Commentary by Jerry Lanson

In a letter Monday to the Harvard University community, President Alan M. Garber said that the university had rejected the ever-expanding demands of the Trump Administration to control what’s taught and learned on campus in exchange for continued federal research support.

He wrote: “Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to ‘maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government...’

“They include requirements to ‘audit’ the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to ‘reduc[e] the power’ of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.

“The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Just what comes next in the university’s standoff with the Trump administration is uncertain. While Garber made clear the university’s willingness to investigate and address legitimate concerns about anti-semitism — the Trump administration’s hypocritical rationale for its attacks on top universities — he also made explicitly clear that the university would not accede to the administration’s demands. His letter ended: 

“Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity -- and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.”

The release of Garber’s letter’s came within an hour or two of a second major piece of news: El Salvador President Nayib Bukele announced that he would not release a Maryland father of three wrongly deported to a notorious jail there. Bukele was meeting with President Trump, who smiled approvingly as Bukele spoke, The New York Times reported.

Bukele’s statement — and Trump’s approving acquiescence — sets up a Constitutional crisis with the Supreme Court, which last week ordered the administration to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The US has acknowledged the Maryland man was wrongly deported, but insisted it couldn’t bring him home without El Savador’s approval.

Garber’s statement pits the oldest, wealthiest and arguably most prestigious university in the United States against a president who has seemed determined to eviscerate the independence of American higher education.

The New York Times reported Monday that, “Mr. Trump and his top aides are exerting control of huge sums of federal research money to shift the ideological tilt of the higher education system, which they see as hostile to conservatives and intent on perpetuating liberalism.”

The administration’s threat to withdraw $9 billion of promised funding to Harvard and to defy the Supreme Court’s order sets up dual fronts in Trump’s effort to assert a level of authoritarian power never before seen in this country.This column originally appeared in Jerry’s Substack. Reprinted by permission.

_____________________________________________

Tariff Debate

There is a lot of opinion to read on this page and we hope, to spark your comments on President Trump’s wild global trade war. 

In today’s right column, be sure to read Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s “This is Strategy?” questioning the White House whipsawing of tariffs, specifically the temporary suspension of tariffs on Chinese-imported smartphones, computers and semiconductors. 

Scroll down with the far-right trackbar to read an alternate right-column take; Contributing Pundit Rich Corbett on how tariffs could prompt the return of American manufacturing in “Should the US Play the Tariff Game?”

As if these two opposing position columns are not enough to prompt your response, you can scroll further down the page to read left-column opinions by contributing pundits Hugh Hansen, Sharon Lintner and Jim McCraw under the heading “About Those Tariffs.” Macaulay has a column about long-term implications for the US’s future economic leadership in the corresponding right column, “Trump Trashes Trust.”

Send your COMMENTS by email to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line.

_____
MONDAY 4/14/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

All of a sudden, the tariffs on smartphones, computers, semiconductors, and other electronics made in China received exemptions — not free passes. (There’s still the 20% tariff on Chinese goods predicated on the fentanyl issue.)

A few things need to be thought about in the context of a message that came from the US Customs and Border Protection agency. 

Why did Donald Trump do this? Is it because of his admiration for Xi Jinping? Unlikely.

Rather, it is probably because he knows that people care more about iPhones than they do about him and were the full-blown tariffs — as in 145% -- applied to them, people wouldn’t get angry at Tim Cook.

They’d blame Trump.

Second, note how this is seemingly a knee-jerk reaction.

Also notice how this retraction was not done by Trump with a flourish of a Sharpie. No, it came in a bulletin.

He certainly couldn’t be seen admitting that maybe the tariffs on iPhones would be le unpalatable to the American public.

(How much? The Wall Street Journal cited numbers from a research firm that calculate the parts of a 256 GB iPhone Pro costs Apple $550. So tariffs are applied to that number, not the number you find at an Apple store. In the case of that phone, the price is $1,099. So if Apple wants to recoup the money it is paying for tariffs, that gets added to the $1,099. Let’s say it is the 145% (the aforementioned 20% plus the remainder that will show up a few sentences from now): $550 + 145% = $797.50. Add that to the current $1,099 retail price and you get $1,896.50. And it should be noted that on April 10 the Consumer Price Index showed the price of a dozen eggs reached a new high, $6.23. Remember when Trump was running and said he would reduce prices?)

On April 2, so-called “Liberation Day” (liberation from what? 401(k)s?), a 34% tariff was announced on Chinese goods imported to the US. So what did the Chinese do a couple days later? They applied 34% tariffs on US goods. What did Trump do? He increased the tariff on China to 84% on April 8. 

Trump in his executive order on that: “In my judgment, this modification is necessary and appropriate to effectively address the threat to the national security and economy of the United States.”

Protecting national security is core to what a president should be doing.

So how does that square with this, from an executive order signed on April 4 about protecting TikTok:

“During this period, the Department of Justice shall take no action to enforce the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the “Act”) (Public Law 118-50, Div. H) or impose any penalties against any entity for any noncompliance with the Act, including for distributing, maintaining, or updating (or enabling the distribution, maintenance, or updating) of any foreign adversary controlled application as defined in the Act.”

Ah, maybe protecting the public from a “foreign adversary controlled” app is overrated.

Back to the tariffs.

What did China do in response to Trump raising the stakes?

It increased the duty on US goods to. . .84%.

What did Trump do? He raised the tariff on China to 125%. (With the other 20% tariff that gets to 145%.)

The explanation for this one:

“In my judgment, this modification is necessary and appropriate to effectively address the threat to US national and economic security posed by the PRC’s contribution to the conditions reflected in large and persistent trade deficits, including PRC industrial policies that have produced systemic excess manufacturing capacity in the PRC and suppressed US domestic manufacturing capacity, which conditions are made worse by the PRC’s recent actions.”

The ”large and persistent trade deficits” come from American companies buying lots of stuff from China that they sell in the American market.

The “industrial policies that have produced systemic excess manufacturing capacity in the PRC” “suppressed US domestic manufacturing capacity” only because US manufacturing companies didn’t — and don’t — have the same kind of support from their government to build factories.

The Trump Administration talks a lot about reducing regulations on companies. In some cases this is good, as it can facilitate getting things done with no red tape tripping them up. In other cases, the old phrase about “the fox guarding the hen house” comes to mind. Let’s face it, not all corporate managers are good actors.

But for the good ones: Just imagine how much time is being wasted by people at American companies right now trying to figure out their supply chains — only to have Trump swerve and remove some tariffs while adding others.

Business runs on facts and numbers, not on whims.

Funny thing: Nowhere does Team Trump indicate how many manufacturing jobs are going to be made in the US as a result of the president’s tariffs.

Nowhere is it pointed out that it takes years to build, equip and launch factories, so all of the talk about “temporary pain” is nonsense: Years of pain.

In addition to which: If companies build new factories in the US you can be absolutely sure that they are going to apply Industry 4.0 principles to it, which means AI, lots of automation. . .and not a whole lot of people.

Again, something that doesn’t get pointed out. 

And then there’s this from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on ABC’s This Week on the subject of the suspension of the tariffs on the silicon-based products from China: 

“We need to have these things made in America. We can’t be reliant on Southeast Asia for all the things that operate for us. So what he’s doing is he’s saying they’re exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, but they’re included in the semiconductor tariffs, which are coming probably in a month or two… . So this is not like a permanent sort of exemption.” 

Again, look at this: The tariffs are (mainly gone) from these products — but then they are likely to be back. When are they going to be back? Well, it might be one month or it might be two. Or maybe it will be next week

Trump has a persona of being a good businessman.

Anyone who ran a business like this would hear two words: “You’re fired!”

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
MONDAY 4/14/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Quick quiz:

• Who is Jaime Harrison?

Answer:

• Harrison is the former chair of the Democratic National Committee. He was in that position from January 21, 2021 until February 1, 2025. Which means he was head of the DNC when Trump beat Harris. Harrison ran for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina in 2020. He was hammered by Lindsay Graham.

Second question:

• Who is Ken Martin?

Answer:

• Martin is the current chair of the DNC, having succeeded Harrison in February. Prior to heading up the DNC, Martin was the chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. That party was formed in 1944. One of the supporters of the formation of the DFL was Hubert H. Humphrey. Humphrey was hammered by Richard Nixon in the 1968 Presidential Electoral College: 191 votes versus Nixon’s 301.

Third question:

• Who is the current visible leader of the Democratic Party?

Answer:

• I don’t know.

There had been the thought that somehow when Martin took the role at the DNC he would be out there, leading the Democrat response to whatever Trump is doing. That would be more than a full-time job.

Like him or not, you’ve got to acknowledge that Trump is certainly an active senior citizen by nearly any measure.

But maybe Martin is doing lots of things out of the broadcast, and more importantly, social media eyes. That is not good.

An argument could be made that the Lewis-Martin-like combo of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the visible face of the Democratic Party. Which is fine, assuming that the party imagines it can give up on the center and right electorate.

This is also the case with, say, Gavin Newsom. Not only do plenty of Americans look at California with more than a modicum of suspicion, but Newsom is undoubtedly a bit too slick for the majority of the voters.

James Carville had suggested that the Democrats just let Trump collapse on his own. But were that to happen (and arguably, if the markets continue to fall and the counter-tariffs take a big bite out of things like soybean sales from the great state of Louisiana (yes, we’re looking at you, Mike Johnson), then this may happen), remember:

Nature abhors a vacuum.

And the Dems would have no one in place to take the mantle of leadership. . .which would leave things in the hands of JD Vance.

Not exactly the kind of alternative that the Democrats have in mind.

But given what they haven’t done, it seems they’re not all that keen on winning.

And on that subject, remember that in 2016 Trump said:

“We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, ‘Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore, Mr. President, it’s too much.’ 

And I’ll say, ‘No it isn’t. We have to keep winning. We have to win more!’”

Even when he isn’t winning he’s still winning vis-à-vis today’s Democratic Party.

_____
FRIDAY 4/11/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

Tariffs have long been a divisive topic in economics. For decades, mainstream economists have championed free trade, arguing that tariffs — essentially a tax on imports ultimately paid by consumers — hinder economic growth by disrupting the free flow of goods across borders.

For most of my life, I’ve been a proponent of free — but fair — trade. I believed in the principle that “a rising tide lifts all boats,” and that less government intervention and lower taxes were the best ways to empower consumers. Free trade not only fosters economic efficiency but also reduces the likelihood of conflict by creating mutual interdependence among nations. In contrast, tariffs — as a form of taxation — distort markets by placing a thumb on the scale.

Yet, not everyone agrees that tariffs are the villain they’re often made out to be. Some see them as a legitimate tool to address the downsides of globalization, unfair trade practices, and the protectionist barriers used by other countries.

Let’s begin with the conventional wisdom. Economists have traditionally viewed tariffs as a net negative. When a country imposes tariffs on imported goods, it drives up prices for its own consumers. The result? Less competition, higher costs, and a drag on efficiency. Free trade, on the other hand, encourages specialization — countries focus on producing what they do best, and consumers benefit from cheaper, higher-quality products. This logic has driven decades of trade liberalization, from the creation of the World Trade Organization to sweeping agreements like NAFTA.

The data supports this view: global economic growth has surged under freer trade. However, for many Americans, the benefits of globalization have come with a bitter aftertaste — lost jobs, shuttered factories, and the growing perception that the system no longer works in their favor. This is where tariffs reenter the conversation.

When manufacturing jobs vanish in regions like the Rust Belt, the promised retraining programs and new opportunities often fail to materialize. Meanwhile, foreign competitors sometimes enjoy advantages such as lax labor standards, government subsidies, or currency manipulation — conditions that feel less like fair competition and more like exploitation.

From this perspective, tariffs become a counterpunch. The United States, with its vast consumer market, has leverage. Why not use it? Under President Trump’s “Liberation Day” declaration, tariffs were used as a tool to protect American workers and to pressure trading partners into fairer deals. Consider the trade war with China: tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods were intended to address long-standing issues like intellectual property theft and trade imbalances. Whether they succeeded fully remains a matter of debate.

Beyond the economic implications, tariffs carry political weight. They convey strength — a willingness to stand up for the “little guy” against the impersonal forces of globalization. This has made them particularly appealing in current US policy, especially in sectors such as steel and aluminum, which have strong constituencies in politically significant states. Tariffs are now seen not only as an economic tool but also as a matter of national security — critical to ensuring the country’s industrial capacity in the event of another global conflict.

Still, tariffs carry broad economic costs. They raise input prices for businesses and ultimately increase costs for consumers. Retaliation is another risk — as seen when American soybean farmers lost export markets during recent trade disputes. The tension is inescapable: tariffs are a high-stakes gamble, not a silver bullet.

To free-trade purists, tariffs are an outdated and blunt instrument. To others, they represent a means of reclaiming control in a global economy that has left too many behind. As international trade continues to evolve, the debate over tariffs isn’t going away. In fact, they remain a fixture in global economic policy — whether the United States embraces them or not.

Whether viewed as a strategic lever or a flawed relic, tariffs force us to confront the trade-offs in today’s deeply interconnected world.

Corbett writes about a variety of subjects, including tariffs and the economy, at My Desultory Blog.

_____
FRIDAY 4/11/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Back in April 2024, when members of Congress actually did things besides (a) robotically following their Dear Leader or (b) acting like a flock of decapitated chickens, they passed a law that gave ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns and operates TikTok, nine months to sell the social media platform.

Joe Biden signed it right away.

The bill has it that the sale was to be complete by January 19, 2025.

There was something of a sweetener in the bill for ByteDance. If there was a sale in process when the clock ran out of time, there was a three-month extension.

On January 19, there was no deal in the offing. 

TikTok went dark.

People throughout the country found themselves confused and bereft. 

But Donald Trump, Sharpie in hand, to the rescue.

Day One he signed a 75-day extension to keep the toks tiking.

That means ByteDance and whomever had until April 5.

Well, that hasn’t worked out, either.

So Trump has signed another 75-day extension.

Two things about this.

1. Congress passed a bill. The then-president signed it. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the law banning TikTok. Yet Trump has simply chosen to ignore that. And the Republican-led Congress has let him do it. According to an essay published by the National Constitution Center on Article II, Section 3 by Marshall and Prakash, there is something known as the “Take Care Clause.” The authors note: “The Take Care Clause is arguably a major source of presidential power because it seemingly invests the office with broad enforcement authority. Yet, at the same time, the provision also serves as a major limitation on that power because it underscores that the executive is under a duty to faithfully execute the laws of Congress and not disregard them.” (Emphasis added) So what is Congress doing about Trump ignoring this law? Nothing.
2. The name of the bill in question is the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.” That “Foreign Adversary” bit refers to China. The reason it was enacted was because there was concern the Chinese are hoovering up all manner of data about American citizens as well as using the platform to perform acts of undue influence. Said more simply: TikTok represents a NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT—to put it as Trump should put it on Truth Social.

Why is it OK that the president (a) ignores the law and (b) permits a “Foreign Adversary” to have access to an estimated 33% of the U.S. population?

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
TUESDAY 4/8/25

... and respect for facts.

As news, analysis and debate about the Trump Tariffs continues to dominate front pages, our Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay writes in the right column about a promise the president has not kept: Ending the war in Ukraine. 

Scroll down the page with the scrollbar on the far right to read Macaulay’s latest commentary on the tariffs, “Trump Trashes Trust.” On the same page, in the left column, you’ll find comments on the tariffs by contributors Hugh Hansen, Sharon Lintner and Jim McCraw. 

Scroll further down the whole page to read “Elon Musk Makes Himself Proud” by our new contributing pundit, Jerry Lanson, in the left column opposite Macaulay’s “Feel Better Yet?” in the right column. 

Scroll a bit farther to read a debate between Lanson, with “Defending Democracy is Not a Partisan Issue” on the left and Rich Corbett’s “A Partisan Weapon in Disguise” on the right. 

These issues are ripe and waiting for your civil response.

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.

… and respect for facts. As news, analysis and debate about the Trump Tariffs continues to dominate front […]

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

We are still reeling from the consequences of the massive Trump Taxes (a.k.a., tariffs).

Some people are saying that Trump campaigned on tariffs, so why should it be a surprise that he has imposed them?

While that is true, no one thought that they would be calculated in such an obviously ridiculous way.

Still, he said he would. He did. And now we have to deal with the consequences. 

But there is something else that he said — repeatedly — during the campaign, something that has life and death consequences.

In 2023 he told Fox News “I will have it”— the war in Ukraine — “solved within one day.”

In a CNN town hall, also in 2023, he said, “They’re dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done in 24 hours.”

And he repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he would have peace in the region “while I’m still president elect.”

The war still rages.

He has spoken with Putin.

He had that hugely distasteful meeting — distasteful from the point of view that that isn’t how we treat our guests in the United States of America, particularly guests who are the leaders of a democracy that is being attacked relentlessly by a former superpower that, incidentally, has not been an ally of the United States for well over half a century — with Zelenskyy.

It is now some two-and-a-half months since Trump has been elected president.

It is more than 150 days since he was president-elect.

And the war continues.

==

On April 5, 2025, the remains of four US soldiers from the 1^st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division who died in a training exercise were returned to the US at Dover Air Force Base.

Their names are:

•Troy Knutson-Collins

•Jose Duenez Jr.

•Edvin Franco

•Dante Taitano

Donald Trump did not attend the ceremony.

Instead, he was at the LIV Golf Miami tournament held at Trump National Doral Miami.

Shameful.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
MONDAY 4/7/25

Comments from our contributing pundits …

Learning by Experience

I feel wealthier already! With Congress having cut its own hamstrings, I think most likely we'll get to learn by experience. I'm neither an economist nor a successful businessman (just like the president!) but I find it hard to imagine major "retro" industries (e.g. textile manufacturing) rebuilding in the US on as politically shaky a basis as Trump's tariffs.

--Hugh Hansen

Bleak House

Many ramifications of this Tariff War have yet to be seen. Today, tomorrow and maybe even over the next week we will make our purchases with little change noted. However, as items are restocked and this continues, we are looking at dramatic changes in our economy that may never be fixed in our lifetime. 

We have lost the feeling of security that living in America always gave us. Our future is now cloaked in fear of what comes next. It seems we cannot have faith in the stock market, and how do we even trust banks? Do we resort to putting money under the mattress and waiting to see if the economy stabilizes? This fear will lead to even more problems as people become leery of investing. 

At this point, it just seems bleak.

--Sharon Lintner

Trump Hates America

The president hates America because it did not re-elect him when it had the chance in 2020, and now he is exacting his revenge on the entire American population with these ridiculous, destructive tariffs. He and his millionaire-billionaire buddies will all be fine, because they are loaded, but the rest of us are going to suffer needlessly and for a long time to come. When did a presidential whim qualify as an emergency? What ever happened to Congress and the Supreme Court? We are screwed.

--Jim McCraw

_____________________________________________

Welcome to civil media, where we encourage your participation in these discussions and debates. Right now, we’re especially interested in your reaction to “Liberation Day,” President Trump’s heavy tariffs imposed on our erstwhile trade partners. 

Are inevitable higher prices worth the long-term gain in US manufacturing Trump promises? Should Trump have let Bidenomics play out and claim its falling inflation and low unemployment for his own?

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.

_____
THURSDAY 4/3/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

While most of us are watching our investments and savings collapse because of the savage-yet-ridiculous tariffs that Trump and his team of economists who must have received their degrees from Trump University, there is an effect of what is going on that is getting little attention, mainly because it is hard to fathom how anything as stupid as applying wide-spread tariffs and so we are thinking more about what it is that we need to stock up on, like toilet paper (a key component of Charmin et al. is northern bleached softwood kraft pulp which mainly comes from Canada).

It is that Trump is turning many countries in the world against us.

The attacks he’s made on Canada and Mexico are unfathomable. Remember, he negotiated the US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement, the replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he excoriated more than the Biden family, Hillary, and every legitimate working journalist.

On January 30, 2020, after USMCA had been signed, Trump went to an auto parts plant in suburban Detroit and crowed:

“The USMCA is the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law.  It’s the best agreement we’ve ever made, and we have others coming.”

He went on to say:

“Over the next five years, the USMCA is projected to increase purchases of American auto parts by $23 billion a year, and automotive investment by at least $34 billion.  And it’s the very first trade agreement in decades endorsed by American labor.  We even had — the unions endorsed this, the labor endorsed it.  We had tremendous support all down the line: farmers, manufacturers, labor unions.  This is a great deal and a brilliantly drawn-out deal.”

And now so far as he’s concerned, it doesn’t matter.

He’s slapping tariffs on our neighbors to the north and south.

Now prior to “Liberation Day” (liberate people from their savings?), Trump argued that he was penalizing the two countries because of illegal aliens coming across the borders and fentanyl.

While the amount of fentanyl coming from Mexico in 2024 was sizeable — there were some 21,000 pounds intercepted at the border, so presumably a whole lot more came over — the amount of fentanyl intercepted at the U.S.-Canadian border? 

Forty-three pounds.

Or 0.21% of the drug intercepted at the Mexican border.

But the question that needs to be considered is why applying punitive tariffs is a solution that could be solved by all parties doing a better job at stopping people and drugs from coming over the borders — tariffs that have negative consequences on American citizens?

Now it seems that Trump simply maintains that the rest of the world somehow owes us for simply taking part in the network of global trade.

To be sure, the US has the largest economy in the world. The nominal GDP is on the order of $30.34 trillion.

The European Union is second, at $20.29 trillion.

China is third, with a nominal GDP of $19.53 trillion.

Here’s some math that I’ll do because clearly that is also not a forte of Team Trump economists:

$20.29 trillion + $19.53 trillion = $39.82 trillion

$39.82 trillion > $30.34 trillion

Of course, this is not to suggest that the two economies would join. The EU has its troubles with China, too.

But it is to say that to the extent that Trump is pissing off people in other countries with his unhinged economics those people are likely to start cooperating in ways that they once cooperated with. . .the US.

It has been reported that China, South Korea and Japan are in discussions to create an alliance to deal with aspects of the U.S. tariffs. 

About a week ago that was nearly unimaginable.

Trump will go away at some point. Let’s say he’s replaced by the most internationalist president possible.

What is the likelihood that the rest of the world will have trust in the United States?

Not high.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings. His columns also appear in our Substack newsletter.

_____________________________________________

Tariff on Canadian Fentanyl?

Yes, that’s a thing. At least, it’s a thing Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called out in the Senate’s 51-48 vote on a joint resolution the libertarian politician co-sponsored with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) to end the Trump administration’s “emergency” tariffs on various Canadian goods in reaction to fentanyl coming south across the border into the US. 

Without naming Trump, Paul said; “One of the social media posts today said there was going to be a tariff on fentanyl. Really? Do you think the drug dealers are going to pay a tariff on fentanyl? Fentanyl’s not being tariffed.”

•••

That’s social media for you. This is civil media, and we invite – even encourage – your participation in these discussions and debates. 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 4/4/25
THURSDAY 4/3/25