Author: hamilton1788

While Gorsuch has his own peculiar agenda, it is fair to assume that Roberts and Barrett see Trump as a talented and well-meaning but petulant child who needs to be disciplined occasionally for his own good. Will Trump accept his loss with that spirit?

Of course not! He has already imposed new, temporary tariffs under a different statute and will try the national security route as a permanent fix. Look for him to do everything in his power to avoid giving refunds and to grossly misuse his national security authority, which will lead to more litigation and uncertainty, lower growth, and unnecessary trouble for the GOP.

The most important result of the decision is that it deprives Trump of his ability to use tariffs for purely personal and capricious reasons. Nothing says you’re the boss like the ability to tax people just because they did something to piss you off that morning.

Here are my initial reactions:

1. I described this case in a post months ago as being a battle between Trump and Reagan Republicans. Reagan won; that isn’t a triumph for the left.

2. The majority emphasized the number of Trump’s arbitrary interventions into the economy, which bodes well for future decisions.

3. It also showed some awareness of the dangers involved in the misuse of emergency powers, which is likely to be a theme for the next three years.

4. Most of the ink was spilled over the validity and meaning of the bogus “major questions” doctrine. This debate is going to continue into the future.

5. Gorsuch wants Congress to make itself great again, regardless of the obstacles. It can’t happen with the filibuster in place unless the country somehow becomes less rigidly partisan.

6. Kavanaugh is now an unequivocal Trumpist.

7. Thomas laid down a marker for the future by arguing that Congress is fully entitled to delegate most of its powers to the executive.

What does this decision mean for the future? For that, see my next post.

The Canadians hate us now. Canadian tourism is down dramatically. Surveys show that Canadians see America as a greater threat than China. Carney has already signed a limited free trade agreement with the Chinese. Should we expect more of this in the future?

Yes. At a minimum, it shows that two can play the leverage game. If Trump doesn’t like it, isn’t that the point?

Marco Rubio emphasized the cultural ties that unite America and Europe during his Munich speech. Does that mean he is going full Huntington on the clash of civilizations?

No, because to do so would be to acknowledge that Huntington put Russia at the center of a different civilization, which he called “Orthodox.” Trump wouldn’t like that, given his affinity for Putin.

At times, it appears that Trump is taking a harder line with our allies than with the Chinese. Why is that?

Because Trump believes everyone beyond our boundaries is trying to rip us off. The Chinese are powerful, so they can do it openly. That is more acceptable than pretending to be our friends.

I was offended when Gu competed for China in 2022. How could anyone who enjoyed the benefits of American liberty represent a country that spied on its citizens, menaced its neighbors, crushed dissent, and put people in concentration camps? It was inconceivable.

Now it is 2026, and Gu is still representing China. But has the rest of the equation changed at all? You decide.

While there are obvious differences of opinion among Trump’s closest advisers, Trump appears to be heading towards a spheres of influence deal with the Chinese. In some respects, this would resemble the world during the Cold War. Would such a world be more stable? Would it work better for America?

There would be issues. It is unlikely that either America or China would be willing to give up all of its interests in the other sphere. There would be ferocious competition for influence in the non-aligned areas, such as Europe and India. Finally, the boundaries of the spheres would be in dispute. Australia, for example, is aligned geographically with China, but culturally with America. Who would prevail there?

Not to mention the fact that many of the new vassal states would resist that status and struggle for independence. The logical outcome of this approach is the development of nuclear weapons in Europe, Japan, and South Korea.

Marco Rubio told a group of European security bigwigs in Munich that Europe and America are united by culture, ethnicity, history, and Christianity. Liberal democracy did not make the cut. Does Rubio’s formula make sense?

Ignore the fact that few Europeans are practicing Christians. Disregard the vast differences in ethnicity between 21st century America and Europe. Focus, instead, on the role that Russia plays in the formula. If Rubio is right, Russia should be on the same team as the rest of Europe, and there should be no war with Ukraine.

But there is. To the extent we share characteristics with the Europeans, the story has to revolve around the battles against Nazi and Russian despotism, not language, ethnicity, or religion.

On the one hand, Trump has cut the auto manufacturers’ regulatory costs, created new tax incentives for new car purchases, and negotiated slightly more access for sales in Japan and South Korea. On the other hand, he has increased their costs with tariffs, wreaked havoc with their supply chains, and destroyed the value of billions of dollars of investments in electric car production. Is Trump a blessing or a curse to the carmakers?

In the long run, Trump clearly wants them to build gas-powered cars. Since the rest of the world is going electric, complying with his vision will make the American companies uncompetitive everywhere but here. My guess is that they will respond by hedging their bets. Since they are already behind with electric cars, this will be the worst of all worlds.

At first glance, the NSS looks reassuring to Taiwan hawks, because it emphasizes the need to maintain freedom of navigation in the sea lanes east of China. The basis for Trump’s concern, however, has nothing to do with the vulnerability of Japan and South Korea; it revolves solely around potential Chinese rent-seeking for vessels traveling to and from the US. What does this mean for our allies in the Pacific?

It means a spheres of influence agreement that excludes their interests is still very much in play for Trump.

All American presidents prior to Trump would have defended Taiwan on the basis that it is a friendly liberal democracy facing a totalitarian aggressor. Trump couldn’t care less about that. He identifies with the powerful predator, not its potential victim.

Trump’s predecessors would also have valued Taiwan as a capitalist state with a vital role in the world economy. Trump sees Taiwan’s chip industry and wants it for himself.

That leaves the defense of the sea lanes around China as a potential reason to defend Taiwan. More on that in my next China post.

J: Hey Alex! Happy Presidents Day!

H: Thinking about Washington and his legacy gives me great pleasure. I wish I could say that about the current president.

J: I’m guessing we agree on what has happened in Minneapolis.

H: It’s what you would expect from an ignorant, narcissistic thug. He just wants to terrorize the population to prove he is the boss.

J: Isn’t that what you and Washington did in response to the Whiskey Rebellion?

H: The country was in its infancy then. We had to take strong measures to make sure everything didn’t fall apart. Washington basically pardoned everyone afterwards. It wasn’t the same thing at all. Anyway, you did the same thing.

J: Me? I tried to limit federal power to the absolute minimum.

H: Not during the embargo, you didn’t. You exercised federal power to an extent that I only dreamed of. And it didn’t even work.

J: I was just trying to keep the country out of a war we had no chance of winning. You have to agree with me on that.

H: The embargo was a bad idea, but I will concede your good intentions. I won’t do the same for Trump.

J: In the end, we do agree on that. Enjoy the holiday.

Assume I am right. Assume that tens of millions of Americans are now unemployed due to AI, but the capitalists are unwilling to pay for a vastly expanded welfare state. What will the government do to maintain social peace?

Use the military to plunder the wealth of the rest of the world, of course. Hey, it worked for the Romans and the Spanish, among many others.

Trump is a great student of history, so I’m sure that’s what he has in mind.

Ai will undoubtedly increase productivity and wealth in our country as a whole. But what impact will it have on average workers? Will it create more good jobs than it destroys? Who will get the benefits from the additional wealth? And how long will the process take?

Nobody really knows the answers to these questions. The one prediction I feel comfortable making is that the techno-aristocrats will not voluntarily share much of their new wealth. This is based on two observations: first, they are contemptuous of average workers; and second, the beneficiaries of globalization refused to compensate the losers, with results we are feeling today.

I can easily imagine a world in which the fabulously rich aristocrats hire millions of newly superfluous workers to serve as retainers in lieu of creating a better welfare state. Welcome to the feudal system, 21st century style.

It was a foregone conclusion that Trump would overturn the endangerment finding on greenhouse gases. The interesting thing is how he did it. Instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel for outlier opinions on climate change, the administration is attempting to reinterpret the law in a manner that has no support in the text or the case law.

Trump is clearly swinging for the fences in the expectation that the Supreme Court is fully on board with his deregulation agenda. He might well be right. On the other hand, he will almost certainly lose in the lower courts, and the Supremes should be reluctant to overturn a recent Roberts Court precedent. If they do, it will be another reason for the next Democratic president to go to war with them.