US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares20 Views

      in US Politics

      Spike Lee, Adam McKay and over 2,000 writers decry Trump’s ‘un-American’ actions in open letter

      by

      More than 2,300 members of the Writers Guild of America, including Spike Lee and Adam McKay, have signed an open letter decrying the actions of Donald Trump’s administration that represent “an unprecedented, authoritarian assault” on free speech.The letter, a combined effort from the WGA East and West branches, cites the US president’s “baseless lawsuits” against news organizations that have “published stories he does not like and leveraged them into payoffs”. It specifically references Paramount’s decision to pay Trump $16m to settle a “meritless lawsuit” about a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. The letter notes that Trump “retaliated against publications reporting factually on the White House and threatened broadcasters’ licenses”, and has repeatedly called for the cancellation of programs that criticize him.Additionally, the letter blasts Republicans in Congress who “collaborated” with the Trump administration to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting “in order to silence PBS and NPR”. And it says the FCC, led by Trump-appointed chair Brendan Carr, “openly conditioned its approval of the Skydance-Paramount merger on assurances that CBS would make ‘significant changes’ to the purported ideological viewpoint of its journalism and entertainment programming.“These are un-American attempts to restrict the kinds of stories and jokes that may be told, to silence criticism and dissent,” the letter reads. “We don’t have a king, we have a president. And the president doesn’t get to pick what’s on television, in movie theaters, on stage, on our bookshelves, or in the news.”Signees include Tony Gilroy, David Simon, Mike Schur, Ilana Glazer, Lilly Wachowski, Celine Song, Justin Kuritzkes, Desus Nice, Gillian Flynn, John Waters, Liz Meriwether, Kenneth Lonergan, Alfonso Cuarón, Shawn Ryan and many other prominent names in film and television.The letter, released on Tuesday, calls on elected representatives and industry leaders to “resist this overreach”, as well as their audiences to “fight for a free and democratic future” and “raise their voice”.The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced last Friday that it would shut down after 57 years in operation, following the decision by the Republican-controlled House last month to eliminate $1.1bn in CPB funding over two years, part of a $9bn reduction to public media and foreign aid programs.The corporation, established by Congress in 1967 to ensure educational and cultural programming remained accessible to all Americans, distributed more than $500m annually to PBS, NPR and 1,500 local stations nationwide. Despite the federal grants, stations mostly relied on viewer donations, corporate sponsorships and local government funds to stay afloat.The Trump administration has also filed a lawsuit against three CPB board members who refused to leave their positions after Trump attempted to remove them.“This is certainly not the first time that free speech has come under assault in this country, but free speech remains our right because generation after generation of Americans have dedicated themselves to its protection,” the letter concludes. “Now and always, when writers come under attack, our collective power as a union allows us to fight back. This period in American life will not last forever, and when it’s over the world will remember who had the courage to speak out.” More

    • 138 Shares24 Views

      in US Politics

      US House panel subpoenas Bill and Hillary Clinton for Epstein testimony

      by

      The House oversight committee on Tuesday issued subpoenas to Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as several former attorneys general and directors of the FBI, demanding “testimony related to horrific crimes perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein”.The investigative committee’s Republican chair, James Comer, sent the subpoenas in response to two motions lawmakers approved on a bipartisan basis last month, as Congress navigated outrage among Donald Trump’s supporters over the justice department’s announcement that it would not release further details about Epstein, a disgraced financier who died in 2019 while awaiting trial for sex trafficking.The subpoenas raise the possibility that more details will become public about Trump’s relationship with Epstein, which stretched for years but appeared to have petered out by the time Epstein was convicted of sexually abusing girls in 2008. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported on the existence of a sexually suggestive sketch and lewd letter Trump sent to Epstein as a 50th birthday gift in 2003.The president and his allies have long flirted with conspiracy theories around Epstein’s death in federal custody, but the justice department upended those by concluding he died by suicide and a long-rumored list of his client did not exist. That prompted some Trump supporters to criticize the president for failing to make good on his pledge to bring full transparency to the case, which Democrats moved to capitalize on by pushing congressional Republicans into tricky votes intended to make the Epstein case files public.Shortly before House lawmakers left Washington DC for Congress’s August recess, the Republican congressman Scott Perry won an oversight subcommittee’s approval to compel depositions from the Clintons and the former top federal law enforcement officials in a bid to reveal more about Epstein’s activities. Democratic congresswoman Summer Lee also successfully pushed a motion to subpoena justice department files related to the case.In addition to the Clintons, the committee sent subpoenas to former attorneys general Jeff Sessions, Alberto Gonzales and William Barr, who served in George W Bush and Trump’s presidencies, and Merrick Garland, Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, who served under Joe Biden and Barack Obama. Former FBI directors James Comey and Robert Mueller also received subpoenas.In the letter to Bill Clinton, Comer noted that the former president had flown four times on Epstein’s private jet, and repeated an allegation that he had “pressured” Vanity Fair not to publish sex trafficking claims regarding Epstein. The chair further says that Clinton was “allegedly close” with Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite serving a 20-year prison sentence after being convicted on sex trafficking charges related to Epstein.“Given your past relationships with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, the Committee believes that you have information regarding their activities that is relevant to the Committee’s investigation,” Comer wrote.In his letter to Hillary Clinton, Comer draws a more tenuous connect, writing: “Your family appears to have had a close relationship with both Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell”. In addition to details about them, Comer notes that Clinton “may have knowledge of efforts by the federal government to combat international sex trafficking operations of the type run by Mr. Epstein”.Comer set Bill Clinton’s deposition date as 14 October and Hillary’s as 9 October. Others who received subpoenas were given dates ranging from mid-August through early October, while US attorney general Pam Bondi has until 19 August to release documents related to the case.In addition to the subpoenas, Republican congressman Thomas Massie and Democrat Ro Khanna are collecting signatures for a discharge petition to force a vote on legislation compelling release of the Epstein files. That vote is not expected to happen until the House returns from recess in early September.Trump has authorized the justice department to request release of the transcripts from the federal grand juries that indicted Epstein and Maxwell, while last week, deputy attorney general Todd Blanche interviewed Maxwell in Florida in what the White House said was a bid to uncover new details about the case. More

    • 175 Shares38 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Latinos deserve a district’: alarm as new Texas maps dilute voting power in Austin

      by

      When representative Greg Casar won his election last year, he became the first Latino to represent the Texas capital city of Austin in the US House of Representatives. A panel of federal judges had drawn his district’s lines after a prolonged legal battle over racial gerrymandering.But under the map Texas Republicans unveiled last week, Casar would instead live in the modified version of his neighboring district to the west, which would swallow east Austin – a gentrifying but historically working-class area home to Mexican American and Black residents once forced by segregation laws to live on the east side of town.“Even a conservative supreme court said central Texas Latinos deserve a district, and that’s why my district exists,” Casar said. “If Donald Trump is able to suppress Latino voters here in Austin, he’ll try to spread that plan across America.”Texas Republicans took the unusual step of redistricting several years early in an attempt to deliver more congressional seats to Donald Trump ahead of next year’s midterm elections. Democratic state lawmakers fled the state Sunday to try to thwart the GOP redistricting plan by denying state lawmakers a quorum needed to pass it into law. The Texas governor, Greg Abbott, said Monday he would seek to arrest and possibly unseat and replace Democratic lawmakers who do not return.In majority-minority Texas, where Black and brown voters have traditionally leaned left, the overtly political ploy is teeing up another in a series of legal battles over racial gerrymandering that have erupted repeatedly for more than a decade.The dramatic reshaping of Casar’s district 35 is one of the most egregious examples cited by civic groups concerned that the new map will dilute Latino voter strength and make it harder for candidates of color to win congressional elections.“The map as proposed clearly violates the Voting Rights Act and is unconstitutional,” said Lydia Camarillo, the president of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. “It’s canceling out districts that are part of the Voting Rights Act … and it’s not giving Latinos the right to represent their voice based on their population growth.”Hispanics are the largest population segment in Texas, at about 40%. Only one-fifth of the state’s 38-member House delegation is Hispanic, however.Since the last census, civic groups like Camarillo’s have contended that the state’s booming Hispanic population growth merits two more Latino-majority congressional districts under the Voting Rights Act – one in Houston and the other in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. A dozen organizations and several individuals are pressing Texas to create the two Latino-majority districts in an ongoing federal lawsuit in El Paso.The new GOP-drawn map not only fails to provide those two Latino-majority districts, but it significantly dilutes the voting strength of the ones that exist, critics say.“This is a calculated move that exploits Texas’ historically low voter turnout for those in charge to maintain power,” Jackie Bastard, the executive director of the voter turnout group Jolt Action, wrote in an email. “By deliberately diluting Latino voting strength across districts, these maps would severely diminish the impact of our ongoing voter mobilization efforts and silence the voices of Texas’ fastest-growing demographic.”Those intricacies are often difficult to tease out. Congressional district nine, represented by Democratic representative Al Green, for example, is a so-called “coalition district” under the current map, with no one ethnic or racial group holding a solid majority. In practice, however, it functions more like a Black-opportunity district in a state where African American voters are becoming a smaller share of the electorate.Under the new map, district nine’s Black population plummets to 11%, while the Hispanic voting age population now holds a majority.But the historically low voter turnout rate there raises doubts that the district will actually function as a Latino-majority district, said Gloria Leal, the general counsel for the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the plaintiffs in the El Paso case. Representative Sylvia Garcia’s district 29 also dropped enough to raise concerns, while retaining a majority on paper.Representative Henry Cuellar’s district 28, on the other hand, saw the opposite approach under the new map – Hispanics voters shot up to roughly 90% of the voting age population.“They added like 20 percentage points to that district to pack us all in,” Leal said. “We oppose the current map that exists and we adamantly oppose the proposed map,” she added.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAny redrawing of Texas districts is likely to draw the scrutiny of the federal courts, given the state’s long history of voter suppression. The Voting Rights Act, which will celebrate its 60th anniversary on Wednesday, prohibits both diluting a protected groups’ votes across multiple districts and packing voters into a single one.Carrying out such sweeping changes so quickly at the request of the White House may also raise legal questions that go beyond the Voting Rights Act, according to Thomas A Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the El Paso case.“This is clearly improper,” Saenz said. “Trying to circumvent judicial review by acting so close to an election is straight-up unlawful.”Political analysts had widely viewed Republicans’ goal of finding five congressional seats for Trump as an overly ambitious one that may backfire. The map that Republicans came up with in 2021 to fortify their current lopsided majority in the congressional delegation appeared hard to alter without making the party more vulnerable to Democratic challenges.Texas conservatives appear to have exceeded those expectations, according to Rice University political scientist Mark Jones – partly by “riding roughshod” over the Voting Rights Act.“I underestimated the level of disregard of the Voting Rights Act,” Jones said. “It’s not clear how the Voting Rights Act constrained this map in any significant way, with the exception that Republicans focused on hitting absolute majorities of Hispanics in a few districts.”Still, Jones said, Republicans drew the map with an exceptionally favorable year in mind. If Republicans fail to consolidate the inroads they made in last year’s election, which is normal during a midterm, the new map could easily fail to produce a single new GOP congressional seat in Texas. It might even lead Republicans to lose a seat, according to Jones.“One thing that is very clear about this whole process is these maps are being drawn under a very rosy scenario,” Jones said. “And with Trump not on the ballot, with the natural referendum on his presidency, an economy that may be problematic – it’s tough to imagine Republicans hitting 2024 numbers in 2026.” More

    • 200 Shares36 Views

      in US Politics

      The Mamdani effect: how his win spurred more than 10,000 progressives to consider run for office

      by

      In mid-July, Erik Clemson signed on to a Zoom call from Honolulu, Hawaii, energized by a mayoral candidate in a city far across the country, to hear how he could run for office himself.Clemson, a 39-year-old machinist instructor who has a YouTube channel where he explains the economy, had long considered a political run some time in the future, but Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory provided a push off the sidelines.“After I saw Mamdani win the primary in NYC, I decided to stop wasting time and try to learn what I can as soon as I can,” Clemson said.Clemson is one of more than 10,000 people with an interest in running for office who signed up for Run for Something – a progressive political organization that helps younger candidates learn the ropes – after Mamdani won the primary. He’s part of a surge in young progressives who saw Mamdani’s win in June as hope for a different brand of politics and plan to learn from his example.Co-founder Amanda Litman called it the group’s biggest organic candidate recruitment surge ever.“They saw a young person who took on the establishment against the odds and was able to center the issues that young people really care about – cost of living, especially, housing, childcare, transportation – and talk about it in a way that felt hopeful and made people feel like maybe better things are possible,” Litman said.The Mamdani bump blends together excitement about the candidate, interest in leftist policies and zeal for shoe-leather campaigning, both on the ground and online. The organization recognizes that it’s not that Mamdani’s exact policy ideas should be the focus of campaigns nationwide, but that campaigns should be tailored to and inspired by the people they will directly serve.Clemson said he watched Mamdani in the New York Democratic primary debate, the first time he had watched a debate somewhere other than where he lives. He earned a degree in international business, and his career in blue-collar manufacturing led him to create a YouTube channel called Working Class Economics, where he explains the economy. He has a nine-year-old son, so he said he may run for a school board or the city council.He saw how Mamdani used man-on-the-street social media videos to talk to voters in a way that didn’t feel concocted by political consultants. The campaign and its policies didn’t feel tailored to the donor class – and the fact that Mamdani was running in the home of Wall Street felt like a rebuke to the system, Clemson said.“It just seems like he genuinely cares about his city and the people who live there, and it seems like they like him too, which sounds like it should be the case for everybody, but it seems like that’s rare,” Clemson said. “In politics, there seem to be so many people who have very little connection to the areas they represent.”Overall, about 10% of the people who sign up with Run for Something at any given time run for office, usually about a year or so out from when they sign up, Litman said. Run for Something often sees people sign up after elections, including after Democrats’ big loss last November. Fear and despair motivate people, but so does hope, she said. Mamdani’s win also came at a time of flagging enthusiasm for Democrats and amid soul-searching on the left for a path forward.“The policies that you campaign on in the New York City mayoral election and the policies you campaign on for literally anywhere else, they’re not going to be the same,” Litman said. “I think the point is that he really ran values-first, voter-first. His campaign wasn’t really about him. It wasn’t about his personal story, per se. It was about what it meant to be a New Yorker, what it meant to be someone who loves this city and wants to make it better, what it meant to really listen to voters about what they cared about. That is replicable, no matter where you are.”Existing campaigns with similarities to Mamdani – younger candidates, Democratic socialists, economy-focused campaigns – have benefited from comparisons to the New York mayoral hopeful.In Minneapolis, a state senator and Democratic socialist candidate for mayor, Omar Fateh, secured the city’s Democratic party endorsement in July after Mamdani’s win brought him more attention.Zara Rahim, a senior adviser to the Mamdani campaign, said the campaign resonated because it spoke to the “urgent need for leaders who will fight for working people” during a time when people are struggling with affordability.“This campaign showed what’s possible when you meet people where they are and offer a clear, bold message,” Rahim said. “That’s why it made history – with Zohran receiving more votes than any primary candidate in New York’s history – and why it’s inspiring so many others to imagine themselves in positions of leadership. We’re thrilled to see that energy spreading, because everyone deserves a government that truly fights for them.”Nick Sciretta, a 35-year-old from Valley Stream, New York, is running for Congress in the state’s fourth district, a long-shot bid to unseat an incumbent Democrat, representative Laura Gillen. Gillen has called Mamdani “too extreme” and “the absolute wrong choice for New York”.Sciretta, who canvassed for Mamdani in south Queens, feels the opposite. He was planning to run for office in April anyway – and then he heard about Mamdani’s campaign.“The first thought I had was, we need more regular guys running for positions of power,” said Sciretta, a longtime International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees crew member. “Ultimately, he’s doing something beautiful, which is getting the rank and file, the regular guys, regular New Yorkers, to believe in themselves more than anything.”Sciretta had “lost everything” twice, losing work during the writers’ strike and then the pandemic, and has moved back home. He is a one-man campaign operation: he’s gathering signatures to qualify for the ballot, setting up his own website, tabling in public or sitting in coffee shops with a sign that he’s running for Congress.Mamdani, who is a member of the state assembly, still felt like a regular person who you could sit next to on the bus, Sciretta said. That appeal helped others see they could run for office, too, because you didn’t need to be a certain age or pedigree to win.“The people who are like, ‘Zohran is bad for the city’ … they’re afraid of guys like me who want to follow in his footsteps,” Sciretta said. “Because if there are more Zohrans everywhere in the country, that’s when real change happens.” More

    • 200 Shares32 Views

      in US Politics

      I was the US labor secretary. Trump’s latest firing undermines a key agency | Robert Reich

      by

      I spent much of the 1990s as the secretary of labor. One unit of the labor department is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.I was instructed by my predecessors as well as by the White House, and by every labor economist and statistician I came in contact with, that one of my cardinal responsibilities was to guard the independence of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Otherwise, this crown jewel of knowledge about jobs and the economy would be compromised. If politicized, it would no longer be trusted as a source of information.So what does Donald Trump do? In one fell swoop on Friday, he essentially destroyed the credibility of the BLS.Trump didn’t like the fact that the BLS revised downward its jobs reports for April and May.Well, that’s too bad. Revisions in monthly jobs reports are nothing new. They’re made when the bureau gets more or better information over time, which it often does.Yet with no basis in fact, Trump charged that Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of labor statistics, “rigged” the data “to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad”. Then he ordered her fired and replaced with someone else – presumably someone whose data Trump will approve of.How can anyone in the future trust the information that emerges from the Bureau of Labor Statistics when the person in charge of the agency has to come up with data to Trump’s liking in order to stay in the job? Answer: they cannot.Trump has destroyed the credibility of this extraordinarily important source of information.When Trump doesn’t like the message, he shoots the messenger and replaces the messenger with someone who will come up with messages that he approves. So we’re left without credible sources of information about what is really occurring.Trump is in the process of trying to do the same with the Federal Reserve – demanding that Jerome Powell, the Fed’s chair, cut interest rates or lose control of the agency.What happens to the Fed’s credibility if Powell gives in to Trump? It loses it.In the future, we wouldn’t have confidence that the Fed is fighting inflation as rigorously as it should. And without that confidence, longer-term interest rates will spike because investors will assume that there’s no inflation cop on the beat, and therefore will demand a higher risk premium.Trump hates facts that he disagrees with. That’s why he’s dismembering the Environmental Protection Agency, which has repeatedly shown that the climate crisis isn’t a “hoax”, as Trump claims, but more like a national emergency.It’s why Trump is attacking American universities, whose scientists are developing wind and solar energy, and whose historians have revealed America’s tragic history of racism and genocide of indigenous people.He is killing off the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, which are showing the sources of sickness and disease and how we can guard against them.This is a man and a regime that doesn’t want the public to know the truth. He is turning the US into George Orwell’s dystopian 1984.The Trumping of America is happening so fast and in so many places that it’s hard to see the whole. Which partly explains why he doesn’t want the facts out. He doesn’t want us to know how bad it really is.

      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com. His next book, Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America, will be out on 5 August More

    • 163 Shares20 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump firing of statistics chief puts US data credibility at risk, experts warn

      by

      Donald Trump’s firing of the head of the main agency for producing jobs figures risks propelling the US into the same category as countries notorious for “cooking the books” such as Argentina and Greece, experts have warned.Donald Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) commissioner last Friday, after accusing her agency of “faking” the latest employment figures for “political purposes,” which showed the US economy adding a lower-than-expected 73,000 jobs in July.The BLS, the US government official source for labor statistics since 1884, also revised down the estimates of new positions created in May and June by a combined 258,000.Trump provided no evidence for his accusations against McEntarfer, which he reinforced in social media posts on Monday, calling the bureau’s latest reports “rigged” and concocted.But his decision jeopardizes the US’s tradition of impartial and reliable statistic collection on which the country’s economic stability and international reputation depends, specialists have told the Guardian.Erica Groshen, McEnterfer’s predecessor as BLS commissioner during Barack Obama’s presidency, warned earlier this year that an impending civil-servant rule change that presaged last Friday’s sacking could usher in a “politicization” of government statistical bodies – whereby experts are pressured to produce massaged numbers that fitted an incumbent president’s agenda.She raised the specter of Greece and Argentina, where official statistics became discredited as a result of government-instigated misrepresenting of figures.The International Monetary Fund stopped accepting the Argentinian government’s inflation figures in 2013 after officials were found to have deliberately understated the rate for the previous six years.After threatening Argentina – historically one of the IMF’s biggest borrowers – with expulsion, the organization did not extend another loan to it until 2018.In the case of Greece, government statisticians were accused of having made inflation and soaring budget deficits “disappear” in the 1990s as the country sought respectable-looking numbers that would enable to qualify for the single European currency, the euro.Greece subsequently joined the currency, but at an exorbitant long-term price. The 2008 global financial crash plunged its economy into a deep recession, and the government was forced to accept multi-billion dollar bailouts from the IMF and European Union – at the cost of painful cuts to social services.Andreas Georgiou, who became head of Greece’s main statistics agency during the crisis, even faced prosecution after he discovered that authorities had been dramatically understating budget deficits for years.Both countries experienced severe political backlashes.In Argentina, after two further IMF loans failed to stabiliize its economy, Javier Milei, a populist economist and ally of Trump, was elected in 2023 promising to take a chainsaw to the governing bureaucracy and many public services.In Greece, a succession of left and rightwing governments have taken office amid a rise in support for radical and populist parties, giving rise to concerns for the health of the country’s democracy.Talking to the Guardian, Groshen warned of comparable scenarios following a rule change rolled by the White House’s office of personnel management in April.“Bureau of Labor Statistics leaders could be fired for releasing or planning to release jobs or inflation statistics unfavorable to the president’s policy agenda,” she wrote in a briefing paper.The revision altered the category of about 50,000 permanent civil servants to “policy/career” status, making their removal easier.Originally tabled in April to allow 30 days for comments, it gave agencies the right “to expeditiously remove career employees in policy-influencing positions for poor performance or misconduct, such as corruption or for injecting partisanship into the performance of their official duties”.The precise roles of officials affected were not defined, but Groshen pointed out that, if implemented, the president would determine who would be reclassified.The change stemmed from an executive order Trump issued on his first day back in the White House on 20 January. It stated that the power of “policy-influencing” civil servants is “delegated by the president, and they must be accountable to the president”.Groshen, now a specialist in government statistics at Cornell University, said the changes in civil servant status would make it easier for the government to tamper with numbers it disliked.“There are a number of changes to the civil service that makes it much easier for the administration to interfere with the activities of statistical agencies and that worries me,” she said.Under increased threat of removal, civil servants in federal statistics bodies “might also face pressure to change methodologies or reveal pre-release information”, she wrote.“By making it easier to remove employees if a president determines that they are interfering with his or her policies, it increases the potential for passivity or political loyalty to be prioritized over expertise and experience.” More

    • 113 Shares20 Views

      in US Politics

      The one thing Donald Trump isn’t saying about tariffs

      by

      Donald Trump’s words and actions rarely align perfectly. If you watch carefully, what he doesn’t say can be just as telling as what he does.“Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods,” he told the nation ahead of his re-election. The US president declared on 2 April would “forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn”, only to pause tariffs a week later.He promised peace in Ukraine on day one of his presidency, only to later clarify this was “said in jest”; and has claimed very few people can beat him at golf, only for footage from Scotland to raise questions over just how honest that round might be.As a real estate mogul, reality TV star and political campaigner, Trump learned to bend narrative to his will, even if it meant straying from reality.As president, this often leaves a gap between what he says and what he does. In many cases, the administration’s actions are more important to follow than the firehose of words.If you were, say, a US business buying coffee from Brazil, you might have rushed to import it last week after Trump insisted 1 August was the cast-iron deadline for new tariffs. “It stands strong, and will not be extended,” he wrote on Wednesday – hours before signing an executive order that said new steep tariffs on the country would come into force on 8 August, after all.And if you’re a US consumer, you might reasonably ask how inflation can be “dead”, as the White House has claimed, if you’re still shelling out more on groceries each month.The president has an awful lot to say about tariffs. They will, he argues, raise “trillions” of dollars for the US federal government; eliminate trade deficits with other countries; and even punish Brazil for putting his ally, the former president Jair Bolsonaro, on trial for allegedly seeking to seize power after losing the 2022 presidential election. The list goes on.But what about what the president doesn’t say?Trump was re-elected last November after repeatedly pledging to rapidly bring down prices for Americans. This assurance formed a central pillar of his election campaign – a regular refrain in rallies, interviews and debates – as millions found it harder to make ends meet after years of inflation.Every policy comes at a cost. Every tax must be paid by someone, somewhere. For consumers, The Budget Lab at Yale estimates the short-term price impact of Trump’s tariff changes is equivalent to an average per household income loss of $2,400.What Trump doesn’t really talk about the impact of his aggressive tariff agenda on US is prices. One of the few times he has acknowledged it might actually exacerbate inflation led to a bizarre tangent about dolls back in May. Acknowledging that tariffs might cause price rises, Trump suggested American children might have to settle for having “two dolls instead of 30 dolls”.Back then, Joe Biden was still to blame for any signs of strife in the economy, according to Trump. Now, he argues almost daily Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell is responsible.The biggest indication yet that the US economy is creaking on Trump’s watch came on Friday, when official data revealed the labor market had stalled this summer. He unceremoniously fired the veteran official in charge of the statistics – and alleged, without evidence, that the numbers had been rigged.With higher US tariffs now in place on a string of countries, the president and his administration will inevitably say a lot about the benefits of his economic strategy. They are already trying to stifle evidence of drawbacks. They might even raise the prospect of a handout – pitched as a sign of this policy’s success, rather than a concession that many Americans are still hard up.But if you’re running a small business reliant on trade, or walking into the grocery store on a budget, reality supersedes rhetoric. Words don’t pay the bills. More