How do you view the impact of the Trump administration's tariff policies on the U.S. economy and global competitiveness?
Trump’s tariff policies, which have triggered a trade war, are clearly damaging to the United States’ economy, as evidenced by the contraction of gross domestic product in Q1 2025. We’re just another consecutive quarter of contraction from a recession. Trump’s trade war has hurt American manufacturers and agriculture, putting them at a disadvantage. The tariffs the Trump administration has put in place mean the European Union may increase trade with China, while other long-time trade partners may look elsewhere for goods that the United States exported to them. Trump’s recent backdown on his trade war, particularly with China, is a positive sign, but uncertainty is still causing problems.
It’s hard to deny that the tariffs Trump has imposed have had a negative impact on the economy. Looking at quarterly economic growth, gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 2.8% in 2024. It grew by 2.4% in the fourth quarter. However, Trump came into office and imposed drastic tariffs and retaliatory measures that shocked the economy. The economy shrank in the first quarter of 2025. Another quarterly contraction means we’re in a recession.
Obviously, Trump’s tariffs have put American manufacturers and agriculture at a disadvantage. Global supply chains that manufacturers rely on can’t be uprooted and brought to the United States by Trump snapping his fingers. Realigning these chains takes years and is costly. Countries that trade with U.S.-based manufacturers are looking for new trade partners.
The European Union, for example, may increase trade with China in response to Trump’s tariffs. Other countries like Vietnam and Thailand also stand to benefit. Trump’s hostile rhetoric toward the European Union doesn’t help the situation. It’s also worth noting that while China is a hot-button issue in United States politics, a recent poll showed that 79% of countries are warmer to China than they are to the United States. That data point speaks for itself.
You may say, “Well, Trump paused the retaliatory tariffs and the extreme tariffs against China. Shouldn’t that help?” To some degree, yes, but what happens after these 90-day pauses end? The uncertainty is almost as much of a problem as the tariffs. The only real deal the Trump administration has reached is with the United Kingdom. That deal brings certainty in trade with the United Kingdom, but that’s about it. There’s still a 10% tariff on most goods imported from the United Kingdom. By the way, the United States has had a trade surplus with the United Kingdom every year since 2016.
The good news is that Trump appears sensitive to polling showing his approval rating and his handling of the economy on the decline. Still, if you’re the leader of a democratic country that trades with the United States, looking at the economic chaos that Trump has caused, would you diversify your trading partners or ride out the trade war? You’re going to be responsive to your country's citizens, and you’ll seek new trade relationships.
Why haven’t we seen the impact of tariffs on prices?
The main reasons why consumers may not have yet seen the impact of tariffs are that new goods are not being imported, and businesses are holding goods outside the U.S. until tariff policies change. Additionally, some companies have decided to absorb the cost of the tariffs. Recent tariffs have led to a decrease in container traffic at major U.S. ports. This traffic may be rerouted to different markets entirely, but businesses may also be stockpiling products outside the United States or in Free Trade Zones until tariff policy changes.
Well, we have and we haven’t. Welcome to Schrodinger’s tariffs.
The short version is that due to the long lead times in manufacturing, it will take time for the tariffs to ripple throughout the entire supply chain. However, shorter supply chains have already begun to see the impact. Additionally, some businesses have decided to absorb the costs of the tariffs, assuming they will be short-lived. Where most people will see the effects of the tariffs are purchases for which the de minimis exemption (shipments with a value of less than $800) no longer applies. Your shipments from Amazon Haul, Shein, and Temu are no longer tariff-free, or any purchase you make from abroad. You’ll get a bill from Customs on the value of the package once it is imported. Need a replacement wheelchair? Well, that might cost you almost $3,500 in tariffs alone.
The longer version is this.
Some U.S.-based firms have decided to hold their goods as the place of production or in a bonded warehouse with the hope that a rational trade policy would return, and they could import their goods without the exorbitant tariffs. The logic is that storage fees are cheaper than tariffs.
The recent renegotiation of Chinese tariffs has triggered a rush to get things out of China and to the U.S. before any other policy changes. And you can bet the shipping industry is ready and looking forward to the increase in trade. You can go to a maritime tracking site and watch containerships move around in real time to beat the 90-day end to the current pause.
Here’s where we get to Schrödinger’s tarrifs. You may not yet see the impact of the tariffs because the goods you bought were from someone along the supply chain who has absorbed the cost. They might do this assuming that it will be easier in the long run to keep business normal with the expectation that the tariffs will be short-lived. Walmart recently decided to absorb the costs no longer. It’s also possible that you bought goods that were here before the tariffs were in place, and new imports aren’t coming in.
Speaking of import volume, let’s look at some import numbers. The fundamental unit used to measure container traffic is the Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU), which is the amount of stuff you can fit in a box that is 8 feet tall, 8 feet wide, and 20 feet long. For context, most boxes you see on the back of an 18-wheeler are 2 TEU boxes. For further context, if you pack things really well, you can fit about 6,000 NBA regulation basketballs or 22,000 packaged iPhones in one TEU.
Here are some numbers from the busiest container port in the country, the Port of LA, for 2025. Tariffs were announced in January and began on 1 February 2025. The country's busiest port saw a 14.59% drop in loaded container volume in February. March, compared to January, saw a 20.32% drop in the number of full containers coming in. April saw a smaller drop, but still 9.22% less than pre-tariff January.
Right next door to LA is the Port of Long Beach, the second busiest container port in the country. And they, too, are experiencing a hit in imports from the tariffs compared to January.
It’s not just a hypothetical that things aren’t on your shelves. And you aren’t imagining a difference at the store. Container traffic is down on the West Coast, which will ripple throughout the country. If you haven’t seen it yet, you will probably see a brief hiccup as traffic increases during the 90-day pause.
Will the tax cuts the House is considering pay for themselves?
There’s no indication that the tax cuts will pay for themselves. Congressional Republicans baked rosy economic activity assumptions into their budget that assume $2.6 trillion in revenues from the tax cuts, which is more than half of the revenue losses. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 paid for 26% of itself, and the tax provisions of that law had tax cuts and other policies that were designed to maximize economic growth. The Tax Foundation projects that the House Ways and Means Committee’s tax cuts and other recommendations will pay for about 19% of themselves. Spending cuts will be the only way to fully offset the impact on the deficit, and the cuts that have made it into the reconciliation bill aren’t nearly enough to stop the deficit from exploding.
No, the tax cuts considered in Congress won’t pay for themselves. Changes in tax policy do indeed have macroeconomic effects that must be considered. Tax cuts tend to bring more savings, investment, and productivity, while tax increases have the opposite effect. Not every tax policy change has the same impact.
When it comes to answering the question, we need to consider the assumptions that the budget makes about economic activity under the tax bill, should it pass. The budget resolution that kick-started the reconciliation process, H.Con.Res. 14, assumes the reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, will increase economic activity by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034. That’s a 2.6% annual growth rate over ten years. It’s also more than half of the allowable deficit that the House Ways and Means Committee can run under the reconciliation instructions. Spending cuts to programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and other programs will theoretically pay for the rest of the cost.
The assumptions Republicans make are very optimistic, considering that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 paid for only 26% of itself through increased economic activity. Much of the economic activity from TCJA was generated through the corporate income tax cut and other business tax changes.
A recent analysis provided by the Tax Foundation shows that tax cuts will reduce revenue by $4.077 trillion. Factor in the macroeconomic effects, and the revenue losses are projected to be $3.305 trillion. In other words, the tax cuts pay for about 19% of themselves. That’s before any spending cuts that Republicans include in the final bill.
Do you believe U.S. citizens and legal residents face growing risks of being wrongfully targeted under current immigration enforcement?
Yes, because it continues to happen. There are documented cases of U.S. citizens whom the Trump administration targeted. There are also instances of individuals legally present in the United States who have been targeted. The Trump administration has actively worked to deny due process to noncitizens lawfully present in the United States, despite the constitutional guarantee of due process.
Legal residents face growing risks of being wrongfully targeted, and there’s reason to believe citizens do, too. It’s hard to determine the exact number of people with legal status who were targeted by the Trump administration, but the Cato Institute has determined that at least 50 of the individuals deported to the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador were legally present in the United States.
Individuals legally in the United States on student visas or who have legal permanent resident status have been targeted. These include the high-profile cases of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Rümeysa Öztürk, and Badar Khan Suri. There are also confirmed reports of U.S. citizens detained by immigration authorities in the past few months.
Obviously, any targeting of a U.S. citizen or individual with legal status is deeply troubling. Compounding the troubling nature of targeting these individuals is the fact that the Trump administration is actively working to deny due process in these cases. The notion that individuals present in the United States aren’t entitled to due process should send shivers down our spines. This is a constitutional guarantee.
The Fifth Amendment explicitly protects the rights of every person present in the United States. To argue the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens is fundamentally wrong and purposefully misrepresents the Framers. Even more troubling is that the Trump administration is ignoring court orders. U.S. Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson explained, “If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?∗ And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ would lose its meaning.”
Watch what the Trump administration is doing very carefully. You have a responsibility to do so, because every action they’ve taken could eventually be applied to U.S. citizens, particularly if administration officials continue to ignore federal courts. That’s not a “slippery slope” into authoritarianism; it’s the fast lane to it.
Can Trump suspend habeas corpus?
The Constitution mentions habeas corpus only once, and it’s in Article I. That suggests that only the Legislative Branch has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The common law history tells us that only the legislature had the power to suspend habeas corpus, and the legal history of the provision in American courts clearly defines any suspension of habeas corpus as a power of Congress. It’s true that President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Still, there are key facts that those who use Lincoln’s example leave out, such as Congress being out of session when Lincoln did this andCongress retroactively authorizing his actions. The only reason the Trump administration has floated suspending habeas corpus is because they continue to lose in court, and if Trump suspends habeas corpus without congressional authorization, he’ll lose on that, too.
No, only Congress can suspend habeas corpus. The Constitution mentions habeas corpus only once, and it’s in Article I, which defines the powers of the Legislative Branch. The Constitution states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Habeas corpus has a long history. It was included in the Magna Carta and is part of English common law, on which American law is based. It was strengthened by the British Parliament in 1679. In 1765, Sir William Blackstone wrote, “For the parliament only, or legislative power, whenever it sees proper, can authorize the crown, by suspending the habeas corpus act for a short and limited time, to imprison suspected persons without giving any reason for so doing.”
In the early 18th century, the question of the need for legislative action to suspend habeas corpus was fairly easy to answer. In 1807, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained, “If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.” In Commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story wrote, “It would seem, as the power is given to congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge, whether exigency had arisen, must exclusively belong to that body.”
Now, I know that President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in Maryland in April 1861. Chief Justice Roger Taney authored an opinion while sitting on a circuit court in which he wrote that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Congress was out of session when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and it didn’t return to Washington, DC until July 1861. The issue was an active one throughout the 37th Congress. Finally, near the end of the 37th Congress, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. This retroactively approved Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. Lincoln signed the bill into law in March 1863. President Andrew Johnson terminated the suspension of habeas corpus in December 1865.
Lincoln’s action wasn’t considered to be a new precedent. In April 1871, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in response to violence caused by the Ku Klux Klan. The Civil Rights Act authorized President Grant to suspend habeas corpus. Grant would eventually suspend habeas corpus in some South Carolina counties.
Why is the White House even talking about this? The Trump administration continues to lose habeas petitions in federal courts because officials have arbitrarily detained individuals who are legally in the United States without an explanation of why. If the administration stopped breaking the law and respected due process, there wouldn’t be a problem.
