Sure They'll Agree to That.

Donald Trump has repeatedly failed to avail himself of the historic opportunity to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, including not being on board with Israel doing the same. He'd rather "make a deal" -- just like all the appeasing American Presidents before him.

His proposal sounds superficially different from the rest, however:

US President Donald Trump said he envisions a nuclear deal with Iran that would allow the destruction of "whatever we want" in the country including labs, a version of an inspections regime that is likely to be rejected by Tehran.

Speaking at the White House on Wednesday [May 28], Trump briefly outlined his vision of a deal that is "very strong, where we can go in with inspectors. We can take whatever we want. We can blow up whatever we want. But nobody getting killed," he said.

Trump also said he believed a deal with Iran could be completed within "the next couple of weeks" and that talks had made "a lot of progress." But his comments about destroying nuclear facilities highlight a major sticking point between the two over whether Iran should be allowed to produce its own enriched uranium. [bold added]

Why on earth would a country that is obviously building weapons and interested in using them -- and is used to us kicking the can down the road -- agree to this? Other than to renege later, knowing how much Trump wants to avoid a war diverting attention from himself, that is.

Is Trump this naive? He's not that bright, but I doubt it. Does he think the Mullahs are idiots? Again, I don't see it. My guess is that he thinks the American people are idiots on the strength of everything else they've swallowed or ignored from him so far, and for that I can't blame him.

My take on Trump's foreign policy, such as it is, is that he finds a blustering, belligerent way to appease our enemies (or even help them outright, as with Russia) that the cultish core of his base will mistake for toughness, and that far too many of the rest of us will give a pass since it has been normalized for so long.

All these negotiations seem likely to accomplish is to confirm to Iran that (1) we'd really, really like its nuclear weapons program to disappear, and (2) we still won't do what it takes to make that happen.

-- CAV

Trump Tariffs: Down but Not Out

The BBC discusses what's next, short- and long-term, after the recent US Court of International Trade decision on the legality of the "Liberation Day" tariffs.

As you probably already know, the ruling has been set aside temporarily for legal reasons. But what happens if the Supreme Court rules in the same way? Given that tariffs have been a longstanding idée fixe for the President and are a cornerstone of his agenda, how much of an impact will the ruling have after he and his cronies find ways around it?

Decidedly mixed:

[E]ven if Trump lost [in the Supreme Court] it would not necessarily spell the end of his tariff plans.

For one thing, the ruling noted that the president does have the power to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address concerns about the balance of trade, which the White House had argued were an emergency.

If the administration chose to go that route, those new tariffs could go into effect within days, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs.

Trump could also turn to the other, more established laws that he used in his first term to justify tariffs, which focus on issues such as national security and unfair trade policies. Those require investigations and periods of public comment before tariffs go into effect.

Goldman Sachs said Trump might also turn to an untested part of a 1930 trade law that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that "discriminate" against the US. [bold added]

The best-case scenario, assuming both a Supreme Court loss in the current legal battle and Trump trying to maximize his ability to levy tariffs at whim, I'd expect him to use his ability to levy 15% tariffs to the hilt, while causing another round of lawsuits by using the 1930's law similarly to the way he abused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for his "Liberation Day" tariffs.

We're not out of the woods by any stretch, although Trump could change tariffs by smaller amounts and perhaps not on a daily basis.

To my legally uneducated mind, the best-case I can see is that Trump also loses on the 1930's law and can only moderately screw everyone with 15% tariffs after that.

-- CAV

Poisoned Chalice -- or Poisoned Lips?

The Washington Examiner considers the scenario of the Democrats taking control of the House in the 2026 mid-terms, and concludes that it will likely be a repeat of the aftermath of their victory during Trump's first term:

After President Donald Trump's first impeachment in 2019, his approval numbers actually reached near the highest level of his first term, hitting 45% (Gallup) after beginning the year at just 37%. And remember what this impeachment was about: Trump suggesting to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the time that he should investigate the Biden family for possible corruption via influence peddling through Hunter Biden, who pocketed nearly $1 million from Ukrainian energy company Burisma despite having zero experience in the energy sector. Shell accounts were created that funneled millions to various Biden family members, including "the big guy," who Hunter's business partner, Tony Bobulinski, said was former President Joe Biden.

The Bidens were never charged, of course. But Trump's suggestion in 2019 doesn't look so unreasonable now, does it? [bold added]

The piece then reminds us of the lawfare against Trump which culminated in his felony conviction in New York on questionable grounds, ahead of speculating on the impeachment that will surely follow Democrat House control.

(That the piece ignores the fact that the Democrats had legitimate reasons to impeach and, later, to prosecute Trump does not damage its point: The Democrats are farcically incompetent. Indeed, such a realization should alarm the reader as there are already good reasons to impeach Trump and remove him from office. The second won't happen and the Democrats will botch the first anyway, if they somehow manage to pick the right reason to impeach him.)

And the piece goes on, covering something I recently got a whiff of, namely that the Democrats remain asleep to how woke they still are:

Democrats also appear to have a serious messaging problem. It's now to the point that consultants are actually advising members on how to communicate more relatably with young men.

...

"Known as 'SAM,' the study will specifically examine young male voters and how the party can connect with the demographic. Additionally, the study advised rolling out pro-Democrat ads in video games," Fox News wrote.

Well, that should do the trick, because nothing screams authenticity quite like programming human beings how to speak based on market-tested results.

And think about the words other consultants have advised that Democrats should use.

"Cisgender."

"Latinx."

"Intersectionality."

"Equity."

"White fragility."

Good Lord!

The Democrats could apparently do with some more time in the wilderness, although the bullishness of the author about Trump in no way persuades me they will get it.

Why worry about drinking the poison from a chalice when one's lips are already well-coated with it?

-- CAV

Freedom Four

A Friday Hodgepodge

We close the week with four recent victories in the never-ending fight for freedom.

1. In the best news I've heard in quite some time, Ilya Somin of the Liberty Justice Center reports a big win on behalf of five American businesses harmed by Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs:

The US Court of International Trade just issued a unanimous ruling in the case against Trump's "liberation day" tariffs filed by Liberty Justice Center and myself on behalf of five US businesses harmed by the tariffs. The ruling also covers the case filed by twelve states led by Oregon; they, too, have prevailed on all counts. All of Trump's tariffs adopted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) are invalidated as beyond the scope of executive power, and their implementation blocked by a permanent injunction. In addition to striking down the "Liberation Day" tariffs challenged in our case (what the opinion refers to as the "Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs"), the court also ruled against the fentanyl-related tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China (which were challenged in the Oregon case; the court calls them the "Trafficking Tariffs"). [bold added, links removed]

Somin notes further that the three-judge panel consisted of a Democrat and two Republicans, one of whom is a Trump appointee. The ruling applies to all importers, although it has been temporarily stayed pending further legal processes.

It is worth noting further that the Trump Administration has been trying to move other tariff cases to this court, regarding it as the most likely venue for success.

2. In addition to the above victory, twelve states prevailed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a related case. Somin comments:

I think Judge Contreras' analysis here is compelling, and other judges should follow it.

Judge Contreras' decision is in large part a jurisdictional ruling on whether cases challenging the IEEPA tariffs must be filed in CIT (he concludes they need not be, because IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs). I will not try to assess this jurisdictional issue here. I will only note I believe CIT does have jurisdiction over such cases (which is why we filed our case there), but I have no strong view on whether CIT's jurisdiction is exclusive, as the Trump Administration has argued. As Judge Contreras notes, two other district courts have ruled that it is indeed exclusive, and ordered the relevant cases to be transferred to CIT. [bold added]

The conclusion that the IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs at all is stronger than the equivocal position Somin attributes to the Court of International Trade in its decision, despite his arguments to that effect.

3. As part of his war on Harvard University, Donald Trump has attempted to violate its right to enroll international students. The Guardian reports that he has been blocked from doing so:

"International students and scholars are tremendous assets that contribute to US preeminence in innovation, research, and economic strength," said Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of Nafsa, the Association of International Educators. "Undermining their ability to study here is self-defeating. With these actions, the United States will alienate the very minds that fuel its success."

This is all on top of the fact that Trump is violating the right of an American business to deal with paying customers. Whatever its many flaws, Trump is wrong to go after Harvard -- and implicitly threaten every other education institution -- in this way.

4. In a sign that at least some conservatives are waking up to the danger that Trump poses to our freedom and their own party, a prominent conservative magazine sings its praises of libertarian law firms:

The government, in many cases, won't knock it off unless it is challenged, even if its behavior is blatantly unconstitutional, as it was with these tariffs or with Biden's student loan plans or any number of other cases. If Congress won't stand up to the president and big business is too cozy with government to pick a fight, it's good to know that a handful of libertarian lawyers with a few obscure small-business clients can point to the Constitution and win. [bold added]

And elsewhere, on the same subject:

There are a whole bunch of shortsighted Americans who want the president to have pretty much unlimited power -- as long as the guy in the Oval Office is a guy they agree with, that is -- and who never bothers to think what this country would be like if a guy they didn't agree with had that same unlimited power they envision. If you hate the existing system of checks and balances in our Constitution, you might be an American in your citizenship, but you're not really much of an American in your thinking. [bold added]

Dum spiro spero.

-- CAV

Salvaging a Future Work Reference

Over at Ask a Manager, Alison Green takes a question (Item 1) from someone who frequently interacts with young employees from another company. He's troubled by the prospect of having to give recommendations for young employees who are picking up bad habits from a dysfunctional workplace.

As part of her reply, Green offers the below script:

This isn't something I plan to bring up again, but I want to give you a heads-up: a lot of people in your role end up asking me for recommendations to go back to school for X, and when I write recommendations I'm asked about things like punctuality and respect for management. I see the tough management situation you're dealing with; I'm not blind to that. But I want to be up-front that if you ever do need a recommendation from me, I'm going to get asked about that stuff and have to be honest, and in some cases haven't felt like I could write the recommendation at all. I never want to be explaining this to someone for the first time when they're asking for a recommendation, and I think it's fairer to say it early on while you can still do something with that information. It's completely up to you what you do with it! I just want it out there so no one is surprised by it later.

I am really impressed by how this accounts for the self-interest of both parties, while also navigating several difficult aspects of the letter-writer's situation.

It also reminds me of a similar (stern) warning I got when I was a sophomore in college. After I looked into what the word professional meant beyond the context of sport, it helped me overcome a blind spot I had due to my blue collar background. From that angle, I can vouch for the soundness of this advice myself!

-- CAV

Magical Thinking on Tariffs in OBBB

Scott Lincicome of Cato gives six reasons the Trump tariffs will fall short of the revenue his "One Big Beautiful Bill" tax-and-spend package would require over the decade.

One needn't be an economist to come up with a good guess for some of these, like the third:

Trump himself will likely change the tariffs' scope and application, as he has already done in recent trade deals with the UK and China and other deals during his first term. As long as tariffs are a bargaining chip, they can't be considered reliable government revenue. [bold added]

A three-year-old fascinated by a light switch would be more predictable than Trump has been as he has played around with taxes on international trade.

Lincicome summarizes the others at the above link, but there is more detail both from links in his post at Cato and his guest opinion piece in The Washington Post.

Newest to me is a loophole called the first sale rule, which has been around for a long time:

Within U.S. customs law, the first sale rule allows U.S. importers to use the price of the first sale in a number of transactions to calculate customs duties.

For instance, a Chinese manufacturer sells a T-shirt to a Hong Kong vendor for $5. That Hong Kong vendor then sells the T-shirt to a U.S. retailer for $10. That U.S. retailer then sells the T-shirt to consumers for $40.

Under the first sale rule, the U.S. retailer can pay the import duty on the initial $5 price of the good, rather than the vendor's inflated $10, thus stripping out the cost associated with the middleman's profit.

"What the rules allow you to do is use that initial sales price from the factory to the vendor to determine the final duty price," Brian Gleicher, senior lawyer and member at Miller & Chevalier Chartered, told CNBC over the phone.

It is fortunate that businessmen will jump through these silly hoops for us, blunting the effects of this stupid policy.

But we'll still get ripped off while the federal budget deficit continues to balloon.

-- CAV

Four Recent Wins

A Friday Hodgepodge

Editor's Note I'll be away from the blog and scarce on Twitter over the Memorial Day weekend. Expect me back here next Wednesday.

***

Whenever possible, I list three wins at the end of each day. Here are a few from a recent review of my planner.

***

1. When we moved from Florida to the New Orleans area, the kids no longer went to the same school. On top of the separate schools, their starting times were earlier and about an hour apart.

Next year, they'll still be at separate schools, but will have similar starting times. I will enjoy having more uninterrupted time on weekday mornings.

I may be even more excited about the end of the school year than my son.

2. I have known for some time that our parish (Louisiana's equivalent to a county) has a network of biking/walking paths that include paved-over former rail beds.

I finally got around to doing some of my daily walks on one of them nearby, and am quite impressed. Our neighborhood is great for regular walks, but this is a nice change of pace.

Since the network extends into several nearby towns, it might even lend itself to integration with errands or other things we do on weekends.

3. Visiting my mother recently in Mississippi, we went to one of our family's favorite catfish restaurants. I love the fried green tomatoes and fried okra there, and I have yet to find a similar place in Louisiana.

(Oddly enough, I also haven't found a place that sells green tomatoes here, and have had to substitute egg plant on catfish night at home.)

The next time we visit, I plan to stop in Magee on the way. A local restaurant there is supposed to make the best hamburgers in the state.

4. I have finally solved what I have called the Dueling Spaghetti Recipes Problem. For some time, I've been alternating between my own recipe (aka the good stuff) and a simplified recipe evolved from something I hastily threw together for my cheese-hating mother-in-law once when everyone else wanted pizza (aka Grandma's spaghetti).

The big problem has been that only my son likes the meatballs I use in Grandma's spaghetti, and my wife and daughter tolerate them at best.

It finally dawned on me that I could just ... make the good stuff and add meatballs to my son's serving.

So I asked, in case there was something else about Grandma's spaghetti that he liked, and he said That's fine.

Problem solved.

-- CAV