Major error in yesterday’s newsletter

July 29, 2025

I made two errors in yesterday’s newsletter that I want to correct.

I correctly noted that the effect of Trump's 15% tariff agreement with the EU is to impose a tax on US consumers, because the retailer passes the increase in the cost of goods to the consumer. However, when discussing Trump's tariff agreements with the EU, my analysis assumed the president had the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs on most US trading partners. That was a glaring omission.

In fact, the president has no authority to impose tariffs on US trading partners in retaliation for long-standing trade imbalances. So, every part of my discussion yesterday should have included the qualifier “illegal” in front of the word “tariffs.”

Every news story about the tariffs committed the same error. And therein lies the evil genius of Trump's continuous assault on the Constitution and the rule of law. The first time he imposed illegal tariffs in February 2025, everyone objected to the tariffs because Trump was intruding on Congress’s constitutional authority to impose tariffs.

Trump's authority to impose tariffs was challenged in court in two cases. Trump lost. Both cases are now on appeal. However, Trump continued to impose tariffs in disregard of the rulings, and the media and Congress have gradually stopped characterizing the tariffs as illegal. We cannot allow that slow erosion of the rule of law to stand.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states, in part, that Congress has the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations,” including the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” There is no similar grant of authority to the president.

Congress has delegated limited authority to adjust tariffs in narrow circumstances, none of which apply here. See Congressional Research Service, Congressional and Presidential Authority to Impose Import Tariffs.

When Trump first imposed his so-called “worldwide reciprocal tariffs,” US retailers challenged the tariffs in the US Court of International Trade (CIT) and the US District Court in the District of Columbia. (The CIT is a specialized US court that has jurisdiction over all international trade disputes.)

On May 29, 2025, the Court of International Trade ruled in V.O.S. Selections v US that Trump's tariffs could not be justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) because there was no “emergency” within the meaning of the IEEPA. The Court noted that the US has had trade imbalances with other nations for decades. The court ruled that long-standing trade imbalances do not constitute an “unusual and extraordinary” threat to US national security.

A second court ruled that even if there was an “emergency” under the IEEPA, the IEEPA does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs in response to the emergency. See Learning Resources v. Trump. The IEEPA authorizes the president only to “investigate, regulate, or prohibit . . . transactions in foreign exchange”—a power that conspicuously fails to mention tariffs.

Both rulings are on appeal. (The hearing on the appeal from the CIT’s ruling in V.O.S. Selection is set for next week.)

In the face of two court rulings that Trump lacks constitutional or statutory authority to impose tariffs, Trump continues (through today) to impose tariffs that he knows to be illegal. And the media and Congress overlook the illegality of those tariffs (as I did in yesterday’s newsletter, a significant omission on my part).

Illegal conduct by the president does not become legal merely because the president persists in unlawful conduct. I know that it can be tiresome to repeat the same point in every story about Trump's illegal conduct. But that is his plan—to exhaust us and make us lose interest.

We must be better than that! I include myself in the caution to continue calling out the unlawfulness of Trump's actions even when it seems repetitive.

Coda: I made another error in yesterday’s newsletter. I said that exporters pay tariffs. That is incorrect. Importers pay tariffs. For example, when Walmart imports tennis shoes from Vietnam, Walmart pays a 20% tariff to the US government. So, when Trump says that he is going to “make Vietnam pay the tariffs,” he is telling a triple lie. Vietnam will not pay the tariff; Walmart will; but Walmart will recoup the tariff from consumers by raising prices. See NYTimes, Who Pays for U.S. Tariffs, and Where Does the Money Go? (Accessible to all.)

Per the NYTimes,

Tariffs are paid by the companies that import the goods. The revenue from U.S. tariffs is paid by U.S. importers to the U.S. Treasury Department.

Here’s an example: If Walmart imports a $100 pair of shoes from Vietnam — which faces a 20 percent tariff under the terms of a preliminary trade deal — Walmart will owe $20 in tariffs to the U.S. government.

Thanks to readers David Williams and Charles Feinstein for pointing out my error.

Harvard is moving toward capitulation.

My heart sank when I saw the NYTimes headline, Harvard Is Said to Be Open to Spending Up to $500 Million to Resolve Trump Dispute. (Accessible to all.)

Harvard filed a lawsuit to prevent Trump's unlawful withholding of funds previously appropriated by Congress or committed to Harvard by contract with the US government. In a hearing last week, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs made comments that suggested she would rule in Harvard’s favor, thereby potentially nullifying the Trump administration’s withholding of funds. See Harvard Magazine, Harvard, Government Present Arguments in Funding Case.

The government’s lawyer argued that the government could cancel the contracts with Harvard for any reason that does not “align with the administration’s priorities.” Judge Burroughs acknowledged that to be a true description of the contract, but noted that the government could not assert an unconstitutional reason for canceling the contracts.

Per Harvard Magazine,

“It seems to be your idea that you can terminate a contract even if the basis for the termination is a constitutional violation,” [Judge Burroughs] said. If the federal government can decide to withdraw funding of any contract over issues of speech, she added, the consequences “in terms of constitutional law are staggering.”

The NYTimes article seems to be written with heavy input from Harvard leadership, suggesting that settling is a practical solution to saving the $2 billion in withheld funds.

Harvard’s possible settlement is disheartening. Harvard University occupies a unique place in our nation’s history. It was founded 153 years before the United States of America adopted the Constitution in 1789. It has educated and shaped leaders in every field of American science, letters, and industry. It has produced 8 of 45 presidents and 22 of 116 Supreme Court justices. For Harvard to be standing on the precipice of capitulation is dismaying and dispiriting.

I hope that alumni, faculty, students, and supporters of Harvard University will express their views on a possible capitulation to Trump. Harvard has distinguished itself by refusing to follow in the footsteps of Columbia and the elite law firms who have forever tied their legacies to a felon, insurrectionist, adjudicated sexual abuser, destroyer of the Constitution, and best friend of the nation’s most notorious child sex trafficker.

Really, Harvard’s Board of Overseers? Is that what you will do with the incredible legacy that was entrusted to your care for temporary safekeeping for future generations of Americans?

The Epstein child sex trafficking scandal follows Trump to Scotland

Trump's taxpayer-funded golf trip to Scotland has hurt the president on many levels.

First, he was caught on video cheating at golf when his caddy surreptitiously dropped a ball in a favorable position after Trump hit his ball into the rough. The video is incontestable and validates the many stories about Trump cheating at golf. While this may seem like a small thing, golfers take the game very seriously. The integrity of the game depends on players acting honestly and honorably. Trump did neither on his inaugural round of golf at his new resort in Scotland. See The Independent, Rough deal: Social media roasts Trump’s golf game after clip appears to show alleged cheating in Scotland

Second, Trump was dogged by questions about Epstein after his hard day of cheating at golf. See CNN, A frustrated Trump gives more details on his relationship with Epstein, as the scandal follows him abroad. Trump's answers were bizarre and off-key. He said he never “had the privilege” of visiting Epstein’s private island, where Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell sexually exploited girls. Trump also said that he broke off his relationship with Epstein because he “hired people away” from Mar-a-Lago.

The CNN article above details many of Trump's bizarre answers, including his doubling down on the claim that the Epstein files were fabricated by Presidents Obama and Biden. Trump's performance was so unstable that it prompted this op-ed in Newsweek by Rex Hupke, Trump's mental decline is on vivid display as he rages about Epstein, windmills | Opinion.

As Hupke notes, the legacy media minimizes Trump's mental decline by chopping up his nonsense answers into small soundbites that make him seem lucid. Hupke includes several of Trump's answers at press conferences in Scotland. Trump's mind cannot stay focused on what he is saying from the time he begins a sentence until he ends it. Read Hupke’s op-ed for a deep dive into Trump's disordered mind.

An aspect of the Epstein child sex trafficking scandal that is being under-reported is the egregious conflicts of interest that Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi bring to the Epstein matter. See Philip Rotner, The Bulwark, Why the Huge Conflicts of Interest Among Trump’s Epstein Team Matter.

Per Rotner,

This charade not only stinks to high hell, it is also wildly unethical and would undoubtedly taint any prosecutorial decisions—including decisions not to prosecute—in ways that would do serious harm to the public’s faith in the criminal justice system.

Bondi was one of the lawyers who represented Trump in his first impeachment trial. Blanche is much more deeply embedded in the Trump legal defense team. He represented Trump in the classified documents case in Florida, the election interference case in Washington, D.C., and, perhaps most importantly, in the New York criminal trial in which Trump was convicted on thirty-four counts of falsifying business records relating to hush-money payments he made to cover up his alleged sexual encounter with porn star Stormy Daniels.

Trump, of course, is not only a former client, but also Bondi’s current boss. Blanche’s too.

If Trump pardons Ghislaine Maxwell, he will do so based on the advice of lawyers who should have recused themselves from the matter. One day, when Trump is no longer president and Bondi and Blanche cannot count on his protection, their law licenses will be at risk. We must hold onto that faint ray of hope in the face of the perversion of justice in a way that would have made the Framers of the Constitution recoil in horror and disgust.

Concluding Thoughts

My heart goes out to the people of New York as well as the victims of the Monday shooting in midtown Manhattan. There are 1.6 million people on the small island of Manhattan. Most of them know the building that was the subject of the attack. A surprisingly large number of them have been inside the building. (I have.) We need to find a way to remove weapons of war from circulation in America. We did it before; we can do it again.

I received a note from a reader about two rallies in Wausau, Wisconsin. Three Indivisible groups (Chippewa, Northern Lights, and North Central Wisconsin) were protesting outside the Wausau District Office of Congressman Tom Tiffany. As can be seen in the photo below, the group was standing on a grass strip along a public street. While the groups were engaged in the Make Good Trouble protests on July 14, the sprinklers suddenly turned on, soaking the rally-goers.

See Letter to the Editor, CAP Times, Letter | Tiffany should be investigated in sprinkler incident (7/24/2025). (As the letter notes, there is no “proof” that Tom Tiffany and his staff were behind the coincidental dousing of the protesters on two occasions.)

Undaunted, the protesters returned the next week. I will let reader Cynthia G. pick up the story:

After the sprinklers were deployed against constituents outside the Wausau office of Representative Tom Tiffany last week, 60+ rally goers came prepared this week with beach wear, goggles, snorkels, and beach music!

When the sprinklers were again activated to drive protesters away, constituents from Tiffany-represented three counties (Marathon, Chippewa, Rusk) were ready this time.

They immediately peeled off their outer layer of clothing to reveal beachwear. They donned swimming goggles. And, they flipped over their signs about Tiffany's vote in favor of the "Big Ugly Bill" to reveal messages like "You Can't Drown Our Democracy" and "You Can't Wash Away Our Rights."

Everyone involved in the creative protest deserves high marks for enthusiasm, creativity, messaging, and esprit de corps! We are living through difficult times. Maintaining a sense of humor and community are vital to our ability to abide for the long term. Good work, all!

Daily Dose of Perspective

The Iris Nebula is a “reflection” nebula that is back-lit by central stars. it is 1,300 light years from Earth. Enjoy!