The Trade War Continues

Donald Trump's tariffs continue to dominate the news. Here are the biggest storylines from the last 24 hours or so:

• Another Bad Day: We're getting dangerously close to broken-record territory here, in that every day we're talking about another drop in the markets. Yesterday, the Dow Jones dropped a bunch, but then rebounded some, ultimately closing down 349.26 points (-0.91%). The S&P dropped 11.83 points (-0.23%). The Nasdaq was up, but only very slightly, by 15.48 points (+0.10%).
  
  
• It's a Record!: And speaking of broken records, Trump has actually managed to break several in the past few days. Here is a list of what are, since 1950, the five quickest 10% drops in stock-market value following a 52-week high, and the president who was in office for them:
  
  
  1. Feb. 19, 2020 to Feb. 27, 2020 (8 calendar days)—Donald Trump
  2. Jan. 26, 2018 to Feb. 8, 2018 (13 calendar days)—Donald Trump
  3. June 12, 1950 to June 29, 1950 (17 calendar days)—Harry S. Truman
  4. Sept. 23, 1955 to Oct. 11, 1955 (18 calendar days)—Dwight D. Eisenhower
  5. Feb. 19, 2025 to March 11, 2025 (20 calendar days)—Donald Trump
  
  Trump is now the only president to have three such drops in fewer than 30 days. He also has the quickest 10% drop by duration (the one in 2020 that took just 8 days) and the quickest 10% drop after taking office (the current one, which crossed the 10% line between his 30th and his 50th days in office). He wanted to be a historic president, and now he definitely is.
  
  
• The Dope Show: Folks continue to crunch the numbers used/published by the White House, and the story just keeps getting dumber. Recall that the administration unveiled a fancy formula, which purported to be a somewhat sophisticated method for calculating tariff rates:
  
  
  
  According to a White House spokesperson, (ε) stands for "elasticity of import demand" and (φ) stands for "elasticity of import prices." However, the same spokesperson advised that the White House deemed (ε) to be a constant value of 4, and (φ) to be a constant value of ¼ Consequently, those two things would cancel each other out.
  
  However, the libertarian/conservative American Enterprise Institute, which employs actual professional economists, said yesterday that the White House appears to have gotten its constants wrong. In fact, ¼ is the elasticity of retail prices. The elasticity of imports is actually closer to 1 (0.945, if you want the exact number). If the correct number had been used, the tariff rates would all have been between 10% and 14%, as opposed to the crazypants numbers that were slapped on many, many nations.
  
  
• Pushback from Wall Street: We are not quite sure how JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon became the go-to spokesperson for Wall Street, but apparently he is. When he shares his opinion on the economy, it's apparently big news. When he chooses not to share his opinion on the economy, it's apparently big news. Dimon spent some time pandering to Trump by keeping his mouth shut, but he's not keeping quiet anymore. He sent out his annual letter to shareholders yesterday, and warned that "The recent tariffs will likely increase inflation and are causing many to consider a greater probability of a recession."
  
  
• Pushback from the Donor Class: Jamie Dimon is not Trumpy, and so did not donate to Trump's campaign. On the other hand, Home Depot founder Ken Langone is very Trumpy, and in an interview with Financial Times, he characterized the tariffs as "bull**it," and said he didn't understand the formula used to calculate them. Billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller, also very Trumpy, said "I do not support tariffs exceeding 10%." And Bill Ackman, another billionaire Trump supporter, described the tariffs as "a major policy error."
  
  In addition to all of these men, THE donor is also unhappy. That, of course, is Elon Musk, who tried to convince Trump not to impose the tariffs, and then publicly opposed the plan once it was announced. Musk is largely not targeting his co-president right now, but he IS enmeshed in a bitter war of words with trade adviser and tariff lover Peter Navarro, with Musk denigrating Navarro for having a Harvard Ph.D., and Navarro dismissing Musk as a "car salesman." Reportedly, all of this has increased Trump's unhappiness with Musk, and there is much scuttlebutt that the South African's departure from DOGE is going to be sped up.
  
  
• Pushback from the Senate: Assuming that the Senate's Democrats and independents remain unified in an anti-tariff posture, then it will take 13 Republicans to overcome a filibuster of a bill taking away Trump's tariff authority, and another 7 Republicans to overcome a presidential veto. The GOP anti-tariff forces aren't there yet, but their ranks are swelling. The Trade Review Act of 2025, which would subject all new tariffs to review by Congress, now has seven Republican co-sponsors: Susan Collins (ME), Chuck Grassley (IA), Mitch McConnell (KY), Jerry Moran (KS), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Thom Tillis (NC) and Todd Young (IN). Rand Paul (KY) hates tariffs, so you can probably add him to the list, and Ted Cruz (TX) has been telling anyone who will listen that he's anti-trade war, so he would probably be a "yea" vote, too. Other than the markets tanking, the pinch of the trade war hasn't even been felt yet, and the Senate may be on the cusp of double-digit Republican rebels. How many more will there be if the tariffs really start to wreck the economy?
  
  
• Let's Make a Deal?: Yesterday morning, a rumor circulated on eX-Twitter that Trump was planning to pause the tariffs for 90 days on all nations except China, so that there would be time to negotiate. In response to this rumor, the Dow Jones jumped about 1,000 points in less than 10 minutes. Once it became clear the report was incorrect, however, the quick gain was quickly lost.
  
  There were quite a few think pieces yesterday that described this as an "offramp" for Trump. He doesn't want to "surrender" on tariffs, but he presumably also doesn't want to be embarrassed by Congress or to have his approval rating drop into the 20s or the 10s. If he announces that "deals" are being made, he can save face, declare victory, and potentially avoid these fates. There is no way to know if this is the thought process the White House went through, or even if there are ANY thought processes going on in the White House, but it is the case that Trump made something of an opening bid yesterday, announcing that he's open to modifying the tariffs on the EU, assuming the member nations commit to $350 billion of American energy. Nobody, not even the Trump administration, has any idea as to how that would work, but it's still "negotiating." So, we could be on the cusp of yet another trade war ending quickly after limited concessions from "the enemy."
  
  But while Trump is apparently willing to talk to the Europeans, he's not willing to talk to China. In fact, yesterday he threatened to increase rates on China by another 50%.
  
  
• Great Messaging: While the stock market was busy melting down at the end of last week, Donald Trump was busy... golfing. Not only did he golf, he played in a tournament at Mar-a-Lago. And not only did he play in that tournament, he won it, and then bragged to reporters afterward. Undoubtedly, everyone is deeply impressed that Trump won his own tournament, at his own club. Totally legit.
  
  After spending the weekend not only playing golf, but making a point of letting everyone know what he was doing, Trump got on his one-man social media platform to rally the troops:

  The United States has a chance to do something that should have been done DECADES AGO. Don't be Weak! Don't be Stupid! Don't be a PANICAN (A new party based on Weak and Stupid people!). Be Strong, Courageous, and Patient, and GREATNESS will be the result!

  It's always so hard to tell when an uplifting message was written by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and when it was written by Donald J. Trump.

And that's the latest salvos in the trade war. Dow futures are up, as of 3:00 a.m. PT, so maybe it won't be another bad day for the markets. On the other hand, they were up at the same time 24 hours ago, and that didn't work out so well. (Z)

Legal News, Part I: Supreme Court Has Mostly Good News for Trump

When it comes to the Supreme Court, Donald Trump wins some and he loses some. Yesterday, however, he won more than he lost.

Let's start with the "loss" part. The Court ruled unanimously that anyone deported under the Alien Enemies Act must be warned of their pending deportation and must be given an opportunity to challenge the decision in court. That finding should have been a slam dunk, and it was.

And now, the wins for Trump. By a vote of 5-4, the justices lifted the injunction that had been imposed on the use of the Alien Enemies Act. Consequently, the battle over the use of the law, and the battle over individual deportations, will have to be waged in federal court in Texas as opposed to federal court in Washington, DC. Needless to say, the Trump administration is much more likely to draw friendly judges in the former rather than the latter.

In addition, in another (small) win for the White House, Chief Justice John Roberts extended the deadline for the administration to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States. Garcia is the fellow who committed no crimes, and who was, even by admission of the White House, erroneously deported. Roberts wants to give the Supremes more time to consider the matter, so his decision doesn't necessarily reveal anything about the final disposition of the matter. On the other hand, you would think that this one would be another slam dunk, so maybe it does reveal something.

The upshot here is that, at least in the short term, the question of "Will Trump defy the Supreme Court" has been postponed. But the day will come... (Z)

Legal News, Part II: This Court Is Shadowy

In addition to weighing in on the deportation-related cases, the Supreme Court this week has also used its emergency docket to give relief to the Trump administration in a manner that essentially signals the majority's stamp of approval of mass terminations of Congressionally-authorized grant programs for teacher training under the Department of Education's "new" policies. And it did so with no substantive analysis of the case whatsoever.

In its brief order, the Court's majority justified its interference by stating that the government might lose some grant money in the 3 days left before the temporary restraining order expires. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, persuasively describes the new normal for this Court: "If the emergency docket has now become a vehicle for certain defendants to obtain this Court's real-time opinion about lower court rulings on various auxiliary matters, we should announce that new policy and be prepared to shift how we think about, and address, these kinds of applications." It looks safe to say we're there.

Before we continue, however, a quick primer on these interlocutory orders and the normal stages of litigation, particularly the difference between a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary injunction (PI).

When plaintiffs seek equitable relief in a case—in other words a Court order that defendants refrain from doing something or affirmatively do something—they will typically file a motion for a PI to maintain the status quo while the case proceeds. A hearing on such a motion can be like a mini-trial because the Court has to examine the merits of the case to determine if a PI is appropriate. Only if the plaintiff can show that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and that the likelihood of harm to them is great if the PI is not granted, will the Court grant them this relief. A PI can be in place for a long time as some cases can take years to adjudicate. For that reason, if the Court agrees to a PI, the defendant can appeal, even though the rest of the case has yet to conclude.

A TRO, by contrast, is temporary and of short duration to give the Court an opportunity to review the PI motion and make a decision while keeping everything status quo ante. A motion for a TRO is also examined using the same criteria but it undergoes a somewhat less rigorous analysis since it is in place for such a short period of time. For this reason, TROs are not generally appealable, with very limited exceptions.

In the case of the teacher-training funds, on March 10 the Court granted the plaintiffs' application for a TRO, preventing the Trump administration from instituting the mass cancellations of grant programs Congress authorized. The TRO was in place for 14 days, and on March 24, the Court extended it another 14 days and set March 28 as the hearing date for the PI motion. Thus, the TRO was set to expire on April 8. The government asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay on March 26—more than 2 weeks after the TRO was first issued and 2 days after it was extended for another 2 weeks. Despite the delay in requesting the stay, the government claimed it was an emergency that demanded Supreme Court action. They didn't claim they were right on the law or defend their actions. Instead, they said the Supreme Court needs to step in immediately because some of the grant money may be spent during the short duration of the TRO. Somehow, this emergency didn't arise until the TRO had been in place for more than 2 weeks.

And... the Supreme Court dutifully gave the White House what it wanted (albeit only for the few days that the TRO remains in place). But importantly, the Court used the stay to signal to the district court that it believes, without any briefing or argument, that the lower court got it wrong. The district court has not ruled yet on the PI motion and it will be interesting to see if its decision aligns with SCOTUS' not-so-subtle hints. Justice Jackson is correct: This is where we are now. The Court is allowing the Trump administration to skip the line and avoid any kind of thorough tests of the unprecedented actions he's taking. Instead, he gets a shortcut to a Supreme Court blessing.

And now, as we discuss above, the Court granted an administrative stay in the erroneous deportation case of Abrego Garcia, who had been ordered to be returned by midnight tonight. Moreover, in the larger deportation case, as we note, the Court sanctioned Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act so long as the deportees are given due process. But they can only bring the case in the state where they are being detained, assuming anyone knows where that is. And it's a safe bet it'll be in a county where the federal district court judge is in the bag for Trump. Is Matthew Kaczmarek or Aileen Cannon available?

These are substantive decisions fast-tracked on the shadow docket to avoid too much scrutiny of Trump and his means and methods. And it seems clear that this relief is available to only one party, namely the Trump administration. Is it any wonder why the public has lost faith in this Supreme Court? (L)

Generalissimo Trump Wants Military Parade for His Birthday

Readers will remember that, back during Trump v1.0, there was much talk of staging a massive military parade for the benefit of the President. The notion was planted in Trump's head after he witnessed a Bastille Day celebration in France, and decided the U.S. could do even better. Eventually, the event was canceled for a number of reasons: (1) the $92 million price tag; (2) the potential damage that things like tanks might do to the streets of Washington D.C., which were not designed for such vehicles; (3) widespread criticism, both by Republicans and Democrats; and (4) the Pentagon dragging its feet, and somehow not finding time to plan the parade.

As everyone knows by now, sometimes ideas get into Trump's head and they just roll around in there, over and over, for years or even decades. It can be hard to predict which ideas will become obsessions, although those that involve glory for Trump, and that come with the very real possibility that he might achieve an erection without benefit of pills, have a much better chance of surviving in there than many of the other notions. And so, it turns out that he's still dreaming of a military parade, all these years later.

And this time around, it looks like it might actually happen. First of all, Trump is much more open about embracing his inner fascist these days. Second, he has successfully surrounded himself with a group of lackeys that are many orders of magnitude more fawning than the last time around. In 2018, the Secretary of Defense was Jim Mattis. In 2025, the Secretary of Defense is Pete Hegseth.

And third, and perhaps most importantly, someone in the White House has noticed something... useful. The United States Army came into existence on June 14, 1775. Donald Trump came into existence on June 14, 1946. That means that the 250th "birthday" of the Army just so happens to coincide with Trump's 79th birthday. So, he can have his parade, and his all-natural arousal, and claim that what's going on is that the U.S. Army is actually the honoree. Plans are already being developed; the current expectation is that the parade will cover roughly 4 miles, from the Pentagon to the White House, and would come with a price tag of $125 million.

Maybe it won't happen, in the end. It's about 10 weeks to June 14, and that's a pretty short time to pull something like this off, especially since the DoD might have known about it, but local officials in Washington, DC, only heard about it for the first time this week. Also, Hegseth might be all-in on the plans, but others in the DoD bureaucracy might be less enthusiastic, and might find a way to replicate the foot-dragging performance. Also, that $125 million has to come from somewhere, and if a small handful of budget hawks in the House say "Uh, no," then maybe the funding won't be found.

If it does come to pass, well, something like 90% of demonstrations like this are staged for the benefit of fascists, dictators, and fascist dictators. And virtually all of the remainder, like the U.K.'s Trooping of the Colour or France's Bastille Day event, are the modern incarnations of traditions that stretch back centuries, and that were commenced when those nations were empires led by... well, people with dictatorial powers. The point here is that Trump seems to be running every single item in the Kim Jong-Un or Benito Mussolini playbook, which is certainly going to give the Democrats and the media a lot to talk about once the various upcoming election cycles get underway. (Z)

John James Announces Gubernatorial Run

Rep. John James (R-MI) is looking at a tough campaign in 2026. His district, MI-10, is R+3, and is exactly the kind of district that is likely to flip in a blue wave, even one of moderate size. This being the case, he decided that if it's going to be a tough campaign anyhow, it might as well be for a bigger prize than a seat in the House. So yesterday, he announced he is jumping into the race for the governorship of Michigan.

The good news for James is that, in a Republican primary field that's already crowded, he has a clear upper hand. He's polling at around 40% among Republican voters, which is about as much as the other declared Republican candidates—Minority Leader of the Michigan Senate Aric Nesbitt, truck driver Anthony Hudson and construction manager William Null—combined. Indeed, the most popular alternative to James is "undecided," at around 35%.

However, once James (likely) claims his party's nomination, we see a lot of bad news for his candidacy, and virtually no good news. To wit:

• He has run statewide in Michigan twice, as the Republicans' nominee for the U.S. Senate in both 2018 and 2020, and he got crushed both times. It seems that Michiganders are not buying what he's selling.
  
  
• In contrast to his Senate runs, James now has a record that Democrats can use against him. And it would appear they have some pretty good ammunition. In particular, James is one of those who had been dodging town halls since Trump v2.0 commenced.
  
  
• James, naturally, is planning on running a "throw the bums out" campaign. In his announcement, he said: "For the past seven years, Michigan has been dominated by radical, out-of-touch policies that have hurt our families, our communities, and our economy." However, with an approval rating that is at or near 60%, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) really isn't a bum.
  
  
• If bums ARE going to get thrown out in 2026, those bums figure to be Republican. Both historical trendlines and current events argue for the aforementioned blue wave. (Our apologies to British, Canadian and Australian readers if we have inadvertently put the image of Republican bums into your heads.)
  
  
• If Donald Trump is radioactive by 2026, James can't really distance himself. The Representative is well-known as an outspoken Trumper.
  
  
• The Democratic side of the contest is also crowded, but with strong candidates. Whoever survives the blue team's primary is likely to be solid.
  
  
• This notion that "Black guy" + "Republican" = "electoral gold" has rarely, if ever, been sustained. For every Sen. Tim Scott, there are five Herschel Walkers.

For what it's worth, there have been two polls of the race that assume that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is the Democratic nominee and James is the Republican nominee. Those two polls gave Benson a lead of 3 points (37%-34%) and of 12 points (42% to 30%). It is worth noting that Mike Duggan, who was a Democrat and the mayor of Detroit until last year, is running as an independent and is polling at around 18%. As readers will know, independent candidates always do better in polls than they do at the polls. If he's still in on Election Day next year, it is probable that some of his "support" will migrate to candidates who actually have a chance of winning. Given that he is a Democrat in all but name, it's not too big a stretch to think that there are probably some hidden votes for the Democrats' nominee in the 18% currently backing Duggan. (Z)

Abbott Schedules Special Election for TX-18

The Texas state Constitution clearly has a few gaping holes in it. And one of those gaping holes is that there's room for a hyperpartisan governor to deprive people of representation when there's a vacant seat in the House. Like, for example, the seat that is now open due to the death of Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-TX).

In the past, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) has generally moved pretty fast when scheduling special elections, even for seats likely to be won by Democrats. For example, when Democrat Filemon Vela resigned at the end of March in 2022, Abbott scheduled the special election for June of that year. However, in 2022, there was not a House Republican majority operating with a tiny margin of error. Now, there is. And so, Abbott's election-scheduling pace has grown notably languid.

In fact, Abbott dragged his feet for long enough (Turner died on March 5) that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) threatened legal action. The good news for Jeffries is that his threat roused the Governor from his slumber. The bad news for Jeffries is that Abbott scheduled the special election for Election Day, which is November 4. That will cause the seat to remain open for 8 months.

Democrats in Texas and in DC are not happy, of course, and may try to take the matter to court. On one hand, Texas law allows governors to wait until the next regularly scheduled election, unless they decide there is an "emergency." On the other hand, if Abbott had moved quickly enough, May 5 is primary day in Texas, and the special election could have been held then. Since he moved to fill the seat left by Vela much more quickly, it certainly makes it look like Abbott is being governed by Washington political considerations, and not so much what's best for the people of Texas (specifically, the people of TX-18).

So, the Democrats might be able to bring and win a lawsuit, and to force Abbott to adopt a different calendar. But don't bet on it, since they'd have a tough argument to make, and since the case would be heard by the conservative Fifth Circuit. Odds are, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) will have his little extra bit of breathing room until November. (Z)

Hands Off, Part II: Swing State Protesters

We got a LOT of reports from the Hands Off protests, and we think this is an important story. So, we are going to run a few days' worth. Today, it's reports from readers in swing states:

E.M. in Watertown, WI, writes: 175 people showed up in this very red town of 25,000.

---

T.D. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: Milwaukee Representin!

---

K.L. in Dayton, MN, writes: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) came back home to speak at the rally in St. Paul after the marathon budget bill ended at 3:00 a.m. on Saturday morning. She caught a 6:00 a.m. flight to make sure she was here to protest with us!

Per the state patrol, 25,000 people were in attendance at the capitol in St Paul.

---

E.H. in St. Paul, MN, writes: I took my 78-year-old folks to their first political rally ever on Saturday. Both of my grandfathers were staunch anti-communists and threatened to cut my parents off if they went to any sort of demonstrations in the sixties (one of them said protesters should be shot), so they missed out.

There were a couple of scary moments where I almost lost them in the crowd, but otherwise it was positive and peaceful. I never had kids, but I imagine my experience was similar to wrangling a couple of toddlers in a department store.

One goal of these rallies is to eventually get to the tipping point (around 3-5% of the population). Once you get over that threshold, those in power have to start paying attention. The last count I saw was around 5.2 million showed up nationwide, so about 1.5%—but the tariffs haven't started to bite yet, Congress hasn't finished their budget, and people are only starting to feel some of the DOGE cuts. So I think this summer's gonna be wild.

Beyond that, the rallies are about motivating Democratic (and to a lesser extent, Republican) politicians. Yes, most of the people there on Saturday were pretty lefty but not all—one woman I talked to was definitely conservative on civil disobedience, at least ("if you don't like the law, then change the law, but you have to follow it and if you break the law you're guilty"... I didn't get a chance to remind her that it was once legal to own other human beings before she disengaged). So I think the people showing up at these rallies might be more ideologically diverse than many observers think and if true, that's only going to increase the pressure on Washington to rein Trump in. Believe it or not, even SCOTUS pays attention to public sentiment, even though they'd never acknowledge it.

---

K.K. in Clemmons, NC, writes: We had planned to go to the protest in Winston-Salem, NC, but then saw one had been arranged for Lexington, NC (known for its barbecue). Since that is our county seat and since it is quite red, we decided to go there to provide support. There were somewhere around 35 or so people who attended but we got many honks and waves from passing cars. There was one sign that stuck out to me and the person carrying it graciously let me take a picture. Unfortunately, we did not stop for barbecue:

---

P.F.in Las Vegas, NV, writes: Attached is a photo I particularly thought relevant:

---

A.R.S. in West Chester, PA, writes: A small southeast Pennsylvania borough (approx. 20,000 population) with several thousand gathered to protest:

---

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: Local headline: "More than 1,000 anti-Trump protesters gather in downtown Lancaster, joining nationwide 'Hands Off!' rallies Saturday"

Again I have to reiterate that if ruby-red Lancaster, PA, is holding an anti-Trump rally this big, then something is definitely stirring in this country and I think Republicans are deluded if they think they can avoid it. While Penn Square is not huge, 2,000 people is certainly enough to have an event overflow into the streets. I've certainly seen public festivals with food and free music more sparsely attended than this event. BTW, today, while warm, was a cloudy day with threats of rain and thunderstorms all day long.

Now to my personal chagrin, there is a quote in the article where one of the protesters said, "Even the introverts are out right now." I am most definitely an introvert, and possibly the least desirable thing in the world for me on my mini staycation would be to get out in a crowd in rainy weather, but even I was planning on attending this rally. It would have been my first political rally (excluding Pride events, which to be honest for me was less about the politics and more about cruising for cute guys). Sadly, due to the cloudy grey weather I overslept. I guess one day my tombstone will read "He Slept Through the Revolution."

Ashamed but proud of my fellow Lancasterians.

We will see what tomorrow's theme will be! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger