Commentary by Jerry Lanson

Did you know Donald Trump is the best president in American history? Just ask him.

On Wednesday, he declared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a war hero” for his attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, according to The New York Times, and then added, “I guess I am [a hero], too.”

And Trump is lobbying intensively to be awarded the Noble Peace Prize. It’s a curious campaign given that he hasn’t brought peace to anyone. Instead, he’s brought terror to immigrants across the United States, supported Israel’s continuing obliteration of Gaza, and last week gave a performance worthy of former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain by genuflecting to Vladimir Putin as the Russian president pushes to seize even more of Ukraine.

When Trump borders on self-delusion, the news media too often follow close behind, devoting precious time and space to his self-congratulatory pronouncements and actions, and, to some extent, distracting attention from the administration’s more dangerous and despotic actions. It’s tough to ignore a sitting president. But Trump continues to drive the dominant headlines even when they are not the most important news.

In my view, several stories in particular right now –- redistricting in Texas, the militarization of American cities, and the brutal and growing round-up of immigrants –demand unrelenting journalistic coverage. Looked at together, these stories show quite clearly how quickly this country is devolving into authoritarianism.· Trump has pushed relentlessly to force GOP states to create contorted and distorted voting districts to assure Republican control of the House in perpetuity. He is making progress.

On Monday, politicalwire.com ran this item from The Indianapolis Star: “One by one, Indiana’s Republican US representatives are coming out in support of redistricting in Indiana.”

Texas completed its mission this week to deliver five more GOP districts in its state. Along the way, the state’s Republican administration assigned Democratic legislators police “minders” so they couldn’t leave the state again to delay a vote. When one refused, she in essence was held under house arrest in the legislative chambers.

Other GOP states likely will soon follow. But the White House’s campaign to undermine democracy through redistricting – perhaps the single biggest story in the United States today – has receive relatively modest media attention. It may be the single biggest permanent threat to democracy in this country today.

•Trump’s executive order to send the National Guard into Washington, D.C., after earlier doing the same in Los Angeles, comes in a close second. But again, though a Washington Post poll found 80% of the city’s residents oppose the action, it’s been met nationally with something approaching a yawn. Protests have been modest. There’s no talk I’ve heard of a major national rally. And even in Washington, D.C., The Washington Post offered this rather meek headline: “As more National Guard units deploy to D.C., local officials question the need.” 

In part because of the blasé response, the National Guard Road Show could soon be coming to a city near you -- say Chicago or New York or Boston or Baltimore or maybe even Houston or Miami. 

Don’t take my word for it. Vice-President J.D. Vance suggested as much Wednesday, saying the D.C. call-up is a test case. New York magazine summed up what could be to come with this headline: “Trump D.C. Takeover May Be a Prelude to Something Much Worse.”

•Truly heinous individual stories continue to surface as the Trump Administration

rounds up children, a Portland, Maine, minister, a police officer and other hard-working and law-abiding people for deportation. New gulags with alliterative names to mimic “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida are being built around the country. The Wall Street Journal reported that the federalization of D.C. police has focused not on fighting crime but on pulling delivery drivers from mopeds and construction workers from job sites to demand proof of their legal status.

The Los Angeles Times reported that a Pasadena High School student detained by ICE told his teacher he had heard the arresting agents boasting they would receive $1,500 for his detention, which, if true, suggests ICE is morphing into a modern-day form of vigilantism.

A Jamaican-born man, who had been working as a seasonal police officer at a Maine beach at the time of his arrest and detention, chose to self-deport to get out of jail.

The week was chock full of other unsettling stories.

•On Tuesday, the Trump Administration declared that it can withhold billions in funds approved by Congress for everything from low-income housing services to medical research grants, “centralizing sweeping authority in the executive branch,” The Washington Post reported. The action was one more triumphant rejection of the Constitution, which calls for the division of power between three branches – executive, legislative and judicial.

•CNN reported on Wednesday that Trump has escalated his attacks against the Smithsonian museums, saying “there is too much focus on ‘how bad slavery was.’”

•Trump expanded his assault on the Federal Reserve Board, calling for the resignation of Lisa Cook, a member of its governing board appointed by President Biden as the board’s first African American woman. Trump has long lobbied for the resignation of Fed chair Jerome Powell, who Trump himself appointed during his first term.

Given the pace of news but also the endless coverage of Trumpian swagger and braggadocio, it is not surprising if you missed some of these stories. In the end, editors and producers must make choices. It is perhaps the most important part of their jobs. I’d like to see them redouble their efforts to focus most sharply on the stories that will reshape our country, both now and in the years to come, at the expense of the bread and circus one-ups Trump regularly uses to keep people amused, distracted and disengaged.

This is a perilous time in our country. Keep your own eye on what matters.

This column first appeared in Lanson’s Substack, From the Grassroots.

_____
FRIDAY 8/22/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

“I think he wants to make a deal for me.”

So said President Donald Trump to French President Emmauel Macron, speaking of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Of late there have been a series of “senior moments” with Trump, ranging from his apparent inability to locate Finnish President Alexander Stubb when making introductions at the meeting of European leaders Monday -- not only has Trump golfed with Stubb, but (1) Stubb was directly across from him and (2) there was a name placard in front of Stubb — to this, from the “press conference” last Friday with Putin:

“But we had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there. We didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there. I would like to thank President Putin and his entire team, whose faces who I know, in many cases, otherwise, other than that, whose … whose faces I get to see all the time in the newspapers, you're very … you're almost as famous as the boss, but especially this one right over here.”

Makes you long for the eloquence of President Bush. Either one.

“I think he wants to make a deal for me.”

Those 10 words exhibit the naiveté, arrogance and egomania of Donald J. Trump.

Since Russian attacked Ukraine, there has been as many as 100,000 Ukrainian solider killed in the fighting and as many as an additional 300,000 seriously wounded. There have been some 13,580 Ukrainian civilians killed.

Why? Because of where they live.

And about that place: on December 5, 1994, the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed by Ukraine, Russia, the US, and the UK. It codifies Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and borders. 

Guess “Security Assurances” aren’t what one might think.

When Steve Witkoff, the so-called “US Special Envoy for Peace Missions” used the phrase “Article 5-like” in reference to protecting the Ukrainians, every one of the people in that country should have stocked up on ammo.

It should be further noted that there has been as many as 250,000 Russian soldiers killed in the war, with another 820,000 seriously wounded.

Yet Trump thinks that Putin will cut a deal because of Trump.

This isn’t statesmanship. This is complete and utter narcissism.

And when it comes — if it comes — to any “deal,” Putin is going to play Trump like a cheap, gold-plated lyre.

Macaulay is pundi-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
FRIDAY 8/22/25

President Trump is getting praise, from European leaders at least, for his efforts to end the war in Ukraine via a full peace deal. This follows his meeting last Friday with Russian dictator/President Vladimir Putin, in which Trump had initially planned to broker a ceasefire in the 3½ year-old war. 

Despite all that praise accompanied by Trump’s desire for the Nobel Peace Prize, analysts and pundits largely agree there was not much substance to come out of Monday’s White House confab with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy and seven of his closest European supporters (see center column).

Or will Putin give in to Trump’s peacemongering charms and reach an agreement with Zelenskyy during a “trilat”?

We welcome, and in fact encourage, your COMMENTS on Trump’s attempts to end the war in Ukraine, whether you identify as progressive or moderate liberal, or pro-MAGA or never-Trump conservative – or anything in-between. Email those civil COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and please, as always, indicate your political leanings in the subject line so we may post them in the proper column. 

This is how fact-filled, echo chamber-free news & commentary is done. –Editors

_____
TUESDAY 8/19/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

The Trump administration is reportedly in talks to convert CHIPS Act funding into a roughly 10% non-voting equity stake in Intel ($INTC). On the surface, it makes sense: Instead of handing out grants with no expectation of return, taxpayers would at least share in potential upside if the struggling chipmaker turns itself around. That principle of accountability and stewardship resonates with many of us who want government spending tied to measurable outcomes. After all, past administrations have poured billions into “strategic industries” through subsidies and grants – think of green energy ventures during the Obama/Biden years –- that left taxpayers holding the bag when companies failed.

The case for involvement is not without merit. Intel’s financial challenges and construction delays in Ohio threaten US ambitions to regain leadership in semiconductor manufacturing. And in a world where supply chains are fragile and adversaries are investing heavily in technology dominance, few would deny that securing chipmaking capacity is a strategic imperative. Even SoftBank’s recent multibillion-dollar investment suggests the private sector still sees value if Intel stabilizes.

But even as conservative Republicans acknowledge the logic, I'm personally concerned about where this path leads. A government equity stake – no matter how “non-voting” it may be – edges uncomfortably close to state capitalism. We fiscal conservatives have long criticized foreign governments for blurring the lines between public authority and private enterprise. It would be unwise to make that our own default playbook. Once Washington starts buying shares in one company, what stops it from expanding that practice into other industries viewed as strategically important?

The balance here is subtle. On the one hand, it is reasonable for taxpayers to receive more than vague promises when billions are at stake. On the other hand, the precedent carries risks of politicization, cronyism and unintended long-term obligations. If this move goes forward, it should come with safeguards: A clear timeline for divestment, strict transparency and an understanding that this is an exceptional case tied to national security – not a template for normal economic policy.

In the end, conservatives can support the principle of protecting national interests and ensuring a return on investment, while still voicing concern that government’s reach into the marketplace not become habitual. Guardrails are essential, because the difference between prudent stewardship and creeping corporatism often comes down to whether we recognize the line before we cross it.

Contributing Pundit Corbett writes about myriad subjects at his MyDesultoryBlog.

_____________________________________________

What is (The) Right Today?

Our right column is reflective of the long-going split among American conservatives. Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay always has been a never-Trumper conservative, while Contributing Pundit Rich Corbett remains a fervent pro-MAGA Republican.

This dichotomy will provide for some very interesting discussions in this column in the coming weeks and months as the Trump White House continues to make moves that look very much like state capitalism, such as potentially taking 10% of Intel stock (as described in the center column news aggregate). 

Scroll down to the bottom of this page with the trackbar on the far-right to read Macaulay’s “Who Is the Real Radical?”

Further up the page is Macaulay’s commentary on President Trump’s meeting with Russian dictator/President Vladimir Putin, in Alaska last Friday, “Monty Hall Would Shake His Head in Disbelief.” 

Amidst these commentaries is “America’s Future is Bright,” by Corbett, also an easy scroll down the page.

Submit your own COMMENTS on these columns and/or issues, with an email to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line so we may post your comments in the appropriate column. –Editors

_____
TUESDAY 8/19/25

Left-wing conspiracy theories seem to have been ramping up in recent weeks, fired up by the right-wing MAGA split on President Trump and the Epstein files. Most conspiracy theories about the president revolve around his relationship to Russian dictator/President Vladimir Putin. These are easy conclusions to draw, from the inscrutable Helsinki meeting in 2018 after which Trump said he trusted Putin’s denial of 2016 election tampering over his own intelligence community’s official assessment that reported otherwise to Trump’s Friday meeting in Alaska with Putin, after which the US president changed his tune on whether he seeks a ceasefire first, or a peace plan first.

You do not come to The Hustings to discuss left-wing or right-wing conspiracy theories. This is the place for serious echo chamber-free discussion of such issues as the proposed peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, and other issues and news of the day. 

Email your fact-based, civilly stated COMMENTS editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings (irrespective of the leanings of the particular comment) in the subject line. –Editors

_____
MONDAY 8/18/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

“So there’s no deal until there’s a deal.” –Donald Trump

Maybe the spell will finally be broken.

Maybe people will realize that Trump is not a consummate dealmaker.

He may not even be a dealmaker who could get a good price at a used car lot.

Trump claimed that he would resolve the Russian war against Ukraine within 24 hours of his sitting down behind the Resolute Desk.

Funny thing: the Resolute Desk was a gift from Queen Victoria to 19^th president Rutherford B. Hayes.

One of the things Hayes did was withdraw federal troops from the South, thereby helping put an end to Reconstruction.

One of the things that Trump is doing is putting troops in the streets of US cities, thereby helping create a greater divide in our body politic.

Another thing that Hayes did was push for merit-based government appointments as opposed to the spoils system.

Another thing that Trump is doing is deploying the spoils system in a way that makes those in the 19^th century seem like amateurs.

Some seven months after sitting down behind that desk, he still hasn’t delivered. (Of course, one of the things he now says is that he was just joking about forging peace in Ukraine. Ever notice how if there is something that is in some way wrong, he claims he wasn’t serious or it is in some ways fake or has something to do with someone else, generally Biden?)

Trump met with Vladimir Putin, ostensibly to create a “deal.”

And Putin — after reportedly stroking Trump’s ego by claiming everything from the 2020 US presidential election being rigged in part because of mail-in ballots and by saying that had Trump been president in 2022 the war in Ukraine wouldn’t have occurred (consider how bizarre that is: Putin invaded Ukraine; if he didn’t want the war to start, he wouldn’t have done that and it wouldn’t have mattered who was in the Oval Office or any other office, for that matter) — climbed back into his Ilyushin II-96-300PU and returned to Moscow, where he could continue directing his troops to continue to blow up apartment houses, hospitals, schools, and whatever else in Ukraine.

No deal.

What deals has Trump made?

There were the 90 deals in 90 days that were supposed to occur regarding the so-called reciprocal tariffs.

They didn’t occur.

And while there have been many “deals” announced, by and large these are “frameworks” or parts of “on-going negotiations.”

Consider: To deal with Putin, Trump would need to deploy things like strong communications skills (since taking office, his meandering answers to questions lead some people to wonder whether Grandpa should spend more time sleeping and less time on Truth Social in the middle of the night) and the ability to perform strategic thinking.

To deal with countries that he’s arbitrarily applied tariffs to, it isn’t a matter of give-and-take, it is essentially Trump saying, “This is my country and if you want to do business with my country, you have to go through me.” That’s not a “deal.” That’s Trump being a bully. (And if there is any doubt about whether these tariffs are part of a strategic plan, then consider the additional tariffs applied to Brazil because Trump doesn’t like the way Bolsonaro is being treated by the democratically elected government or the absurd tariffs (based on “national security” and drug trafficking) with our closest and once-best-ally Canada.)

And consider this: On August 13, Trump said there would be “very severe consequences” for Russia if Putin didn’t agree to end the war after the two leaders met.

They met.

There are not consequences.

Hell of a deal.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
MONDAY 8/18/25

Yet another of our contributing pundits responds to the discussion by Rich Corbett and Stephen Macaulay over President Trump 47’s inscrutable economy, while Pundit-at-Large Macaulay is back in the right column for more on the tariff folderol:

Trump’s Remix Redux -- China (and Russia) continue to dine on our TACOs while we the public become ever more complicit in the theft of our own attention. We Didn't Start the Fire's (Billy Joel) 119 event references span 40 years; Trump fills a half-assed remix in six months and we keep Xing in requests to play it again. –Hugh Hansen

•••

Agree with Corbett or with Macaulay and Hansen? Somewhere in-between, or way to their left or right? Whatever your position, this is the echo chamber-free place for it, so long as it’s stated with civility and without getting personal. 

Email your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate whether you lean right or left (irrespective of a single position on a particular subject or issue) in the subject line so we may post your letter to ed in the proper column. –Editors

_____
THURSDAY 8/14/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

On August 1, Donald Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Commissioner.

Why?

Because the BLS came out with jobs data which show the employment numbers aren’t what the White House wants them to be.

Consequently they are, in Trump’s words, “faked” and “rigged.”

There is no supporting evidence presented, of course.

The BLS recalculated its numbers for May and June — something that is completely common — and determined there was a reduction of 258,000 in the number of jobs created — that’s COVID jobs category.

And the BLS determined that in July the economy only added 73,000 jobs.

Were that number to be readjusted, there would be a serious, serious issue.

But again, realize that the numbers adjustment isn’t something that has occurred only during during the Trump administration. Large data is hard.

Trump, of course, didn’t like the numbers, so he had the person delivering them fired.

This whole notion of firing people because he doesn’t like the economic numbers they provide is Trump’s M.O.

Over this past weekend Trump took to his social media site and wrote that Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon “should go out and get himself a new economist.”

Why?

Because Goldman Sach’s economics team, led by Jan Hatzius, came out with a note saying through June US consumers have absorbed 22% of the cost of tariffs and that the bank anticipates it could go to 67%.

That, of course, flies in the face of the false claim that foreign countries and companies are paying the tariffs. US companies and US consumers are.

Takes Time

Now there seems to be some notion that the people who claimed the tariffs would have an immediate consequential effect on the economy are in the Chicken Little category.

We should be happy that there hasn’t been some sort of collapse.

But how is it that General Motors, a bastion of manufacturing, can announce it lost $1.1 billion in a single quarter due to tariffs and it doesn’t make people a little uneasy — to say nothing of the fact that the company anticipates it may lose $5 billion this year because of tariffs?

Is it plausible that a company that is losing money of that magnitude is going to (a) hire a whole bunch of people or (b) buy a whole bunch of automation because it can do the work without as many high-priced people.

(Let’s face it: the reason why GM makes vehicles in places like South Korea and Mexico is because it is more cost-effective for it to do so — and those cost savings are, in part, passed along to the consumers. The argument about a massive influx of manufacturing jobs as a consequence of the tariffs is simply flawed. Will there be reshoring? Yes. Will there be a sufficient number of jobs created to offset the costs that will be carried by consumers as a consequence of the tariffs? Not by a long shot.)

About Your Groceries

While a strong stock market is good for our 401Ks and we should all want that to continue, Wall Street is not the same — as we heard a lot during the presidential campaign from the likes of JD Vance, but not so much of late — as Main Street.

And we buy our goods on Main Street.

There seem to be some huzzahs! associated with this week’s Consumer Price Index numbers, including Trump’s claim that “tariffs have not caused inflation,” let’s look at the opening of the BLS release: “The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.2 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis in July, after rising 0.3 percent in June, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 2.7 percent before seasonal adjustment.”

Seems to me that words like “increased” and “rising” are indicative that things are getting more expensive. Sure, those numbers are small now. But they are going in the wrong direction.

While Trump is not responsible for the full 12 months, he’s now been in office for more than half of that time, and just like he hasn’t ended the war in Ukraine, he hasn’t caused prices of groceries to go “way down.”

In February the price of food, according to the BLS, was up 0.2% over the price in February. In March it was up 0.4% over February. In April, there was an -0.1% decline, followed by an 0.3% increase in May, and another in June. Remember those are month-over-month increases, which means that it is compounded. Even small numbers matter when you’re at your local Kroger.

Overall, prices were up 2.7% in July 2025 compared to July 2024.

Again, while small numbers, it was proclaimed there would be movement in the opposite direction, and that is not happening.

Out of Your Pockets

In addition to which, not only does Goldman Sachs see an increase in costs for consumers, there is the Yale Budget Lab calculating the average consumer will have a hit of between $2,400 and $3,800 and Moody’s Analytics seeing a $2,400 premium paid by the average household.

Near as I can tell, NO US financial firms predict that consumers will pay lower prices as a result of tariffs.

While the administration boasts of the money that is coming into the Treasury as a result of tariffs, that money is not being paid by the foreign governments that are “ripping us off.” No, that is money that is being paid by companies that are purchasing foreign goods. The consensus is that those companies are, in many cases, absorbing those costs. This means they are taking a financial hit. Which will not make their investors very happy. So at some point, they are going to have to pass a larger percentage of those costs to consumers. Which gets us to that $2,400 that consumers are going to be paying overall per annum.

Going back to the GM example, many auto analysts predict that the average price of a new vehicle is going to increase $2,200 because of the tariffs.

Let’s assume that because of that price increase, fewer people are going to afford a new vehicle. So they hold on to their old one (which also becomes more expensive to maintain due to the 25% tariff on auto parts — and as most auto parts are made of things like steel, aluminum, and copper, there’s a 50% tariff on that, too). This means companies are going to need to be building fewer cars because there are fewer people buying.

So if you are running a factory and have less demand for the products you’re producing, do you keep all of your employees, or adjust the number to meet the demand?

And this applies to products across the board.

Trump can fire all of the people in government that he finds aren’t parroting his claims. He can post that executives at private companies should get fired.

But at the end of the day, the costs are going to be borne by all of us.

Maybe $2,400 isn’t much to Trump, Lutnick and Bessant, but it certainly matters to many Americans—even those who voted for Trump who thought what they pay at the supermarket would be less, not more. 

_____
THURSDAY 8/14/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

If frantic, unfocused activity is the name of the game in terms of running the United States, then the Trump Administration is superb in its execution of, well, everything that it is doing.

Not that I am suggesting that this is all good — and I must admit it is difficult to find much goodness in what it is doing (no, I am not saying that this is necessarily evil, just bad for the citizens of the country in many cases).

But there is continual, frantic activity such that things that are being done aren’t questioned because suddenly there is something else occurring that is even more bizarre. When, for example, has a president ever called for the firing of the CEO of a public company?

Or doesn’t it seem strange that there seems to be an inability to keep people in important positions:

Marco Rubio, for example, who has a big job as Secretary of State, was also named acting National Security Advisor. Scott Bessent, Secretary of Treasury, has been named acting head of the IRS. Sean Duffy, Transportation Secretary, is also interim NASA director. (Well, one might argue that NASA is transportation-adjacent.)*

Every one of these jobs is a big one, so somehow this inability to get people in positions and keep them there is an indication that there is no handle on human resources. If this was a company, the head of HR would be long gone. But in these

cases, there are too many distractions to pay attention to the fundamentals like

having someone in charge of internal revenues (tax cuts or not, the government still

needs to collect income, and it isn’t all based of tariffs).

Another problem takes the form of the multitudinous cuts that were made to government programs by various unappointed people (the minions at DOGE) and appointed people (the Secretary of Health and Human Services). In the first case, it is the addressing of alleged “waste, fraud and abuse,” which is often stated but rarely proven. In the latter case, it is predicated on an ideology that doesn’t use evidence as a basis as much as belief — which works for religion, but not science.

The severe impacts that these undertakings have are far more consequential than might be imagined.

In an interview with Paul Krugman, Helene Rey, a professor of economics at the London Business School, said: 

“I think the constant attacks on institutions of the United States, which are undermining the credibility of the currency, are actually very serious. So tariffs are one thing, okay, and that's a non-trivial issue. There's a lot of uncertainty, et cetera. But the constant attack of this administration on the traditional institutions underpinning US long-term growth and US strength in innovation, in technology, such as the attack on universities, but also on the financial side — the attack on the Federal Reserve. All this, I think, is extremely serious and I think is really leading to a reassessment in the rest of the world of the dollar as a currency that one can fully trust.”

The fact that US universities have given rise to some of the most amazing technologies that are commercialized and invested in is something that isn’t helped when the Trump administration freezes some $2.2 billion to Harvard. 

Other countries invest in the US because it is expected that there will be innovation that will lead to growth; Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s cancellation of half-a-billion dollars in federal funding for mRNA research is exactly the opposite of that (to say nothing of the potential negative health implications because a guy who has NO background in medicine or science doesn’t like the tech).

Eliminating support for electric vehicles — both in terms of tax credits for the purchase of the vehicles and the spending to build out infrastructure — means that the US vehicle manufacturers are now more interested in building internal combustion engine-powered vehicles because they can make more money on them — while Chinese and European vehicle companies innovate. The US becomes a smog-covered island in terms of its auto industry.

The US dollar is a reserve currency, meaning that it is held by and used by other countries for trade, which positively redounds to the US. By using dollars, the dollars become more valuable. While it says “In God We Trust” on the dollar, by being the main global reserve currency central banks around the world are saying, in effect, “In the US We Trust.”

But, Rey suggests, the US is losing its credibility around the world.

If another currency — the euro, the yuan — becomes the reserve, then the US has a problem.

This doesn’t make America great, it makes it an outlier.

But something else is going to happen to distract us from what is seemingly inevitable if the country continues to be run by unserious people.

•••

*One of the things to think about regarding many of the appointments: These people are comprehensively unqualified for their positions so they are immediately over their heads. Were someone staffing a business they would do a better job of selecting from the resumes than the Trump Administration has done.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
TUESDAY 8/12/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

In 2025, President Donald Trump’s economic policies have propelled the United States toward a new era of prosperity, delivering impressive results for workers and businesses while setting the stage for continued growth. His bold agenda — centered on tax cuts, deregulation, strategic trade policies and a push for monetary policy reform — has solidified America’s economic strength, with a promising outlook for the future.

The extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, 2025, stands as a flagship achievement. By preserving lower tax brackets, eliminating taxes on tips, taxes on overtime pay and expanding the standard deduction for seniors, the new legislation ensures families and businesses keep more of their hard-earned money. The Tax Foundation projects an 0.8% increase in GDP over the long term from these tax provisions, fueling economic activity and consumer confidence.

Deregulation has been another pillar of Trump’s 2025 success. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has streamlined federal operations, slashing red tape and offering recommendations to cut bureaucratic overhead. This will save taxpayers billions and businesses over $220 billion in annual savings from deregulatory efforts. Small businesses in America is growing again, with confidence levels reaching new highs, as reported by the Small Business Administration.

On trade, Trump’s “America First” approach has reshaped global relationships to prioritize US interests. The April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs, including a 10% baseline on all imports and higher rates on countries like China, have spurred domestic manufacturing. A 2024 study cited by the White House noted that first-term tariffs strengthened the U.S. economy by encouraging reshoring of industries like steel and aluminum. Recent trade deals with the European Union, Japan and South Korea, securing 15% tariffs, demonstrate Trump’s ability to negotiate favorable terms while maintaining global partnerships. The USMCA’s continued success ensures North American trade remains a cornerstone of economic stability.

The Trump administration has voiced concerns about the Federal Reserve’s interest rate policies under Chairman Jerome Powell, which have posed challenges for young Americans aspiring to homeownership as well as for the automotive industry. Elevated rates have driven up mortgage costs, making it harder for first-time buyers to enter the housing market, and have increased financing costs for new car purchases, impacting both consumers and manufacturers. Trump has called for a more accommodative monetary policy to ease these burdens, advocating for lower rates to stimulate homebuilding and auto sales, which would further boost economic growth.

Despite headwinds from high interest rates, Trump’s policies have kept the economy strong, with second-quarter GDP growing at an annualized 3%, fueled by continued consumer spending and increased domestic production. Unemployment remains low at 4.2%, and wage growth of 3.9% continues to empower American-born workers. Inflation, holding steady at 2.7% in June, reflects the resilience of Trump’s economic framework, which continues to deliver for families and businesses alike.

Looking ahead, the future is bright. Trump’s focus on energy independence, through expanded fossil fuel production and a plan to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This promises lower fuel costs for all Americans and will enhance energy exports. Ongoing tariff negotiations and anticipated Federal Reserve leadership changes will further stabilize markets and support growth by addressing high interest rates, paving the way for greater affordability in housing and automotive sectors. With consumer spending driving progress and businesses investing in American-made goods, 2025 is poised to end as a landmark year, fulfilling Trump’s vision of a new economic golden age.

_____
TUESDAY 8/12/25