George Will strongly, and rightly, criticizes today’s lapdog GOP Congress. Two slices:
The Democrats’ House and Senate minorities have no power — the ability to achieve intended effects. The Republican majorities have no power because they are not permitted intention independent of this president’s preferences.
He refuses to enforce the law that strictly required the TikTok app to be sold or banned, at the latest, by April. He believes Congress’s spending power is merely the power to suggest spending ceilings. Try to cite a long-standing tenet of conservatism he has not traduced. Federalism? To end voting by mail and impose voter identification requirements, he would truncate, by executive order, the states’ constitutionally enumerated power to conduct elections. He would commandeer state and local governments with an executive order banning no-cash bail. Free markets? See “state capitalism,” below.
The Constitution’s architecture presupposes legislative and executive powers not merely separated but somewhat rivalrous. “Ambition,” wrote James Madison, “must be made to counteract ambition.” The architecture collapses when, as today, the controlling ambition of most members of the congressional majorities is reelection requiring sycophancy toward today’s president. Individual and institutional pride have vanished, supplanted by unapologetic and undignified fear.
…..
Presidents are mistakenly accorded vast discretion in foreign policy, so Congress can do little when today’s president, for no discernible strategic reason, uses insults and economic coercion to propel the most populous nation, India, into closer collaboration with the second-most populous, China.
Congress could, however, inhibit this administration’s primary domestic policy.
It is frequently, and illogically, described as “state capitalism,” an oxymoron coined to avoid candidly calling it “socialism”: government supplanting markets in the allocation of capital and, hence, of opportunity. Many business leaders in what should now be called “the quasi-private sector” have responded to presidential bullying with groveling.
Intel, for example, has given the government a 10 percent interest in it. This dilutes the value of other shareholders’ portions of the company — an unconstitutional, because uncompensated, taking of property.
Where I had previously warned that our tariffs were driving friends away, the latest developments show that now we’re uniting our enemies into a formidable economic trade bloc that could reshape global trade patterns for decades in a decidedly anti-American way. While Trump might want to put “America First,” it is becoming increasingly clear that the rest of the world is trying to put “America Last.”
…..
But are we doing more things ourselves? The evidence is starting to come in, and the only defensible answer is a resounding “no.” The latest BLS reports suggest that times are tough for manufacturing in the United States. While job openings continue to rise in manufacturing, this is almost entirely driven by the increased rate at which people are quitting their manufacturing jobs.
Lest we rely on statistics from the BLS, we can look at local newspapers to get a more granular picture of what’s going on. In Michigan alone, manufacturing plants are closing left, right, and center, and established firms, like Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, have incurred losses in the billions of dollars in just the first six months of 2025 alone — enough to hire another 88,000 workers. Even Alcoa, the aluminum-producing firm, is experiencing massive losses thanks to tariffs, and the US Steel situation was so dire that they had to be sold to Nippon Steel on the condition that President Trump receive a “golden share” of the company.
Kenneth Griffin and Anil Kashyap warn of “Trump’s risky game with the Fed.” A slice:
The U.S. benefits from strong economic fundamentals, yet it faces two challenges: an unsustainable fiscal trajectory and unacceptably high inflation. Elevated long-term interest rates reflect growing market doubts about the stability of inflation and the sustainability of public finances. Without resolution, the government will pay more to finance deficits, young families will struggle to afford homes, and companies will invest less.
Runaway inflation during the Biden administration cost the Democrats in the 2024 elections. Rightfully, President Trump and his administration have made controlling inflation a priority. Lower inflation should naturally produce lower interest rates. But statements and actions that undermine the independence of the Fed risk stoking both higher inflation and higher long-term rates. The president’s strategy of publicly criticizing the Fed, suggesting the dismissal of governors, and pressuring the central bank to adopt a more permissive stance toward inflation carries steep costs. These actions raise inflation expectations, increase market risk premiums, and weaken investor confidence in U.S. institutions.
Mr. Trump’s interventions and his dismissal of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics have damaged the credibility of official economic data. Together, these developments highlight risks that recall experiences in emerging markets where political influence eroded institutional credibility. While the U.S. benefits from a large stock of credibility accumulated over decades, it isn’t limitless. If eroded, markets will demand far higher interest rates for longer-term debt.
Harassing, and hostility toward, foreigners is no way to attract foreign investment. (HT Scott Lincicome)
GMU Econ alum Bryan Cutsinger reviews George Selgin’s brilliant new book, False Dawn. Here’s his conclusion:
One of the book’s many strengths is Selgin’s evenhanded approach. This is no polemic. He readily credits the Roosevelt administration’s successes—recognizing the policies that aided recovery—and engages seriously with scholarship that challenges his account. Rather than dismiss opposing views, he addresses them directly and thoughtfully, making his case all the more persuasive for its fairness. False Dawn is a remarkable contribution that will undoubtedly stand as the authoritative account of the New Deal for years to come.
