The world is waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of President Trump’s “emergency” tariffs, and Mr. Trump’s weekend tariff spree against European allies underscores again why his abuse of his authority needs to be reined in.
Mr. Trump unleashed a new tariff volley against several European countries (see nearby) to coerce Denmark to sell or cede Greenland to the U.S. He cited no legal authority for doing so. He simply said he is imposing the tariffs.
Though he didn’t say this, presumably he is doing so under what he has claimed is his power in an “emergency” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But what emergency? Greenland isn’t under threat of invasion, and Denmark has said the U.S. can have more or less free run of the island for defense purposes.
But Mr. Trump wants ownership of the island on his legacy resume, so he is likely to say that control of Greenland is an emergency even if it isn’t in any normal understanding of the term. The only observable emergency is the threat to the NATO alliance that Mr. Trump’s demands and tariffs are creating.
…..
Like Joe Biden’s abuse of the spending power on student-loan forgiveness without Congressional assent, Mr. Trump’s abuse of the taxing power cries out for a Supreme Court correction.
Greg Ip, with whom I often disagree, is correct in this:
This tariff threat isn’t like the others.
In the past year, President Trump has used tariffs extensively to pursue trade and investment deals, or address domestic complaints like illegal immigration and drugs.
His threat to hit several European countries with tariffs of 10%, rising to 25%, if they oppose the U.S. annexation of Greenland is entirely different. It would be an unprecedented use of tariffs against an ally for a strategic, as opposed to a domestic, goal.
This is the logical endpoint of Trump’s core doctrine: that the U.S.’s economic size and influence give it leverage to achieve a variety of goals through tariffs, including some that previously required military force. If it succeeds, it could usher in a new sort of trade war, one whose aims aren’t mercantile but geostrategic, including the annexation of more territory.
Presidents of both parties have for decades exercised economic coercion, from sanctions, blockades and embargoes to capital and export controls. The goal wasn’t to acquire territory but to contain hostile actors such as North Korea or Russia. (One exception: In 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower used financial pressure to get Britain to withdraw forces from the Suez Canal.)
The modern analog to Trump’s latest gambit is China’s regular use of economic coercion, such as against Japan recently for its support for Taiwan.
Robert Finnell’s letter in the Washington Post is excellent:
Asked recently by the New York Times whether there are any limits on his power, President Donald Trump responded, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” These words from a president should concern all Americans but especially conservatives.
Conservatism was never meant to be a celebration of personalities. It is a commitment to institutions, to restraint, to the slowly learned lessons of history. The system the Founders designed reflects that wisdom. James Madison reminded us that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The problem with government is not that it is evil but that it is powerful. Thus the Constitution was not built for perfect leaders. It was built for ones who are human.
The conservative response to Trump should be firm: No person stands above the system, and no conscience substitutes for the law.
Donald Trump likes visual proof of his influence and legacy. In the business world, this meant putting his name on the towers he built (or selling his name to adorn some he didn’t) and making cameo appearances in movies filmed on his properties. In government, it has also meant putting his name on things, like the Kennedy Center and the TrumpRx website, which is supposed to connect patients to cheaper drug options.
In the same vein, the Trump administration has directed attention to its ICE raids, working to make arrest videos go viral, The Post reported. The effort is backfiring spectacularly. Federal law enforcement is both consequential and delicate: It necessarily allows some people to have power over others, on the condition that officers do not impinge on fundamental rights afforded to citizens and immigrants. Turning their operations into a warped form of entertainment has almost certainly helped drive down Americans’ support for ICE since last summer as they question the legality and humanity of its operations.
…..
This is not a government strategy so much as it is a spectacle — one that has little to do with the president’s promise to deport violent criminals. The performance starts at the recruitment stage. “America has been invaded by criminals and predators. We need YOU to get them out” reads the current ICE sign-up page. “CHOOSE YOUR MISSION.” Deportation operations are being treated like a video game — one that comes with a signing bonus of up to $50,000, significantly scaled-back training and the federal government’s full backing.
Rather than pursue a short-term strategy of demand-side subsidies and price controls, Mr. Trump should embrace supply-side solutions that incentivize choice, competition and investment. The Republican Study Committee’s “Making the American Dream Affordable Again: A Framework for Reconciliation 2.0” document, released this week, is full of worthy suggestions. Among them: the president’s creative proposal to have ObamaCare subsidies flow directly to consumers
The Republican Study Committee’s plan would reduce regulations, ease permitting, cut taxes and spending and direct federal agencies to sell unused property. It isn’t perfect. Anyone who lived through the 2008-09 financial crisis ought to be leery of government-subsidized no-downpayment mortgages, for example. But it’s far better than what Ms. [Elizabeth] Warren’s wing of the GOP has to offer.
Reduced migration will dampen growth in the labor force, consumer spending, and gross domestic product (GDP). We estimate the sustainable pace of monthly job growth to be between 20,000 and 50,000 in late 2025 and believe it could be negative in 2026.
About China’s infamous one-child policy, John Puri writes:
The one-child policy will go down as one of the greatest self-inflicted catastrophes in human history. Not just by helping collapse China’s birthrates, but by creating a permanent imbalance between the country’s younger male and female populations. (We can attribute this to abortion and even more appalling tactics by families who learned they were having a girl but wanted a boy.) America’s impending debt crisis will be a disaster of epic proportions, but even that will look like peanuts compared to what the Chinese government has done to its own population.
At home, China is developing something of a Potemkin economy. Retail sales depend to a large degree on trade-in subsidies for items ranging from white goods to mobile phones. It isn’t sustainable. Electric vehicles offer a revealing example: Years of purchase subsidies encouraged households to buy EVs but also stimulated rampant overproduction. Now that Beijing is dialing back the subsidies, some auto makers are struggling.
Investment fell off a cliff near the end of 2025, with fixed-asset investment contracting 3.8% for the year—the first decline since data began in 1996. That figure includes local-government spending on public works, which is weighed down by mountains of debt hidden off official balance sheets. Business investment in the private economy fell 6.9%. Rapid expansion in politically favored industries such as artificial intelligence is masking a broader and deeper malaise.
Scott Lincicome tweets this finding by Derek Scissors:
“For at least a decade prior to that, Chinese wealth grew far more rapidly than official GDP and American wealth did. Since 2015, however, Chinese wealth gains have been uneven, and the American wealth lead has expanded”.
