Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Rightwing group backed by Koch and Leo sues to stop Trump tariffs

      by

      A libertarian group backed by Leonard Leo and Charles Koch has mounted a legal challenge against Donald Trump’s tariff regime, in a sign of spreading rightwing opposition to a policy that has sent international markets plummeting.The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a suit against Trump’s imposition of import tariffs on exports from China, arguing that doing so under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – which the president has invoked to justify the duties on nearly all countries – is unlawful.The group’s actions echo support given by four Republican senators last week for a Democratic amendment calling for the reversal of 25% tariffs imposed on Canada.Last Wednesday’s amendment passed with the support of Mitch McConnell, the former Republican Senate majority leader, and his fellow GOP members Rand Paul, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who argued that tariffs on Canada would be economically harmful.The action from the alliance has the potential to be even more emblematic, given its backing from Koch, a billionaire industrialist, and Leo, a wealthy legal activist who advised Trump on the nomination of three conservative supreme court justices during his first presidency, which has given the court a 6-3 rightwing majority. The group received money from organisations affiliated with Leo and Koch in 2022.The alliance has tabled its action on behalf of Simplified, a Florida-based home goods company whose business is heavily reliant on imports from China. It argues that the president has exceeded his powers in invoking the IEEPA to justify tariffs.“This statute authorizes specific emergency actions like imposing sanctions or freezing assets to protect the United States from foreign threats,” the alliance said in a statement. “It does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. In its nearly 50-year history, no other president – including President Trump in his first term – has ever tried to use the IEEPA to impose tariffs.”The alliance also argues that power to impose tariffs lies not with a sitting president, but with Congress, and warns that those imposed by Trump could run afoul of US supreme court rulings.“His attempt to use the IEEPA this way not only violates the law as written, but it also invites application of the supreme court’s major questions doctrine, which tells courts not to discern policies of ‘vast economic and political significance’ in a law without explicit congressional authorization,” its statement said.Mark Chenoweth, the alliance’s president, said the court in Pensacola – where the suit has been filed – would have to observe this legal precedent.“Reading this law [IEEPA] broadly enough to uphold the China tariff would transfer core legislative power,” he said. “To avoid that non-delegation pitfall, the court must construe the statute consistent with nearly 50 years of unbroken practice and decide it does not permit tariff setting.”The suit argues that there is no connection between the fentanyl epidemic – which Trump has cited as a reason for invoking the emergency powers – and the tariffs.“The means of an across-the-board tariff does not fit the end of stopping an influx of opioids, and is in no sense ‘necessary’ to that stated purpose,” the complaint filed on behalf of Simplified argues.“In fact, President Trump’s own statements reveal the real reason for the China tariff, which is to reduce American trade deficits while raising federal revenue.”The legal case adds to rumbling disquiet on tariffs among some of Trump’s usually vocal supporters, including the billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman.Paul, a senator from Kentucky who has been one of the most consistent congressional anti-tariff voices, told the Washington Post that other Capitol Hill Republicans shared his concern.“They all see the stock market, and they’re all worried about it,” Paul said. “But they are putting on a stiff upper lip to try to act as if nothing’s happening and hoping it goes away.”Speaking in support of last week’s Democratic amendment, sponsored by the Virginia senator Tim Kaine, Paul said: “I don’t care if the president is a Republican or a Democrat. I don’t want to live under emergency rule. I don’t want to live where my representatives cannot speak for me and have a check and balance on power.”Trump attacked Paul and the three other Republican senators who backed the amendment and suggested they were driven by “Trump derangement syndrome”.In another sign of Republican concern, the GOP senator from Iowa Chuck Grassley – along with a Washington Democrat, Maria Cantrell – introduced a bill that would limit Trump’s ability to impose or increase tariffs by requiring Congress to approve them within 60 days. The White House budget office said on Monday that Trump would veto the bill. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Volatility grips global stock markets as Trump insists on tariff ‘medicine’

      by

      Extreme volatility plagued global stock markets on Monday, with Wall Street swinging in and out of the red as Donald Trump defied stark warnings that his global trade assault will wreak widespread economic damage, comparing new US tariffs to medicine.A renewed sell-off began in Asia, before hitting European equities and reaching the US. It was briefly reversed amid hopes of a reprieve, only for Trump to threaten China with more steep tariffs, intensifying pressure on the market.On Wall Street, the benchmark S&P 500 dropped by as much as 4.1% – entering bear market territory after falling more than 20% from its most recent peak, in February – before launching an extraordinary reversal to turn positive.While markets were fleetingly boosted after Kevin Hassett, director of the White House national economic council, signaled that Trump was open to considering a 90-day pause on tariffs for all countries but China, the relief did not last long.After hours of turbulent trading, the S&P closed down 0.2%. The Dow Jones industrial average finished down 0.9%.“We’re not looking at that,” Trump told reporters, when asked about the prospect of a pause. Pressed on whether the tariffs set the stage for negotiations with countries, or were permanent, he replied: “Well, it can both be true. There can be permanent tariffs, and there can also be negotiations.”The FTSE 100 closed down 4.38% in London at 7,702.08 – the lowest close in more than a year – after the Nikkei 225 slumped 7.8% in Tokyo. Other major European also ended the day sharply lower, including Germany’s DAX and France’s CAC which both fell more than 4%.Trump, who has previously used market rallies as a barometer of his success, tried to brush off the sell-off this weekend. “I don’t want anything to go down,” the US president said on Sunday. “But sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something.”He stood firm on Monday. “The United States has a chance to do something that should have been done DECADES AGO,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “Don’t be Weak! Don’t be Stupid!”As China prepares to retaliate, Trump threatened to further increase US tariffs on the country – an additional rate of 50% – if it hits back. All talks with Beijing over potential meetings have been “terminated”, he said.Major share indices have fallen dramatically since he unveiled his controversial plan to overhaul the US economy last week. The Trump administration imposed a blanket 10% tariff on imported goods this weekend, and is set to follow with higher tariffs on products from specific nations from Wednesday.While senior figures in corporate America have been reluctant to criticize Trump since his inauguration in January, a handful have started to sound the alarm in recent days.Larry Fink, CEO of the investment giant BlackRock, expressed concern on Monday over the threat of a downturn. “The economy is weakening as we speak,” he said at the Economic Club of New York, according to Bloomberg. “Most CEOs I talk to would say we are probably in a recession right now.”The JPMorgan Chase boss, Jamie Dimon, one of the most influential executives on Wall Street, warned that Trump’s tariff plan was “likely” to exacerbate inflation. “Whether or not the menu of tariffs causes a recession remains in question, but it will slow down growth,” he wrote in his annual letter to shareholders.Dimon added: “The quicker this issue is resolved, the better because some of the negative effects increase cumulatively over time and would be hard to reverse.”The billionaire fund manager Bill Ackman, who backed Trump’s campaign for the presidency, has also demanded the administration reconsider its plan. “We are heading for a self-induced, economic nuclear winter,” he wrote on X, formerly Twitter.Even Elon Musk, a close ally of Trump, currently leading the so-called “department of government efficiency” inside the government, appeared to break with the administration on the issue. Peter Navarro, Trump’s top trade adviser, “ain’t built shit”, Musk wrote on X, which he owns, this weekend.Navarro, for his part, insisted in a television interview on Monday morning that the stock market would find a bottom. Less than hour later, when New York opened for trading, the search continued.The technology-focused Nasdaq Composite started the day down 4.3%, before switching in and out of the red. It ended the day broadly flat, up by 0.1%. The VIX “fear index” of volatility rose as high as 60 for the first time since August.Oil prices also came under pressure, with Brent and WTI benchmarks stooping to their lowest levels in four years, as growing economic tensions between Washington and Beijing stoked fears that a global downturn would challenge demand.Sir Richard Branson, co-founder of Virgin Group, argued the “predictable and preventable” market chaos would have “catastrophic” implications for people in the US and around the world, and claimed companies were already going bankrupt as a result of the weaker dollar and higher costs.“This is the moment to own up to a colossal mistake and change course,” Branson wrote on X. “Otherwise, America will face ruin for years to come.” More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Starmer’s choices: time to be bold | Editorial

      by

      In his speech to the Labour party conference in 2005, Tony Blair used a seasonal analogy to make the case for embracing disruptive but inevitable change. “I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation,” Mr Blair told delegates. “You might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer.”Twenty years on, to quote the billionaire US hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, it is the threat of a self-inflicted “economic nuclear winter” that haunts the global economy. Donald Trump’s imposition of swingeing US tariffs has unleashed mayhem on stock markets across the world, upending assumptions governing the world trade order since Bretton Woods. As Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, said at the weekend: “Globalisation as we’ve known it for the last couple of decades has come to an end.”What that means for the Labour government he serves and for Britain is both fraught with consequence and, to a significant degree, beyond Whitehall’s control. Second-guessing Mr Trump’s ultimate intentions – and the political and economic risks that he is willing to take, as consumers suffer the consequences of a trade war – is a futile exercise. But as the White House seeks to bully, intimidate and coerce its way to a new settlement between the US and the rest of the world, the risk of a global recession is clear.What Sir Keir Starmer described on Monday as a “new era” will require strategic boldness from an habitually cautious prime minister. Sir Keir should, for example, now go further and faster to reset relations with the EU, the UK’s biggest trading partner by far. That may involve an uneasy balancing act if EU countries decide to retaliate against Mr Trump, as the government seeks a trade deal with the White House and related tariff mitigation. But the alternative is unsplendid and impotent isolation, and a future “special relationship” with the US that approximates ever more closely to vassal status.Domestically, a reset is also required. Speaking in the West Midlands, Sir Keir announced modest measures to assist the UK car industry, hammered by 25% tariffs on exports at a time when it is also dealing with the pressures of the green transition. The prime minister described this as a “downpayment” on future support. But supply-side plans to relax electric vehicle targets for manufacturers send the wrong environmental message, when what is needed are radical measures to turbocharge consumer demand.The problem, paradoxically for a prime minister who defines himself as a pragmatist, is ideology. As the UK faces potentially huge economic headwinds, Labour’s industrial strategy will need to be bigger, more interventionist and less constrained by the redundant economic orthodoxies to which it continues to pay obeisance. Aspirations to drive significant growth through a combination of budgetary conservatism and deregulation were already looking doomed prior to Mr Trump’s act of sabotage last week. Following “liberation day”, Sir Keir’s ongoing insistence that the government will stubbornly persist with its fiscal rules begins to look like an act of national self-harm.Mr Blair’s old message on globalisation, addressed to post-industrial regions suffering the effects of unleashed market forces, used to be to adapt or face the consequences. As Mr Trump gambles on the fate of the world economy, making up the rules as he goes along, Labour will need to do precisely that, and at pace.

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Here’s one key thing you should know about Trump’s shock to the world economy: it could work | James Meadway

      by

      It’s less than a week since Donald Trump’s sensational announcement that he was unilaterally ending the world’s trading system with the imposition of a 10% minimum tariff for trading with the US – and a very much higher rate for those countries unfortunate enough to have the US as a major export partner. Long-term allies such as Japan and South Korea have been hammered with tariffs of around 25%, while export-dependent poorer countries such as Vietnam, which sells about a third of its exports to the US, have been hit with tariffs in excess of 45%. A further round of global debt crises is possible as heavily indebted countries face the sudden loss of export earnings.Global stock markets have tumbled as panicked investors dump shares, and political condemnation has been near-universal. China has already retaliated with 34% tariffs, threatening an escalating trade war. Right now, it looks and feels like disastrous overreach by a uniquely erratic administration at the behest of a president with a terrifyingly limited grasp of how the modern economy works.Trump has talked about imposing tariffs on the world since he first rose to prominence in the 1980s, when his target was Japan. In a political career notable for its jack-knifes in policy and direction, tariffs – “the most beautiful word in the dictionary” – have been a constant. But this is about far more than his long-cherished whims. However inconsistent or even confused Trump may sometimes appear to be, those around him have a clear-eyed view of what they want to achieve.His Treasury secretary, hedgefund billionaire Scott Bessent, has spoken of a “global economic reordering” that he intends to shape to the benefit of the US’s elite. Trump’s new chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Stephen Miran, wrote a lengthy paper, A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System, shortly before his appointment. The latter is particularly ambitious – detailing how the US should use not only tariffs but also the threat of withdrawing its security support to compel its friends and allies to accept cuts in payments due from the Federal Reserve on their US Treasury bills. This would be a potentially massive loss to them, akin, in reality, to a US debt default. But it is tariffs that are the cutting edge of the plan – leveraging the US’s power as the world’s largest consumer and greatest debtor to compel other countries into a negotiation on terms.After decades winning in an international trading game it wrote and refereed the rules for, the US is now facing serious competition – primarily from China, but with Europe as an expensive irritant. The response of this administration is to kick over the table, and demand everyone starts again. What it ultimately wants is a cheaper dollar to revive US manufacturing and Chinese competition held off, all the while keeping the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. And the rest of the world will pay the price.There are precedents. In October 1979, Paul Volcker, newly appointed as chair of the Federal Reserve, drove up interest rates to a remarkable 13% in a bid to tackle inflation, later raising them to 17%. Soon the US was in recession. Millions lost their jobs over the next two years, notably in manufacturing, where soaring interest rates had driven up the value of the dollar, making US exports less affordable on the world market. After a light easing of interest rate hell by the Fed, Volcker applied a second dose of the medicine, driving interest rates up to 19% and forcing the economy back into a double-dip recession. Unemployment peaked at around 10% in late 1982.View image in fullscreenBut by mid-1983, inflation had come down to 2.5%. For the rest of the 1980s, the US economy boomed. The “Volcker shock” appeared to have worked. Volcker is today a folk hero among central bankers: Ben Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve during the 2008 crisis, praised Volcker’s “independence” and willingness to brazen out the political storm.More decisive than lower inflation, however, was the reshaping of the US economy Volcker’s interest-rate shock accelerated: with manufacturing in freefall, investment flooded into finance and property, firing up what became the great credit bubble of the 1990s and 2000s. The world economy was reordered around a US that acted as a giant sink for its output – swallowing exports from the rest of the world on seemingly limitless borrowing. China’s extraordinary boom was the flipside of US debt and deindustrialisation. The Volcker shock, more than any other single action, created the globalised world system that Trump is now bent on destroying.Few would have bet on Volcker’s world-shaping capacity at the time. The stock market response to the shock was immediate and unanimous. US shares plunged by a record 8% in the two days after his announcement. The S&P 500 lost 27% of its value before August 1982 – two years of grinding decline. Manufacturers and unions hated it, understandably: they were on the wrong side of an epochal reconfiguration of US capitalism. But they were not the only losers: rising interest rates in the US meant less developed countries had to spend more on servicing debts, just as recession squeezed their major export markets. The result was the so-called “third world” debt crisis, as heavily indebted countries across the global south plunged into spirals of economic decline and soaring indebtedness.Over the weekend, Bessent and commerce secretary Howard Lutnick were doing the media rounds, insisting that there would be no climbdown on the tariffs. Trump is not for turning on what is clearly for him a personal crusade. Already, countries such as Vietnam are promising to cut all their tariffs on US goods – a clear and brutal demonstration of the US’s continuing economic power. The administration has claimed 50 other countries have also asked to open negotiations. By the end of the week, expect Trump to be triumphantly announcing more such concessions from economies in the global south. His real target – China – will be a far tougher nut to crack, if it breaks at all.Perhaps the rolling market chaos will become too much. Perhaps the administration will blink first. There is no guarantee this extraordinary gamble will work, not even for those in the clique around Trump. But it would be a mistake to assume it cannot work – and however the pieces now land, they will not return to their old places.

      James Meadway is the host of the podcast Macrodose More

    • 200 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Trump and Musk are setting the example’: how companies are becoming emboldened to be more anti-union

      by

      Donald Trump’s aggressive wave of anti-union actions is already spurring some US employers to take a more hostile stance toward unions, as labor leaders voice fears that the president’s moves will embolden more and more companies to fight harder against unions and slow their recent progress.Indeed, some worker advocates worry that unions will be walloped during Trump’s second term the way they were under Ronald Reagan after he crushed the 1981 air traffic controllers’ strike and inspired many corporations to fight harder against unions. As Trump and Elon Musk carry out their anti-union agenda in Washington DC, Utah passed a law that prohibits collective bargaining by public sector workers, and a Michigan company refused to move forward with a union election.“If history is any indicator on this – and I think it is – when you see a president’s administration basically declaring war on unions, that’s going to certainly embolden private sector employers,” said Joseph McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown University and author of the definitive book about the disastrous 1981 strike by the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (Patco).Labor experts point to several Trump administration actions that show a huge hostility toward unions, including Trump’s order to end collective bargaining by 50,000 airport screeners and then a far-reaching order to rip up union contracts and prohibit bargaining for over a million federal employees at more than a dozen agencies, including the state department, the treasury and health and human services. Trump and Musk have also fired tens of thousands of federal workers while disregarding protections in their union contracts. Moreover, Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, who was the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) acting chair. Wilcox insists her dismissal was illegal, but on 28 March a federal appeals court declined to reinstate her, at least for now.“What we’re seeing is Patco on steroids,” Sara Nelson, the president of the Association of Flight Attendants, said in an interview. “This is the president saying even the idea of having a union contract and having something in black and white to protect workers and having collective bargaining – he’s saying none of this should exist.”Trump’s anti-union and anti-worker actions have been piling up. He rescinded the $17.75-an-hour minimum wage that federal contractors must pay their workers. He issued an order to kill the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which seeks to settle potentially disastrous labor disputes. He nominated a management-side lawyer, Crystal Carey, to be the NLRB’s general counsel; her law firm represents anti-union employers, including Amazon, SpaceX and Tesla. Even the Teamsters’ president, Sean O’Brien, who has sought good relations with Trump, condemned that appointment, saying: “Carey has spent her entire professional career backing Big Business to the detriment of working people … [S]he wants to decimate labor unions.” (O’Brien did praise Trump’s choice of labor secretary, Lori Chavez-DeRemer.)Beyond that, Trump has repeatedly insulted the nation’s 2 million federal workers, saying: “Many of them don’t work at all. Many of them never showed up to work.”Eric Blanc, a labor studies professor at Rutgers University, said these actions have “demonstrated that Trump’s rhetoric about being pro-worker and pro-union was just that: pure rhetoric. This is an administration that is pushing the limits on how far you can go to destroy the labor movement and people’s labor standards.”Blanc said Trump’s replacing of the pro-union Joe Biden as president, has “certainly emboldened the big corporations that were already stonewalling their unions: Starbucks, Amazon, REI, where we saw the most emblematic union successes of the past few years”.In February, Utah’s governor signed a law that prohibits unions representing teachers, firefighters, police officers and other government employees from bargaining for better pay and working conditions. In a move directly inspired by Trump’s actions, a Michigan amusement and water park refused to move forward with a union election, believing that the NLRB was paralyzed after Wilcox was fired, leaving it without a quorum.“Companies could definitely get more anti-union because Trump and Musk are setting the example,” said Thomas Kochan, a longtime professor of industrial relations at MIT. “They’re firing workers who are unionized. They’re ignoring their labor contracts.”Kochan said he fears the consequences for unions if the supreme court upholds the firing of federal workers despite their contract protections or upholds Trump’s dismissal of Wilcox, leaving the NLRB without a quorum. “Then I think we will see companies come out of the woodwork to be more anti-union because there’s so little risk,” Kochan said. “We’ll see companies like SpaceX and Tesla just ignore the law because there will be no consequences. That’s the big risk now.”In his high-profile role, taking a figurative chainsaw to federal agencies and firing tens of thousands of workers, the fiercely anti-union Musk could inspire corporate executives to follow in his anti-union footsteps. SpaceX is even seeking to have the NLRB declared unconstitutional. “Musk is sort of the praetorian guard of the anti-union movement,” McCartin said. “He’s the tip of the spear.”But Blanc said corporate executives might hesitate about following Musk. “He is extremely unpopular, and his policies are not popular,” Blanc said. “Corporate America is not blind to that, and they’ll think twice about unleashing a backlash like the one Musk has unleashed.”Labor experts said it could take a few years before many companies become visibly more hostile toward unions. That was the case after the Patco strike. It was not until two or three years after that strike that several prominent employers –International Paper, Greyhound and Phelps Dodge – showed a harder attitude toward unions. They broke their unions’ strikes by hiring large numbers of replacement workers – an unusual move at the time.That tougher behavior under former president Ronald Reagan sped the decline of private sector unions. Today, just 6% of private sector workers are in unions, while 32% of public sector workers are. Anti-union ideologues are increasingly targeting public sector unions, which often support Democrats.“Because almost half of the labor movement is now in the public sector, the assault that we’re seeing now is really focused on the public sector,” McCartin said. “That really threatens to break the spine of the labor movement.”The flight attendants’ Nelson said it’s imperative for the labor movement to stand up and stand together to resist Trump’s and Musk’s anti-union actions: “It’s on all of us to use the power we have to stop this before everything is broken and every safety net is stolen by the oligarchs,” including Musk. Nelson said the labor movement has very few options at this point except to mobilize for a general strike.

      This article was amended on 7 April 2025 to clarify the timing of an order to rip up union contracts and an appeals court declining to reinstate Gwynne Wilcox. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Corporate America won’t stop Trump’s tariffs. Here’s why | Alex Bronzini-Vender

      by

      Few historical analogies exist for Donald Trump’s newly announced tariffs. The investment bank Evercore estimates that the so-called “liberation day” announcement has raised the weighted average US tariff to 29% – its highest rate since 1900. To call it a generational action would be an understatement; my grandmother was born in 1939.These tariffs, if they remain in place, will raise prices, eliminate jobs and shrink retirements. No one will pay for them more dearly than American workers. Yet a shock to capitalism inevitably raises the question of whether, and how, capitalists will respond. Faced with Trump’s tariffs, what will the US’s business class do?Some commentators have hoped that, once the effects of Trump’s economic misrule become apparent, executives will finally turn on the Maga movement. But the answer, as during Trump’s previous tariff scares, is likely to disappoint. The Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and International Dairy Foods Association have each issued strongly worded statements against Trump’s trade action. Others are likely forthcoming. But those words are unlikely to become meaningful action, for it is simply not in the business lobby’s nature to fight the Republican party.Unlike much of the developed world, the US lacks a single, representative organization for big business. Barring extraordinary initiative by political actors, or moments of deep and protracted crisis, unified and cross-sectoral corporate lobbies rarely appear in American history. The National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce began as initiatives of presidents William McKinley and William Howard Taft, respectively; the Business Roundtable, founded through a merger of two union-busting business groups in 1972, stands as a rare business lobby organized by business itself.If these organizations have a difficult time coming together, they have an even harder time sticking together. The roundtable and the chamber experienced their greatest momentum during the economic turbulence of the 1970s: at last, their managers were able to unite the otherwise fractious American business community under the banner of fighting organized labor and its New-Dealer allies within the Democratic party. But by the middle of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, those enemies had been vanquished – and the chamber and roundtable hemorrhaged membership in turn.Business organizations never regained the command of American capitalism they had won in the late 70s and early 80s. The Chamber of Commerce has maintained stature only by becoming, essentially, an all-purposes lobbying firm. Its primary function is to receive contributions from industries attempting to obscure their hand in pushing politically unpopular causes: tobacco seeking to shield itself from liability, the auto industry seeking to relax safety standards, the health insurance sector seeking to stall healthcare reform, etc.Though the chamber and roundtable briefly stepped into more activist roles during the disruptions of the Tea Party, their success was, at best, mixed. At once, they found themselves dueling against the oil, gas and utilities sectors, each of whom fervently backed rightwing insurgents. By 2014, they had largely eliminated the Tea Party’s beachhead in Congress. Even so, they failed to repel the advance of Trump during the 2016 primaries; nor did they manage to sap the influence of the Freedom Caucus, today a king-making group among House Republicans.Though business organizations managed to significantly shape Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, they notably failed to shape his administration’s 2018 trade war. Rather than mount a united front against Trump’s tariff regime, nearly 4,000 firms attempted to individually lobby the office of Robert Lighthizer for individual exemptions for their imports of interest. This, the political scientist Jack Zhang explains, had the ironic effect of overwhelming the United States trade representative’s office, and crowding out most lobbyists: few ultimately received exemptions, while the rest continued paying the cost of high tariffs.That period’s patterns are telling: American business, given the weakness of its coordinating institutions, is essentially incapable of coordinating significant challenges to the Republican party’s governance. A previous generation of corporate leadership might have met a shock of Wednesday’s magnitude with a coordinated response felt at all levels of American society – whether through lobbying efforts in Washington or advertisements in local newspapers. But American business is too disunited to mount similar campaigns today. “The pursuit of individual self-interests,” as Zhang noted in 2020, “left none to defend the public goods associated with a free and open market between the US and China.”That phenomenon is a persistent feature of the Trump era. The chamber’s boycott of campaign contributions to the Republican party after the January 6 insurrection lasted little more than two months. And the agricultural lobby, once a powerful pro-immigration voice on Capitol Hill, has all but abandoned its public advocacy for immigrants: organizing on the issue, where it exists, is done through quiet lobbying behind closed doors. If history is any guide, then, there will be no meaningful corporate break with the Republican party.“We are living through the nightmare edition of ‘Great Men Make History’,” wrote the leftwing theorist Mike Davis shortly before his death in 2022. “Unlike the high Cold war when politburos, parliaments, presidential cabinets and general staffs to some extent countervailed megalomania at the top, there are few safety switches between today’s maximum leaders and Armageddon.”Our moment, as Davis observed, is the apogee of a long-brewing structural crisis of American liberalism, where even the mechanisms that once aligned state policy with corporate interests have fundamentally broken down. Whether among executives, lobbyists or university trustees, an elite-led backlash to the Trump administration – on trade, immigration, the rule of law or anything else – is not forthcoming. Only an organized working class, then, can resist Trump.

      Alex Bronzini-Vender is a writer living in New York More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Bernie Sanders: law firms that cut deals with Trump administration ‘sell out their soul’

      by

      Law firms that cut deals with Donald Trump’s administration after the president issued executive orders targeting attorneys who challenge his priorities are demonstrating “absolute cowardice”, the independent US senator Bernie Sanders has said.“They’re zillion-dollar law firms, and money, money, money” is all that motivates them, the popular Vermont lawmaker who caucuses with Democrats said in a feature interview on the latest CBS News Sunday Morning. “So they’re going to sell out their souls to be able to make money here in Washington.”Sanders’ remarks provided a notable condemnation of law firms who had represented political rivals of Trump then chose the path of least resistance after he aimed orders that threatened to cripple them. The orders sought to revoke security clearances, ban attorneys from accessing federal buildings, and – if they do business with the government – to force the targeted firm’s clients to disclose existing relationships with them.Some of the US’s most prominent legal practices subsequently capitulated. Willkie, Farr and Gallagher; Milbank LLP; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom all reached deals with the White House meant to avoid Trump’s orders.In exchange, the firms would perform pro bono work for causes that are dear to them and Trump while also declining to engage in race-based hiring.Some firms, on the other hand, have sought to stand up to Trump. Perkins Coie got a court injunction blocking much of an executive order from Trump that targeted the firm. Hundreds of law firms and former judges have signed on to court briefs supporting Perkins Coie in its opposition to Trump.Meanwhile, after suing over Trump orders directed at them, Jenner & Block as well as WilmerHale were able to secure court mandates impeding most of his measures against them.Alums of the law firms which have yielded to Trump have voiced some of the strongest criticism for choosing that course of action.On Sunday, CBS asked Sanders what the cost was to the US when some of its most well-heeled institutions folded in that manner amid a standoff with Trump.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“It is indescribable,” Sanders said.Sanders on Sunday also contended that many of Trump’s maneuvers nearly three months into his second presidency had rendered the US into a “pseudo-democracy”. He singled out how Trump tasked Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, with slashing the size as well as funding of various federal government agencies and services.The multibillionaire owner of Tesla, SpaceX and X landed the role after spending more than $270m supporting Trump’s successful run for the White House in November.“Look, you get one vote, and Elon Musk can spend $270m to help elect Trump,” Sanders told CBS. “Does that sound like a democracy to you?” More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Being a librarian was already hard. Then came the Trump administration

      by

      For many librarians, the stakes of the job are high – they’re facing burnout, book bans, legislation pushed by rightwing groups, and providing essential resources in an effort to fill gaps in the US’s social safety net.Now, as Donald Trump’s administration rolls out their agenda, many librarians are describing his policies as “catastrophic” to accessing information and the libraries themselves – institutions considered fundamental to democracy.Rebecca Hass, the programming and outreach manager at the Anne Arundel county public library in Maryland, has seen the effects of Trump’s second term ripple in.“The impact [is] on many different community partners and customers that are represented in some of the executive orders,” said Hass. “We get everyone at the library. When people lose their jobs, they come to the library. When they’re not sure what’s going on, they come to the library.”Hass said the library received some pushback about LGBTQ+ programming, including protesters showing up to its trans Pride event. But the library is undeterred in efforts to meet community needs and supply resources, creating new resource pages on immigration and LGBTQ+ communities, and updating others. They have expanded partnerships, including with social workers in the library. Usage of the community pantry has increased.Much of this is work the library has always done, Hass said, adding: “But now it’s taken on urgency and additional responsibilities.”Emily Drabinski, an associate professor at the Queens College Graduate School of Library and Information Studies at the City University of New York, said that what is happening to librarians now mirrors what is happening to other workers.“You don’t get paid enough to meet your basic needs. Your autonomy at work is consistently under threat. People who think that they know better how to do your job are trying to get the power to push you out of your position,” she said.Some librarians described the impact of institutions capitulating to censorship on their work. A librarian in the deep south, who asked to remain anonymous in order to protect their safety, described tensions rising on their library board, and how the library is taking pre-emptive measures to make it challenging to find titles considered “controversial”.“I see all that being as a measure of: ‘If we fly under the radar, we’ll be safe,’” they said. “But it’s sad because who gets left behind – for staff members of color, [or] who are visibly queer, who are disabled, we don’t get to turn off that part of ourselves.”Meanwhile, Imani, an academic librarian in Texas who declined to give their full name for privacy concerns, is an active public library user, said “DEI removal” happened in her workplace in 2023. Now, they’re seeing increased scrutiny on how funds are spent, especially in regard to large databases.“It’s really important that people know that this isn’t new at all,” she said, adding that she knew a school librarian who retired several years ago due to fears of criminalization. “At this point, many librarians have done every single thing they can to save things.”Also, Imani noted, librarians are doing their work with “very little money, very little support [and] higher, higher demand”.Elon Musk’s unofficial “department of government efficiency” recently gutted the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which the American Library Association noted greatly affects the important services they offer, including high-speed internet access, summer reading programs, veterans’ telehealth spaces and more, with the most intense losses in rural communities.While the majority of public library funding comes from city and county taxes, according to EveryLibrary, the IMLS provides grants that support these critical services in every state.Marisa Kabas, the independent journalist who writes the The Handbasket, obtained a copy of a letter sent by IMLS’s acting director, Keith Sonderling, announcing that state library grantee funding would be terminated immediately. (Sonderling previously declared his intention to “restore focus on patriotism” to the IMLS, which many groups noted as an attack on freedom of expression.)The IMLS submitted a budget request of $280m for 2025.“That’s nothing in terms of the federal budget, yet it’s going to affect every single library in the country,” said Jessamyn West, who works in a rural, public library in Vermont in addition to working with the Flickr Foundation. “It’s going to make them scramble, it’s going to make them worry, and it’s going to make them have to make really difficult choices for the services that they give to their patrons.”In many cases, the money is already spent because of contracts libraries had with governments, West added.“We’re all pretty furious,” West said.Librarians are speaking out about what communities could lose, including internet access and workforce development in Kentucky, the Talking Book and Braille Center in New Jersey, digital hotspots in North Carolina, and much more outlined in reporting from Book Riot. As librarians grappled with losses that would directly affect their work, the IMLS Instagram account issued posts appearing to mock grantees.“It’s catastrophic,” Drabinski said, adding that IMLS funds significant library infrastructure, including ebook platforms and interlibrary loan systems. “Without those funds, many of those systems will grind to a halt. All of our work is about to become harder at the same time that the need for our resources and services will explode.”Drabinski continued: “What we want is for people to be able to read, and for people to have enough. The problems that we face as American workers are similar to yours, and we share a fight.” More