Besides, internal hygiene is good politics. Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic nominee for Virginia governor, has refused to withdraw her endorsement of Jay Jones, the nominee for attorney general, who fantasized in text messages about violence against Republicans. On Wednesday, in a deflection attempt, the Virginia Democratic Party said in a press release that Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, the GOP Republican nominee, “must” urge the Young Republican texters to “step down from their positions.”
Ms. Earle-Sears tweeted in response: “Easy, they absolutely must step down. Now it’s your turn, Abigail.” You don’t need a Telegram account to see that this is a winning approach.
Ed Fast writes wisely about trade agreements – and in particular, about the USMCA. A slice:
The Trump administration’s renewed use of Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act — claiming “national security” to justify punitive tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, and, more recently, copper — reveals the core weakness of the current deal. These tariffs are not about national security. They are protectionism dressed up as patriotism.
Canada is the United States’ closest ally, an integrated defense partner, and a supplier of critical materials that underpin North American security itself. To suggest that Canadian metals threaten U.S. security is as illogical as claiming that oxygen threatens life. Yet Washington has repeatedly used Section 232 as a cudgel to extract concessions or to appease domestic lobbies, knowing that the trade remedies within USMCA are too slow, too narrow, and too political to deter bad behavior.
Compounding the problem, the Trump administration has invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose further tariffs on Canadian exports — an unprecedented use of an emergency war powers statute against a treaty partner. This directly undermines USMCA’s credibility.
Also writing wisely is the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal:
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday he plans to coordinate with allies to counter China’s weaponization of rare-earth minerals. It’s the right move, though he might find it easier to rally the world if President Trump weren’t also hitting our allies with unprovoked unilateral tariffs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Trump in August, but its order is on hold until the justices decide. Trump has already signaled to the justices that the case is of huge importance to him. The government’s brief submitted last month contains colorful language that is highly unusual in Supreme Court litigation. “With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation,” it says.
You can almost hear the president dictating that to his lawyers. The brief even quotes Trump, who said in August, “One year ago, the United States was a dead country, and now, because of the trillions of dollars being paid by countries that have so badly abused us, America is a strong, financially viable, and respected country again.” It warns of a “1929-style result” — that is, a Great Depression — if Trump loses the case.
Trump could have acted in a measured way to defend his signature economic policy, letting the technical legal arguments speak for themselves in the hopes that the conservative justices would regard it as a normal case involving presidential authority. Instead, Trump is emphasizing just how extraordinary the case is and how angry he would be if it doesn’t go his way. He is also leaning into the argument that invalidating the levies would cause so much chaos that the court should accept the status quo.
That might work with justices who are too timid to rock the boat. Perhaps the president should not only attend the oral arguments at the Supreme Court in a few weeks, but deliver them on behalf of the U.S. government. That would really get his point across.
Eric Boehm makes clear “how Josh Hawley is empowering unions in New York and California.”
GMU Econ alums David Hebert and Julia Cartwright reflect on the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics.
