilliant idea was to send the hapless Todd Blanche for an interview on the Joe Rogan podcast. See Daily Beast, Trump Aides Planning Rogan Role for End Epstein Crisis.
Per Daily Beast,
Among the options under discussion is a media blitz led by Blanche. Three people familiar with the internal talks told CNN that aides have floated a press conference or a podcast appearance with Rogan, who endorsed Trump in the 2024 election but has also criticized the administration’s handling of the Epstein case.
Although no one is asking me for advice, selecting a PR representative whose most recent accomplishment was managing your defense in a jury trial resulting in conviction on 34 felony counts of fraud seems like a bad idea. But, hey, maybe Joe Rogan will agree to “go easy” on Blanche—a turn of events that would result in Rogan being savaged by his conspiracy-hungry audience.
Before leaving the discussion of this meeting, it is worth noting the grotesque impropriety of the Attorney General of the United States participating in a strategy meeting designed to rehabilitate a convicted child sex trafficker (Ghislaine Maxwell) at the same time that the DOJ has refused to pursue perpetrators and co-conspirators identified in Epstein’s files.
Trump’s efforts in the House are even more clownish. Rep. James Comer, head of the Oversight Committee, issued Epstein-related document subpoenas to prominent Democrats (the Clintons), former DOJ and FBI officials (James Comey, Merrick Garland, Bill Barr)—most of whom have no information about Epstein that is not already in the public record. See CBS News, House panel subpoenas Clintons and other ex-officials in Epstein probe, seeks files from DOJ.
The one person with something to say has been left off the list of subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee: Former US Attorney and Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, who negotiated the sweetheart plea deal in 2008 with Jeffrey Epstein that resulted in a non-prosecution agreement for Epstein without any notice to Epstein’s victims. See PBS Newshour (7/6/2019), The ‘completely unprecedented’ plea deal Jeffrey Epstein made with Alex Acosta.
Trump and his apologists have completely underestimated B.S. detection skills of the hard-core conspiracy theorists they created in the 2024 campaign over the Epstein scandal. Not asking Acosta for information is laughable—especially since the appointment of Acosta to a cabinet post in 2017, for which he had NO qualifications, smacked of “cover-up” at the time.
I received a note from reader Susan L that is relevant to this story. Susan writes:
I was inspired by your newsletter showing the JUSTICE 4 EPSTEIN VICTIMS freeway sign in New Hampshire to make one for our Visibility Brigade in Encinitas, California last week. We got lots of honks and thumbs up from drivers during rush hour on I-5. Best week ever!
Imagine my surprise when a photo of our sign was in the Washington Post’s Top Stories for the week! I’m attaching it, along with our previous week’s efforts, to bring a smile to your face and some hope to your day, as you do for me with your Substack and Daily Dose of Perspective. Keep on keeping on!
Below is the WaPo’s photo of the Encinitas Visibility Brigade’s protest last week. Well done!
Concluding Thoughts
I received an email from a reader that captures the mood of many similar emails over the last several weeks:
I don’t know if you will get this. If you do, you must get emails like this all the time. But I have been in a low-grade panic attack all day, and I just don’t know how I can keep my head above the water. I should preface this by saying that I march and protest; I donate money; and I have always voted and plan to vote in the future.
But I just don’t know how to function in this environment. Everyone seems to be promising the end of democracy. . . . Any words of encouragement that you have would be deeply appreciated.
In case you are feeling the same way, here is my response to the reader:
Here’s my view: It will likely get worse before it gets better, but it will get better. It is a mistake to underestimate the will and power of the American people.
We haven’t yet hit the point of mass mobilizations, general strikes, tax strikes, etc. When we do, Trump’s corporate overlords will back down. American business thrives only in an orderly, functioning society. If people walk away—as they did in the 1950s and 1960s—businesses will realize that we are not sheep who can be disregarded but expected to show up for work, buy their merchandise, and pay taxes as the president disregards the law and the Constitution.
What will be the tipping point? I don’t know. I do know there is a point at which people will rise up. I am confident of it.
We have already held the largest single-day protest in our nation’s history, so we are on the right path.
And we haven’t yet held the 2026 midterms! Things will feel a lot better if Democrats regain control of the House (at least) and maybe the Senate. (See my article yesterday about the town hall in Nebraska. GOP Rep. Mike Flood should be making post-election plans that do not include being an elected official.)
Let me leave with one final thought: Would you do anything differently under the following scenarios: You know, either (a) that we will prevail in 2026 and 2028 by taking back the presidency and both chambers in Congress, or (b) it will take a dozen years or longer to reestablish Democratic control of Congress and the presidency?
No, you wouldn’t do anything differently if you had foreknowledge of the above outcomes.
It may be our task to “be the resistance” for a generation. If so, that is a sacred and important task. Others before us performed similar work, knowing that they might not see the fruits of their labor.
The important point is that we do not give up. Don’t quit, no matter what happens. If we do that, we will prevail, ultimately. And if you are part of that effort, you will be a hero of democracy.
I hope the above helps if you are feeling the same way as the reader. While I am prepared for a generational struggle, I do not believe that it will take a generation to reclaim major portions of democracy—so long as we do not quit and we put in the hard work necessary to win. We can do that. We are doing it—every day.
Stay strong!
Talk to you tomorrow!
Daily Dose of Perspective
The sky over Los Angeles had intermittent clouds on Wednesday evening. About 35% of the night sky was obscured. Nonetheless, I set out my telescope and selected a target that was high overhead and not obscured by the clouds.
Due to the limitations on where I could point my telescope, I selected a nameless gas cloud near the Gamma Cygni Nebula. (It is possible that the gas cloud is considered a part of the Gamma Cygni Nebula, but my astronomy app did not so indicate.)
In any event, the photo below is of a patch of sky with interstellar dust particles that are on the way to becoming a star someday in the very distant future.
Enjoy!
From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed