Why I am optimistic about the long term.
May 29, 2025
I am optimistic about the long term. We will survive and recover from this challenging period. Although progress will be painful and hard fought, our nation will emerge as a more resilient, smarter, and more just democracy. Adversity makes us stronger. Although America is imperfect and deeply flawed, it is a great nation because its character has been chiseled by the repeated journey from defeat to victory, sorrow to joy, and enmity to charity.
The foundation for our eventual success is being laid every day, brick by brick, with every protest, letter, postcard, call, text, and meeting in living rooms across the nation. The scale and distributed nature of our efforts to reclaim democracy ensures that the new foundation will be stronger than the buckling footings under siege by the president.
We should take heart from the steadfast support of the judiciary during our nation’s hour of need. While expected and appropriate, the judiciary’s robust response was not guaranteed. Many (including me) have been surprised by the breadth and vigor of the judicial response.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade issued a sweeping opinion that invalidated every tariff imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The opinion is here: VOS. v. US | Opinion | 5/28/25.
Every. Tariff. Invalidated.
The opinion is a watershed moment in stopping Trump's unlawful agenda and deserves our full attention. More below.
But the most important aspect of the ruling in VOS. v. US is that it is one of dozens of judicial actions that have challenged large swathes of Trump's unlawful agenda.
Virtually every action taken by Trump since January 20, 2025, has been a violation of the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Thanks to dozens of brave and principled judges, nearly all of Trump's agenda is currently the subject of injunctions that restrain the implementation of Trump's illegal orders.
True, the dozens of court orders have not stopped or reversed the damage inflicted by Trump's unlawful orders. Recovering and reestablishing the programs, research projects, agencies, and alliances that have been damaged by Trump's orders will take years. (See Concluding Thoughts, below.)
But it is worth pausing to reflect on the significant rulings by federal judges that have enjoined Trump's agenda. Collectively, they will make their way to the Supreme Court, where they will put the justices to the test: Do they stand with democracy or against it?
I set forth below the relief awarded in a few of the most significant decisions,
Invalidating executive orders targeting law firms on the ground that Trump's orders violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and the doctrine of separation of powers.
Holding that the creation and operation of DOGE and the downsizing and restructuring of several federal agencies was an unconstitutional reorganization of the executive branch that required congressional authorization.
Holding that the effort to dismantle the Department of Education likely violates the doctrine of separation of powers and the Duty to Take Care Clause of the Constitution.
Holding that the withholding of funds from USAID is unlawful. The underlying order was granted on the claims that the freeze of funds violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act.
GAO opinion that impounding funds appropriated by Congress violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Holding that Trump cannot invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants because there is no “invasion” of the U.S. as required by the Act.
There are additional cases, but the above cases collectively shut down virtually all of Trump's illegal DOGE efforts to cut and reorganize the federal government. But because Trump and Musk acted without authorization, they were able to inflict significant damage.
As I write, it appears doubtful that the Trump administration is complying with the dozens of court orders restraining its illegal conduct. Readers are understandably confused and angry that Trump appears to be “getting away” with violating court orders.
Several judges are moving methodically to hold Trump or his cabinet officers in criminal contempt. Because that is an extraordinary remedy, federal judges must establish a clear record before imposing a contempt order. It will happen; it is just a matter of time.
On Wednesday, the Court of International Trade added to the existing orders restraining Trump by issuing a sweeping and final order invalidating all of Trump's tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). 1
The US Court of International Trade is an “Article III” court established under the Constitution and implemented by an act of Congress. See 28 U.S.C. Ch. 11: Court Of International Trade.
In any case that “raises an issue of the constitutionality of . . . a proclamation of the President or an Executive order,” the trial of the claims proceeds before a three-judge panel. Here, the three judges on the panel that heard the challenge to Trump's executive order were appointed by Presidents Trump, Obama, and Reagan.
In VOS v. US, the three-judge panel ruled that the IEEPA does not grant the president unlimited power to impose, reduce, or rescind tariffs.
In a key passage (at p. 25) the panel ruled as follows: [Citations omitted, and paragraph breaks added for clarity.]
Underlying the issues in this case is the notion that “the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments.” Federalist No. 48 (James Madison).
Because of the Constitution’s express allocation of the tariff power to Congress, see U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President. We instead read IEEPA’s provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers.
Two [provisions] are relevant here.
First, § 1702’s delegation of a power to “regulate . . . importation,” read in light of its legislative history and Congress’s enactment of more narrow, non-emergency legislation, at the very least does not authorize the President to impose unbounded tariffs. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs lack any identifiable limits and thus fall outside the scope of § 1702.
Second, IEEPA’s limited authorities may be exercised only to “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared . . . and may not be exercised for any other purpose.” 50 U.S.C. § 1701(b) (emphasis added). As the Trafficking Tariffs do not meet that condition [of a national emergency and therefore] they fall outside the scope of § 1701.
In short, the three-judge panel ruled that (a) the president does not have unbounded authority to impose tariffs, and (b) although the IEEPA grants limited authority to “regulate imports” during emergencies, the fentanyl drug trade is not an emergency that justifies the imposition of retaliatory tariffs on a global basis.
The opinion in V.O.S v. US is exhaustive and careful, making it difficult for the court of appeals and the US Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. The strong likelihood is that the Supreme Court will uphold the ruling of the Court of International Trade in V.O.S. v US.
The ruling is significant due to its broad scope. It strikes a blow to Trump's entire economic agenda, which was based on the silly notion that tariffs would fund the deficits created by the GOP’s efforts to extend the 2017 tax cuts for billionaires and corporations. See CNN, Tariffs, and Trump’s entire economic agenda, were just thrown into chaos.
As explained by CNN, the ruling on tariffs threatens the GOP reconciliation bill:
Revenue from Trump’s tariffs, meanwhile, could, at least in part, help pay for Trump and congressional Republicans’ massively expensive tax cuts, that could boost economic growth and add certainty to the markets by raising the debt ceiling.
Because of its fragile construction, Trump’s plan to usher in a new economic Golden Age has plenty of naysayers, including most mainstream economists, who argue that the administration lacks the discipline, authority and political support to make it happen. The on-again, off-again trade policy, legal battles over DOGE and intraparty standoffs on the “Big, Beautiful Bill” serve as evidence.
The ruling in V.O.S. v. US sparked a surge in overnight futures markets in anticipation of a surge in the US stock markets on Thursday. See Reuters, Markets cheer court ruling to block Trump tariffs.
In short, the ruling has given investors hope that the US will return to a semblance of economic policies that last longer than the lifespan of a Mayfly.
Before concluding the discussion of this topic, it is worth noting that the legacy media have once again failed the American people. Trump's tariffs were obviously unconstitutional and illegal from inception because the president has no power to impose tariffs, as explained in the V.O.S. opinion.
As noted by Lawrence O’Donnell on his Wednesday program, the media completely overlooked that aspect of the story and instead reported on the daily changes in the percentage rate of tariffs—a throwback to the “horserace” narratives of the 2024 election and reporting on the amount (but not the unconstitutionality) of DOGE cuts.
Rather than reporting, “Trump imposes 50% tariff on EU,” the major media should have reported, “Trump imposes illegal tariffs on EU.” But in their cowardice and misguided effort to be fair to “both sides,” the media has failed to report on the truth of Trump's illegal efforts to sidestep the Constitution.
Despite those reservations, the ruling in V.O.S. should give us confidence that we will prevail over the long term. In the meantime, we have short-term work to do—i.e., flipping the House and Senate in 2026.
Opportunity for Reader Engagement
Latino Victory
Join me in a discussion with noted activists Luis Miranda and Katherine Pichardo as we discuss Latino Victory
Join me and Luis A. Miranda, Jr. and Katharine Pichardo on Thursday, May 29 at 8:00 p.m. ET / 5:00 p.m. PT as we discuss the work of Latino Victory and the role of Latino voters in the 2024 election and what that means for the upcoming midterms.
If you aren’t yet familiar with Latino Victory, it is one of the leading organizations focused on electing progressive Latino leaders and strengthening Latino civic engagement nationwide. Founded by Eva Longoria and Henry Muñoz in 2014, Latino Victory has helped elect over 245 Latino leaders across the country — from city councils to Congress — and are preparing for one of the most consequential elections of our lifetime.
I’m hosting this Substack Livestream event to help support Latino Victory’s work and to help launch its new Substack, Latino Victory. You can help spread Latino Victory’s outreach efforts by subscribing to the Latino Victory newsletter (for free) or recommend Latino Victory’s newsletter to others who may be interested in helping to support Latino candidates nationwide.
Concluding Thoughts
I was on a Zoom conference today with readers. Several expressed concern that Trump's illegal orders are destroying science agencies, programs, research projects, and academic departments at universities. The short-term damage has been devastating and will take years to repair. What good, then, are the rulings by dozens of federal judges that Trump's executive orders are illegal and must be enjoined?
Before answering that question, let me say that I do not mean to diminish the damage to the scientific community or the devastating impacts on populations of sick, elderly, poor, and disabled Americans. Their suffering is a national emergency that justifies our efforts to block the reconciliation bill in its current form.
But the rulings that Trump's efforts are unconstitutional and illegal matter to our ability to recover and rehabilitate those programs, agencies, and research initiatives over the long term.
Let’s take Trump's efforts to dismantle the NIH as an example.
Although Trump has interrupted the flow of research dollars long enough to force the termination of valuable research projects, the legislative and regulatory framework for the NIH and its research function remains intact. The NIH was established by Congress and will not be eliminated unless and until Congress directs its dissolution.
When Democrats regain control of Congress and the presidency—and they will—the legislative and regulatory frameworks will still be in place. Re-starting the research projects will take years, but the framework for doing so will remain, like fallow fields waiting for new life.
When Rome conquered Carthage for the third time, Cato the Elder’s insistence on the total destruction of the city-state led to the salting of Carthage’s fields by Roman generals. The Romans hoped to prevent dormant seeds and roots from fueling a fourth re-emergence of Carthage. (Like most dramatic stories, this story is apocryphal.)
The decisions by dozens of federal judges will protect the seeds and roots of the scientific academy and the agencies, laws, and rules that will fuel the re-emergence of America’s crowning achievement—the scientific knowledge that makes our lives safer, healthier, and more secure.
That long-term view is cold comfort to those hoping for cures and advancements to treat life-threatening diseases. But we should not lose hope. The need to protect America’s scientific legacy underscores the urgency of our task in reclaiming democracy from the clutches of MAGA generals trying to salt the earth of democracy. We must resist them with all our might.
Talk to you tomorrow!
Daily Dose of Perspective.
Things change quickly. I set up my telescope in the early evening under clear skies. Because the sky was still light, my scope could not identify stars to “lock onto” its position under the firmament. I thought, “No problem. I will continue work on the newsletter and reboot my scope remotely when it is dark enough to identify guide stars.”
I went back inside and waited 30 minutes. I then rebooted my scope remotely and waited patiently for it to lock onto guide stars.
Nothing happened.
Sigh.
I went outside to manually reboot the telescope. I then looked up to see a thick cloud cover that was not present 30 minutes earlier. In short, things move slowly until they don’t.
So, I again publish an image captured previously and will continue my efforts to capture new images.
NGC 7822 is a young star-forming region that is about 2,900 light years from Earth.
A few tariffs were issued under other statutes and have not been invalidated.
What I find additionally hopeful about the tariff ruling is that it may partially reverse the sabotaging of institutions and agencies that has been a cornerstone of the Project 2025 agenda. That is, I believe that P2025’s larger project of hollowing out the U.S. government into an extracted shell, all consolidated under a “unitary executive,” has depended upon inhibiting its institutional functions. They planned this sabotage, as they already foresaw they could not accomplish their goals via legal or Congressional channels. So their plan is to break, deplete and corrode functions as quickly as possible while they hold Congress and the presidency.
Tonight's tariff ruling seems very important in this context. Even in the case that it is ultimately overruled, this decision has already exposed the tariff scheme lie nationally and globally. Futures markets are already up. It’s not that people didn’t know it was a scam; it’s that there was no effective traction to neutralize or stall the scam — hence global leaders scrambling for spurious “deals.” The cat’s out of the bag now. I don’t see how any leader could possibly presume levying tariffs again like this will hold any legitimate authority moving forward. The ruling seems to have inoculated the global public with a grand dose of economic truth. It renders DJT's harebrained scheme impotent, whereas the first few months, pro-democratic forces have been the ones at the mercy of institutional and policy assaults.
Regarding U.S. scientific and tertiary research I am less optimistic. Unfortunately, this is scandalous, and its effects reach beyond a reparable legal framework. It is broadly reputational, fractures the established scale and dynamics of research, and censors its collaborators. Some projects and labs can, over time, be reconstituted. But the vast post-WWII U.S. research engine was built up and fortified under historical circumstances that will not be repeated. As first-class researchers flee or recede, and budding talent considers alternative destinations, the U.S. research market will not represent the stability and class-leading support it has maintained since the mid-20th century. Neither will it fall apart per se. This is simply an inhumane, retrogressive and short-sighted destruction of a crown jewel of our civilization.
I can't wait to see how he tries to wriggle all the tariffs in under national security. "Penguins must not be allowed to export eggs onto our sacred soil. The fact that they are both black AND white shows they are promoters of illegal DEI and will undermine all our nation really ought to stand for according to my donors."