When the Commerce Department reported an 0.3% drop in Real Gross Domestic Product for the first quarter of the year, the so-called gold standard of measuring the economy, President Trump blamed his predecessor, Joe Biden. GDP under Biden was up 2.8% for all of 2024. That’s a particularly healthy number, and in fact the last time the US economy shrunk was the first quarter of 2022, the beginning of Biden’s first full year in the White House.

As any pundit and most voters will tell you, we have been in Trump’s economy since at least January 20. President Trump has even claimed the bull market on Wall Street over the last year as his stock market because of stock traders’ anticipation of his laissez-faireattitude toward government regulation (though certainly not toward free trade).

What do you think? 

We are happy to take your remarks on which parts of the current economy belong to Trump and which still belong to Biden. If, for example, you can make the argument that the Biden administration is indeed responsible for the drop in GDP, we would be happy to run your comments in the right, probably, or left column, so long as your argument is civil and adheres to the facts. 

Email your civil COMMENTS on center column news & analysis, and/or any of the commentaries and opinions expressed in the right and left columns, to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings (regardless of your opinion on the given issue) in the subject line.

_____
FRIDAY 5/2/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Remember civility?

That was the social behavior that is respectful of others. Patient. Open and engaged. Disagreeing without being disagreeable.

You know, everything Donald Trump isn’t, especially when dealing with people who aren’t likely to kiss his ring and then shave his back.

Trump sat down with ABC News’s Terry Moran, anchor and senior national correspondent.

One of the things that is always good is the truth.

Something that Trump seems to have a difficult time with.

Take, for example, his statement: “I’ve taken the trade deficit down to a number that’s very, very — starting to get really good.”

In January 2025, still considered “Biden’s economy,” the U.S. trade deficit was $131.4 billion, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Credit to him, because in February 2025 the deficit decreased to $122.7 billion.

But then there is the difficult part because the trade deficit in March 2025 — solidly in the Trump zone — was $162 billion.

It doesn’t take a degree from the Wharton School to know that 162 is a whole lot larger than 131.

And in the context of deficits, it’s not “really good.”

Or there’s the claim that sounds good to, presumably, the base that China “were making from us a trillion dollars a year. They were ripping us off like nobody’s every ripped us off.”  And according to Trump, essentially every country that the United States has trade with is “ripping us off.”

Were that claim about “trillions of dollars a year” anywhere close to the truth would get him a pass for rhetorical effect, but here’s the thing:

Assuming that “ripping us off” means that they have sold us goods that we imported, US imports from China were:

• 2018: $538.51 billion
• 2019: $449.11 billion
• 2020: $432.55 billion
• 2021: $506.29 billion
• 2022: $427.23 billion
• 2023: $438.95 billion
• 2024: $462.62 billion

No evidence of a trillion.

And while not denying that there is an imbalance in the amounts of trade between the two countries, during this period here is the value of the US exports to China, or presumably the amounts that US businesses were “ripping off” China:

• 2018: $120.28 billion
• 2019: $106.48 billion
• 2020: $124.58 billion
• 2021: $151.43 billion
• 2022: $154.12 billion
• 2023: $147.77 billion
• 2024: $143.54 billion

Trump tends to imply that trade is all one way: That the Chinese, and essentially every other country on Earth, are forcing their stuff on the US with the US being a naif among thieves.

(A digression: Here’s a way to think about trade. Let’s say you go to Starbucks and order a grande iced caramel macchiato with extra caramel drizzle and two pumps of vanilla syrup. This could set you back about $6.75. Odds are you could buy the ingredients — the espresso beans, milk, caramel syrup, vanilla syrup — and the equipment to make your own grande iced caramel macchiato with extra caramel drizzle and two pumps of vanilla syrup. But the thing is, there would be not only the cost of the equipment — an espresso maker can easily set you back $250 — and the ingredients, but there is the time necessary to make the beverage and then do all of the subsequent cleanup. It is likely that you find it more cost-effective to buy the drink from Starbucks. Is it expensive? That depends on your point of view of crafted coffee beverages. Is Starbucks “ripping you off” when you deliberately go in and buy one? In Trump’s World that is evidently the case.)

Well into the interview, Moran asked about the handling of the immigrants — illegal or otherwise — by the Administration.

Which led, among other things, for Trump to say, “Well, lemme ask you. Do they get hearings when — when Biden allowed 21 million — ‘cause I think the number’s 21, 20 million — people to flow into our country? He had 21 million people that came into our country through a stupid open border.”

That darn Biden.

But here’s something of interest: 

In October 2024 the House Committee on Homeland Security put out a press release titled “Startling Stats Factsheet: Fiscal Year 2024 Ends With Nearly 3 Million Inadmissible Encounters, 10.8 Million Total Encounters since FY2021.”

The Committee chastised the Biden Administration. The Committee Chair Mark E. Green, MD (R-TN), issued a statement saying, in part, “There are countless examples of those aliens going on to commit crimes against innocent Americans, and many of them create financial burdens for state and local governments who are already struggling to provide resources to their citizens. We simply cannot go on like this as a country. These open-borders policies have devastated our safety, security, and sovereignty. It’s time to return to policies that secured our border and our nation.”

In other words, Biden is to blame.

But here’s the curious part: It found 10.8 million. Where does Trump’s 20 million come from?

Again, the truth seems to be optional.

To return to the subject of civility.

In a spirited exchange as to whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia has “MS 13” tattoos on his fingers — Trump insists he does; Moran said it was Photoshopped — an exchange deep into the interview, 

Trump said:

“I’m giving you the big break of a lifetime. You know, you’re doing the interview, I picked you because — frankly I never heard of you, but that’s okay.”

And there you have it.

Because Trump is finding someone who is not agreeing with him, he has to push back in a way that tries to diminish his interlocutor, tries to throw him off his game.

“You, Mr. Nobody, are getting a big chance because of Me. And don’t you dare forget it.”

And, of course, after Moran politely said, “Fair enough, he did have tattoos that can be interpreted that way. I'm not an expert on them. I want to turn to Ukraine, sir,” this occurred:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, no. Terry --

TERRY MORAN: I -- I want to get to Ukraine --

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Terry, no, no. No, no. He had MS as clear as you can be. Not "interpreted." This is why people --

TERRY MORAN: Alright.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: -- no longer believe --

TERRY MORAN: Well.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: -- the news, because it's fake news –

And it goes on and on to the point where Trump says:

“Why don’t you just say, ‘Yes, he does,’ and, you know, go on to something else.”

Of course. Because there is disagreement with what Trump thinks, it can’t be real.

And Moran should just wither under Trump’s claims and admit something that Moran politely described by saying “It’s contested.”

The interview moves on to Ukraine (“And this is Biden’s war”).

Moran asks Trump whether he trusts Putin.

And then there’s this response:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don't trust you. I don't trust -- I don't trust a lot of people. I don't trust you. Look at you. You come in all shootin' for bear. You're so happy to do the interview.

TERRY MORAN: I am happy --

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And then you start hitting me with fake questions. You start tellin' me that a guy -- whose hand is covered with a tattoo --

TERRY MORAN: Alright. We're back to that.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: -- doesn't have the tattoo, you know.

TERRY MORAN: Alright.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I mean, you're being dishonest.

This is not the behavior of a serious man.

And as the interview nears its close:

TERRY MORAN: I'm gonna ask -- if I may, do you think the reputation of the United States has gone down under your presidency?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I -- no, I think it's gone way up, and I think we're a respected country again. We were laughed at all over the world. We had -- a president that couldn't walk up a flight of stairs, couldn't walk down a flight of stairs, couldn't walk across a stage without falling. We had a president that was grossly incompetent. You knew it, I knew it, and everybody knew it. But you guys didn't want to write it because you're fake news.

TERRY MORAN: Alright. Thank you --

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And, by the way, ABC is one of the worst. I have to be honest with you …

So much for civility.

_____
FRIDAY 5/2/25

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

Here is how Donald Trump’s administration is “Making America Great Again.”

•By deporting a 4-year-old citizen undergoing treatment for cancer.

•By eviscerating, if not outright killing, “Meals on Wheels,” a vital program that feeds the sick and elderly.

•By unveiling plans to end the federal program that distributes life-saving Narcan, a cheap and highly effective way of preventing drug overdose deaths.

•By crippling supply chains.

•By arresting and filing felony charges against a judge for the unspeakable crime of allowing an immigrant in her court out through a side door.

•By investigating the main fundraising arm of the opposition Democratic Party.

And that’s all in just the last several days.

Perhaps you find some of these actions cruel, even inhumane. But Donald Trump’s True Believers still adore him. On Monday, Pew Research released a poll that found 72 percent of white evangelicals approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job and 69 percent consider the ethics of his top officials to be excellent or good.

This in the same week in which a series of polls showed Trump’s overall support sagging to between 39% and 42% nationally, the lowest favorable rating after three months in office of any president in eight decades, even lower than Trump in his own first term.

The Pew Poll carries a stark warning to those who think they can sit back and wait for Trump to implode. Be forewarned. He almost certainly will plow straight ahead, disregarding the growing anger of an increasing majority of the country. Don’t be caught by surprise.

This is a cruel, callous and unlawful regime. It does not care whether it is popular. It’s more interested in keeping you – and American institutions – intimidated. That’s how dictators operate.

In a headline Monday, The Economist asked, “Who Will Stop Donald Trump’s Drive for Unchecked Power? Congress is Inert, but a Deft Supreme Court Might Contain Him.”

I, for one, am not counting on that, though judges at lower levels of the court system thus far have at times been heroic.

If the high court justices do stand up, they will need all of us – we, the people -- behind them.

Retaining at least a semblance of free speech and democracy will take unrelenting and widespread peaceful resistance in the days and months ahead. It will take all of us and test all of us.

By all means, take time to enjoy the Spring flowers. Just keep in mind that we ignore the fissures rippling across this country at our own peril.

Lanson’s Substack page, where his columns originally appear, is @fromthegrassroots.

_____
TUESDAY 4/29/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Before the Democrats start breaking out the “We’re Back!” signs and streamers because of the just-released Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll that shows Donald Trump’s performance solidly underwhelming, there is something they need to look in the mirror about.

There are questions 13a and 13b that they need to come to grips with:

• Do you think the Democratic Party is in touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today, or out of touch?
• Do you think the Republican Party is in touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today, or out of touch?

Turns out 69% of those surveyed think the Democrats are out of touch. While there is a notable 64% who think the Republicans are out of touch, that still fewer than those who are not impressed with the performance of the Democrats.

In fact, when it comes to 

• Do you think Trump is in touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today, or out of touch?

he does better than the Democratic Party, as “only” 60% think he is out of touch.

That in itself is damning.

The President is supposed to represent the people, and if well over half don’t think he’s in touch with their needs, that’s simply not good for the country.

Sixty-one percent disapprove of his handling of the economy. Perhaps his playing a businessman on TV is beginning to wear thin.

Sixty-four percent disapprove of the way he is handling tariffs.

Sixty-seven percent, undoubtedly realizing how much of their retirement money or funds to send the kids to college are wrapped up in the stock market, disapprove of how Trump is roiling Wall Street.

And 64% are of the opinion that all those Executive Orders he’s executing, which are expanding the power of the executive (well, quite a number of them are the subjects of lawsuits, so perhaps that expansion is not going to happen), think he is “going too far.”

That is underscored by the 60% who say that he has “gone beyond his authority as president.”

The Washington Post claims “Trump’s 100-day approval ratings in both terms are lower than any president’s since polls began.”

Trump’s approval rating in his first term was at 42%, which is five points lower than George W. Bush at or near his 100 days in office.

Trump’s current approval rating is now 39%.

Still, there are polls and there are elections. He won the 2024 election and did so handily.

Or an argument could be made — and it wouldn’t be too difficult to make it — that the Democrats lost the 2024 election.

And given what the polls say about the Democratic Party today, they still don’t have their act together.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
TUESDAY 4/29/25

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

I’ve spent a lot of time calling Congressional offices lately.

Late last week I made six calls – to Sens. Chuck Schumer, Chris Van Hollen, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, and Rep. Jamie Raskin. Soon, I think I’ll devote a marathon day to calling every Democratic member of the Senate and House.

My message yesterday to each of the six was the same: It’s time for Democrats to get serious about bringing home Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old Maryland father of three disabled children, a long-time U.S. resident wrongly arrested on March 15 and flown to a notorious El Salvadoran prison.

In two polls, a majority or plurality of the American public, respectively, say they believe he should be returned. That makes this the perfect time to shine a blazing spotlight on the issue. And the way to do so is for a sizable contingent of Democrats in Congress to fly to El Salvador – and stay there until Abrego Garcia is released.

Abrego Garcia, of course, is one of many immigrants, often documented, who have been seized without warrant, without charges or without due process and carted away, either to El Salvador or ICE detention centers in Louisiana or Texas. The list includes Ph.D. candidates, a high-end medical researcher and others in the midst of legally seeking naturalization or permanent resident status.

But Abrego Garcia in particular has become a symbol of Donald Trump’s utter contempt of the law and the Constitutional division of powers enshrined in the Constitution. In 2019, Abrego Garcia received a court order barring his deportation to his native El Salvador because his life is endangered there. The Trump Administration initially acknowledged he had been wrongly arrested this March but then dismissed the attorney who made that acknowledgement.

Now the U.S. insists the construction worker is a gang member though he has spent half his life in this country and has no criminal record. On April 4, U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis at a Maryland hearing ordered the government to “facilitate and effectuate” his return by midnight April 7. Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay of that order but then, on April 10, the entire Supreme Court voted 9 to 0 that the Trump Administration has to “facilitate” his release.

Remarkably, Donald Trump and his attorney general have thumbed their noses at the high court, saying it really is up to the dictator-president of El Salvador, who the United States is paying millions of dollars to house prisoners, to decide if he could come back.

A week ago, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen flew to El Salvador and managed to meet with the detained man. A few days later, the senator, made the explicit point that “I am defending the rights of this man to due process.”

Due process in the courts is absolutely basic to living in a democratic country of laws. Yet many elected Democrats have done their share of shuffling about Abrego Garcia, too. Trump’s position on tariffs is far less popular with the public than his views on immigration. The Democratic governor of California, Gavin Newsom, went to far as to call Abrego Garcia’s case, “the distraction of the day,” a comment that absolutely made me cringe.

Either we live in a country of laws or we do not. Interestingly, the American public seems increasingly to understand that. As has been the case over much of the last three months, many every-day Americans are well in front of their representatives. A recent Economist poll found 50 percent of Americans believe Abrego Garcia should be returned to the United States. Only 28 percent believed the Trump Administration has a right to keep Abrego Garcia in El Salvador.

A second poll, released by The Washington Post Friday, found that 42 percent of Americans believe he should be returned to the United States and just 26 percent believe he should remain in prison in El Salvador. The remainder said they “don’t know enough to say.”

That is where Democratic elected officials can help. A sizable contingent – perhaps 8 or 10 from the House and Senate should go to El Salvador -- attempt to see Abrego Garcia, hold daily press conferences, and publicize and shed light on his case. This contingent should stay there until Abrego Garcia returns.

The reason why they should stay is absolutely straight forward. If documented Americans can be deported without charge or due process to terror prisons and kept there indefinitely, it is only a matter of time before any of us, including citizens, might face the same fate.

Donald Trump does not hide this. On Friday, Politicopublished a story titled, “Trump says he would ‘love’ to send violent American citizens to foreign prisons.”

“We’re looking into that,” he said.

The time to stop him must be now.

Contributing Pundit Lanson’s columns originally appear in Substack @fromthegrassroots.

_____
MONDAY 4/28/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

A few of my friends work in corporate public relations. One of the things they perform is called “media training.”

This means that they work with executives on developing the skills to deal with the press. A primary focus is on interviews and press conferences.

Even if things are going swimmingly well corporate-wise there is always the likelihood that there will be a question or two that the executive really ought not answer in a forthright way.

Two methods to handle that are to deflect and ignore.

Sometimes the two are combined into one.

Let’s say the executive is at an automobile company. It so happens that there are reports people are having trouble getting their cars started.

A journalist asks what the company is doing to help these people who that problem.

The executive, having been trained, answers:

“That’s a good question.” He doesn’t believe it is a good question, but by saying that, the journalist feel fairly chuffed with her- or him-self for asking a good question. It is just human nature.

The exec continues:

“But you know, one of the things that we really think people ought to focus on is the quality of the interior that we’ve crafted for the Pompeii XL. I like to think of it as an interior that people can spend all day sitting in. And did I mention the 16-inch screen for streaming your favorite shows. . . ?”

Note how the answer is focused on what the exec wants to talk about (the interior) not what the journalist asked about (the ignition issue).

Politicians who have a comms person on staff do the same thing. Watch Meet the Press and listen to the question and how it is answered. There is generally a disconnect between the two. (The sad thing is that Kristen Welker rarely pushes back on the guest so there is nothing near the answer being sought while the journalist asking about the starting problem probably doesn’t let it go.)

The point is, in the answer there is always a message that the interviewee wants to get across.

Which brings us to Donald Trump and his recent interview with Time magazine.

Team Trump, including the captain, have been out in public since the ill-named “Liberation Day” touting all of the “deals” being made with countries who were on the list of those who would be having tariffs applied to their goods — goods, let us not forget, that Americans want to buy — tariffs, let us not forget, that Americans will be paying.

In effect, they’ve been claiming that the phone in the White House has, to use a Joe Biden, old-timey phrase, “ringing off the hook.” Leaders, it is claimed, that are desperate to “cut a deal” with Trump. And we know who “holds all the cards.”

Last week, for example, Trump claimed that they were getting very close to a deal with China. 

According to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun, China and the US had “not conducted consultations or negotiations on tariffs, let alone reached an agreement.”

While Guo Jiakun might be spinning things for the China side, it is worth noting that also last week the Chinese canceled an order for 12,000 metric tons of US pork—the largest cancellation since 2020.

Presumably if things were going well, that wouldn’t have happened.

The Time interviewers asked Trump about the “deals.” Why no “deals” have been announced.

He replied, “No, there’s many deals.”

The Time interviewers followed up: “When are they going to be announced?”

Trump: “You have to understand, I’m dealing with all the companies, very friendly countries. We’re meeting with China. We’re doing fine with everybody. But ultimately, I’ve made all the deals.”

Companies. Countries. China. Take your pick.

And he, naturally, takes credit for having made the deals.

Huge credit to Time Senior Political Correspondent Eric Cortellessa and Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs for following that answer by asking, again, when they’d be announced.

Trump: “I’ve made 200 deals.”

Time: “You’ve made 200 deals?”

Trump: “100%.”

Time: “Can you share with whom?”

And here is the answer, an answer that makes one wonder whether Trump’s media team consists of geniuses or the polar opposite. Or perhaps Trump, and let’s not forget he is getting up there in years, is manifesting the polar opposite of Biden’s debate performance on June 27, 2024, when Biden seemed incapable of stringing together a few words.

Now remember, this is a simple question. Trump said he has made 200 deals on tariffs. The question is to name one (although some might parse “Can you share with whom?” as being a question about whether he is able to name names, which could have resulted in a binary answer: Yes or No.).

Trump: “Because the deal is a deal that I choose. View it differently: We are a department store, and we set the price. I meet with the companies, and then I set a fair price, what I consider to be a fair price, and they can pay it, or they don’t have to pay it. They don’t have to do business with the United States, but I set a tariff on countries. Some have been horrible to us. Some have been okay. Nobody’s been great. Nobody’s been great. Everybody took advantage of us. What I’m doing is I will, at a certain point in the not-too-distant future, I will set a fair price of tariffs for different countries. These are countries — some of them have made hundreds of billions of dollars, and some of them have made just a lot of money. Very few of them have made nothing because the States was being ripped off by every, almost every country in the world, in the entire world. So I will set a price, and when I set the price, and I will set it fairly according to the statistics, and according to everything else. For instance, do they have the VAT system in play? 

“Do they charge us tariffs? How much are they charging us? How much have they been charging us? Many, many different factors, right. How are we being treated by that country? And then I will set a tariff. Are we paying for their military? You know, as an example, we have Korea. We pay billions of dollars for the military. Japan, billions for those and others. But that, I’m going to keep us a separate item, the paying of the military. Germany, we have 50,000 soldiers —"

I’m sorry, but this is the President of the United States answering a simple question.

What does this mean: “So I will set a price, and when I set the price, and I will set it fairly according to the statistics, and according to everything else.”

What statistics? And what’s “everything else”? After all, it has been shown that the “Liberation Day” tariff numbers were essentially based on how much a country exports to the US and what the trade deficit is with that country: numerator, denominator, voila! Not exactly the sort of economic assessment that you’d figure would be made by the most powerful nation in the world. 

Yes, part of the “everything else” includes tariffs that other countries charge US goods — but notice he uses that three times in his answer.

“How are we being treated by that country?” Yes, one can make an argument against China, but Canada?

Is Trump’s an example of “the weave”?

Or is this the answer of a man who doesn’t know what he is talking about — while the US pork farmers are trying to figure out what they’ll do with the canceled order from China, while the US automakers are trying to figure out how they’ll handle the tariffs (not only on vehicles, but on the steel and aluminum used to make vehicles), while Boeing, which has been not doing at all well during the past several months, assesses how it will deal with the 50 planes it was planning to export to China (41 of which have been built) that the Chinese are no longer accepting — a financial hit to Boeing of more than $1-billion. . . .

At some point there is going to have to be an acknowledgement that while the US farmers and manufacturers are experiencing serious issues, in some cases actually existential issues, Donald Trump is not a serious man.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings, where he writes primarily for the right column.

_____
MONDAY 4/28/25

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

Even as Donald Trump’s shadowy ICE operatives spread terror through documented and undocumented immigrant communities nationwide, there are growing signs his authoritarian administration is imploding.

I am neither an economist nor a military strategist. But even ignoring another round of massive protests across the country last Saturday, the news of the last few days is quite astonishing.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the stock market has been in such freefall that its performance for the month of April could be the worst since 1932 at the height of the Great Depression.

Nobel Prize-winning economist and former New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes that international confidence in the United States’ economic policies has dissipated so rapidly that the country faces the real possibility of a “sudden stop,” something that happens when “the inflow of money dries up.”

“It’s not just the destructive tariffs,” he notes. “It’s also the chaos as policy zigzags wildly, and the craziness. If you were a foreign investor, would you want to bet on America right now?”

The results of a sudden stop, he warned, often is “economic misery.”

In the meantime, the value of the dollar continues to plunge, and gold has reached an all-time high as investors scramble to find a safe place for their money. Trump fired his third IRS commissioner a few days ago.

Then there is the state of the Defense Department.

The New York Times Tuesday reported in exceptionally strong language that inexperienced and reckless Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “has produced a run of chaos that is unmatched in the recent history of the Defense Department.” It adds that, Hegseth’s inner circle of close advisors “is in shambles.”

Trump insists he is sticking by Hegseth and said “he’s doing a great job” after reports Hegseth shared top secret information about military operations on his personal phone in a newly disclosed Signal chat with his wife and bother. The chat took place as US fighters headed toward targets in Yemen and disclosed their location.

Despite Trump’s words, NPR has reported that “The White House has begun the process of looking for a new leader at the Pentagon.”

Meanwhile, a new Reuters-Ipsos poll released Tuesday shows Trump’s approval has dropped to 42 percent, “the lowest level since his return to the White House,” according to the hub politicalwire.com.

Furthermore, the poll found that 83% said the president must obey federal court rulings, Political Wire reports.

To date, the Trump Administration has ignored a 9-0 court ruling that his administration should “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old Maryland father of three who was wrongly deported to El Salvador and continues to be held in isolation there. 

The administration continues to insist without evidence that Abrego Garcia, a construction worker who had lived in this country since his teen years, is a gang member, the same claim it used to deport hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador without due process or charge or a hearing. A report by Bloomberg News said roughly 90% of these men, now sitting in a notorious El Salvadorian prison with no hope of trial or release, had never been charged with a crime in the United States.

The Supreme Court has ordered a temporary halt to any further deportations.

This column originally appeared in Lanson’s Jerry’s Substack.

_____
THURSDAY 4/24/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

During the opening of the Tesla Q1 2025 earnings call — where the company reported a 71% decline in net income and a 9% decrease in revenue — CEO Elon Musk said:

“Now, the protests that you'll see out there, they're very organized, they're paid for. They're obviously not going to say, admit that the reason that they're protesting is because they're receiving fraudulent money or that they are the recipients of wasteful largesse, but they're going to come up with some other reason. But that is -- the real reason for the protests, the actual reason is that those receiving the waste and fraud wish to continue receiving it. That is the real thing that's going on here, obviously.”

Sounds like his boss, albeit a little more articulate.

He is claiming that the protestors are “receiving fraudulent money or. . .are the recipients of wasteful largess.”

It is always someone else who is to blame. Always.

The people, who are also being paid by some unnamed group or individual (too bad Biden isn’t richer because everything that blame can be ascribed to he fits well), are also somehow making ill-gotten gains.

Musk is referring to the backlash to his activities at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

As the Cato Institute — which was founded in 1974 as the Charles Koch Foundation, so you know this is no hotbed of liberalism — points out, Musk’s claims about savings are about as realistic as his claims about self-driving cars (in 2015 he said there would be coast-to-coast self-driving capability in a matter of months, then in 2018 he said full self-driving by 2019; in 2019 he said there would be one million robotaxis by 2020. . . ).

Cato notes that in October 2024 he said DOGE would cut $2 trillion. Then it was $1 trillion. 

Now it is $150 billion.

Cato — and this is as of April 23: 

“Unfortunately, even that $150 billion claim is optimistic. Itemized, verifiable cuts (those with receipts) sit at just $63 billion. Many of these receipts lack detail, contain errors, or otherwise have excessive savings claims that make the topline figure suspect.”

Yes, it is all in keeping with Trump’s Musk’s claims. If something doesn’t go as planned, just throw out some other nonsense to cover up the one that didn’t come to be.

Arguably, many of the people who are protesting at Tesla dealerships are not part of a financed cabal. More likely these are people who are — dare I say? — pissed at things like chainsaw-like cuts at many federal agencies.

The number of people cut varies. Cato has it at “about 12,000 personnel on net (closer to 130,000 personnel cut in gross).

No matter how you look at it, many of whom were involved in the administration and execution of programs that benefit all Americans’ health, safety and overall well-being.

Should some of them been eliminated? Certainly. But the DOGE reckless approach to human resources is evidently enough to make people who have never driven a Tesla or have no such intention ever to get out and protest Musk.

Musk said on the call that as he’ll stay engaged at DOGE for “the remainder of the President's term, just to make sure that the waste and fraud that we stop does not come roaring back, which will do if it has the chance.”

But he’ll reduce his time to a day or two.

Is it because of the protestors?

No.

It is because Tesla stockholders have seen the value of their stock drop.

On December 17, 2024, Tesla was trading at $479.86. On April 23 it was down to $257.41. Which was at least better than April 8, when it was $221.86.

Musk said, “at Tesla, we've gone through many, many crises over the years and actually been through many near-death experiences. We were probably on the ragged edge of death at least on maybe a dozen times. It's been so many times.”

What he didn’t say was that it took the company 17 years to earn a profit. It didn’t have one until 2020.

What he also didn’t mention that last year Tesla made $2.76 billion in carbon credit revenues. 

The US Department of Energy, US Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, all contribute to the funding of those credits.

And in Q1 2025 Tesla had total net income of $409 million — but thanks to $595 million in regulatory credits it didn’t have to report a loss of $189 million.

If the government works to Musk’s benefit, great. If it doesn’t, then it is going down.

Perhaps this hypocrisy has more to do with the protests than Musk is willing to acknowledge.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings, where he writes primarily for the right column.

_____
THURSDAY 4/24/25

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

SALISBURY, Connecticut — This is a quiet, community-oriented, affluent village in the state’s northwestern corner. But yesterday, No Kings Day, in the lexicon of sprawling, nationwide protests against the Trump Administration’s assault on the Constitution, drew about 100 people to the intersection of two roads opening onto the two-block long main street.

They gathered with signs and determination at 11 a.m., Saturday, one of hundreds of protests across the country. “Resist Like It’s Germany in 1938,” read one poster, a reference to the rising repression of Jews and others there in the days before World War II.

Given the Easter holiday weekend, the sweep of protests nationwide Saturday seemed quite remarkable, even if crowds were somewhat smaller than the millions who came out nationwide April 5. Yet some leading elected Democratic leaders continue to be clueless, plotting strategy for the 2026 midterms instead of recognizing that the Constitutional crisis is right now, a moral abyss marked most strikingly by ICE’s arrests and sometimes deportation without charge or due process of documented immigrants and occasionally citizens.

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old Maryland father of three disabled children shipped to an El Salvadoran gulag has come to symbolize this growing phenomenon. Though he was arrested by mistake (as acknowledged initially by the Trump Administration), though the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that the administration should “facilitate” his return home, Donald Trump and his Justice Department have steadfastly refused, saying that only El Salvador’s dictator can decide to release him. It’s a ludicrous and dangerous position. The U.S. government is paying El Salvador millions of dollars to jail deported immigrants and to expand its prisons, presumably, as Trump told President Nayib Bukele, so that “homegrown” Americans can be sent there.

Yet The New York Times reported Saturday that California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom considers the Abrego Garcia affair the "distraction of the day,” a comment that shows a singular disinterest in the Constitution and rule of law. Newsom, and other Democrats who share that view — they reportedly fear “playing into Trump’s hands” — should be ashamed, both for their moral spinelessness and their stupidity.

The case of Abrego Garcia is no “distraction.” It is the clearest measure to date of whether our democracy has a chance of surviving until the next election.

Law is the foundation of democracy. Abrego Garcia is a human being who cannot be discarded so Democrats can focus on tariffs. And Abrego Garcia surely is not and will not be alone. Again, Donald Trump wants to ship citizens to El Salvador's jails.

If Abrego Garcia is abandoned in El Salvador, no one will be safe. As Ezra Klein wrote in the NYT this week, the emergency is now. Democratic leaders like Newsom must stop being clueless and instead, like Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who journeyed to El Salvador in an attempt to free Abrego Garcia, shout out his case for freedom, calling on the public to stand behind them.

Only then can we hope to continue to have free and fair elections, not only in 2028, when Newsom hopes to be president, but in 2026. Less than 100 days into the Trump Administration, it is jarringly clear that if we hope to restore some semblance of democracy, time is short.

Lanson is author of Jerry’s Substack.

_____
MONDAY 4/21/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

The Supreme Court’s 7-2 emergency order, halting the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants, erodes national sovereignty. This unsigned ruling, opposed only by Justices Thomas and Alito, delays critical deportations under a law designed to empower decisive action against border security threats. By prioritizing judicial oversight over executive authority, the Court undermines the president’s ability to protect American communities from the consequences of unchecked migration.

Illegal immigration imposes a staggering $150 billion annual burden on taxpayers, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (2023). The Court’s decision risks emboldening open-border policies, incentivizing further illegal entries and straining public resources. Conservative principles demand robust enforcement of immigration laws to ensure public safety and economic stability, yet this ruling creates uncertainty, leaving communities vulnerable to the impacts of lax border control.

Congress must act swiftly to clarify the Alien Enemies Act’s scope, reinforcing the administration’s authority to secure the border. Activist courts should not obstruct lawful measures that prioritize citizens’ interests. Conservatives call for bold, unapologetic policies to restore order and safeguard the nation’s future against the perils of illegal immigration.

Corbett writes about myriad issues at My Desultory Blog.

______
MONDAY 4/21/25