Tariffs: An Own Goal

Many posts have dealt with tariffs and trade. 

From the Kiel Institute:

Although the US government intended the tariffs to target foreign businesses, the policy actually harms the domestic economy. "The tariffs are an own goal," says Julian Hinz, Research Director at the Kiel Institute and one of the authors of the study. "The claim that foreign countries pay these tariffs is a myth. The data show the opposite: Americans are footing the bill." The tariffs act like a consumption tax on imported goods. At the same time, both the variety and volume of available products decrease.

The research team analysed more than 25 million shipment records covering a total value of almost four trillion US dollars in US imports. The findings are clear:

• US customs revenue increased by approximately 200 billion US dollars in 2025.
• Foreign exporters absorbed only about four percent of the tariff burden, 96 percent passed through to US buyers.
• Trade volumes collapsed, but export prices did not fall.

Falling import volumes

The study also examines the unexpected tariff hikes imposed on Brazil and India in August 2025: tariffs on Brazilian imports were suddenly raised to 50 percent, and for India, from 25 to 50 percent. Again, the data show that foreign exporters did not lower their prices to offset the additional tariffs. Had exporters absorbed the tariffs, their US prices would have fallen relative to other markets—but this was not the case.

"We compared Indian exports to the US with shipments to Europe and Canada and identified a clear pattern," Hinz explains. "Both export value and volume to the US dropped sharply, by up to 24 percent. But unit prices—the prices Indian exporters charged—remained unchanged. They shipped less, not cheaper."

Global impact

Ultimately, these findings mean that US companies will be confronted with shrinking margins and consumers with higher prices in the long run. Countries that export to the US will sell less and will be under pressure to find new export markets. "Tariffs ultimately disadvantage everyone," says Hinz.
About the Study

"America’s Own Goal: Who Pays the Tariffs?" by Julian Hinz, Aaron Lohmann, Hendrik Mahlkow, and Anna Vorwig. Kiel Institute for the World Economy, January 2026.

The authors drew on daily shipment-level bill-of-lading data from Panjiva, official US Census Bureau statistics, and Indian customs records to trace tariff pass-through at unprecedented granularity.

Rating the Honesty and Ethics of Professions

Previous posts have looked at the public standing of various professions and occupations. Gallup reports:

Gallup:

Invading Greenland Would Be Illegal

Many posts have discussed foreign policy, war powers and the US military.

Alberto J. Mora at Just Security:

Unfortunately for Trump’s imperial ambitions – but fortunately for the rule of law, the U.S. national interest, and international stability – Trump’s ability to execute any act of military aggression against Greenland is constrained by an additional statute: 22 U.S.C. 1928f. This statute – which was not applicable to Venezuela because it is not a NATO member — was adopted by Congress pursuant to Section 1250A of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act and was designed to prohibit the president from materially altering the U.S. government’s relationship with NATO and the North Atlantic Treaty (the diplomatic instrument that gave rise to NATO) without prior congressional approval.

In addition to its consultation and notification requirements, the statute – which is titled “Limitation on Withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization” – contains two principal provisions: first, as the title implies, a broad prohibition against withdrawal from NATO or taking other analogous steps that would materially damage the U.S. relationship with the organization and, second (and critically), a limitation on the use of appropriated funds such that the president would be precluded from using such funds to implement the actions prohibited by the statute.

...

The applicability of this statute stems from Greenland’s status as an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and Denmark’s status as a member of NATO. As Mike Schmitt has explained, “[i]t is clear that Greenland falls within the geographical coverage of Article 5.”

While the administration will undoubtedly claim that, because it has no intent to formally “withdraw” from the North Atlantic Treaty, the statute is not applicable to the current situation, this assertion would be false. A U.S. attempt to seize Greenland militarily would constitute an attack on Denmark and, through the operation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, an attack on each of the other 30 NATO members (excluding of course the U.S.). Not only would this attack instantaneously breach, either directly or constructively, each of the four prohibitions in clause (a) of Sec. 1928f (meaning it would invariably constitute or lead to the suspension, termination, denunciation, and withdrawal of the U.S. from the Treaty), it would necessarily also lead to the destruction of the organization in its current form as the U.S. wages war on our former allies.

Because these consequences are inevitable, any order by President Trump to launch an attack on Greenland necessarily triggers the automatic cutoff of authorized or appropriated funds that would be required to execute the assault. In addition, because the administration has clearly not only engaged in “deliberation” about taking military action against Denmark and NATO, but, indeed, has reportedly already ordered that military planning be initiated, the consultation and notification requirements of Sec.1928f have already been triggered.

Pardons for Sale

 Many posts have addressed the president's pardon power.

Kenneth P. Vogel and Susanne Craig at NYT:

In 2021, a convicted fraudster named Adriana Camberos was freed from prison when President Trump commuted her sentence.

Rather than taking advantage of that second chance, prosecutors said, Ms. Camberos returned to crime. She and her brother were convicted in 2024 in an unrelated fraud.

This week, Mr. Trump pardoned both siblings, marking the second time Mr. Trump had opened the prison gates for Ms. Camberos.

Their pardons were among a handful of clemency grants quietly issued by Mr. Trump this week.

Among the other lucky recipients: a man whose daughter had given millions to a Trump-backed super PAC, a former governor of Puerto Rico and a former F.B.I. agent — all of whom had pleaded guilty in a political corruption case.

...

Three of the recipients were scheduled to be sentenced this month in a political corruption case related to accusations that former Gov. Wanda Vázquez of Puerto Rico had accepted bribes from Julio Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan-Italian banker, in 2020.

In late 2024, while Mr. Herrera was facing felony bribery and other charges in the case, his daughter, Isabela Herrera, donated $2.5 million to MAGA Inc., a super PAC devoted to Mr. Trump and run by his allies.

In May, her father’s lawyer, Christopher M. Kise, who had served on Mr. Trump’s legal defense team, negotiated an unusually lenient deal with the Justice Department. Under the deal, which was authorized by a top Trump appointee, Mr. Herrera agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor campaign finance charge, disappointing career prosecutors who had pushed for a harsher sentence.

In July, Ms. Herrera donated another $1 million to MAGA Inc. She did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Trump this week pardoned Mr. Herrera, Ms. Vázquez and Mark Rossini, a former F.B.I. agent who had worked as a consultant for Mr. Herrera. All three had pleaded guilty in August to misdemeanor campaign finance charges.

Pink Slime in California

Many posts have dealt with misinformation, disinformation, and partisan pseudo-news sites.

Colin Lecher at CalMatters:

Earlier this year, as the political battle over Congressional redistricting brought California into the national spotlight, Facebook users were shown a curious series of ads.

The ads, from a straightforward-looking news site called the California Courier, often felt a lot like campaign commercials, linking to articles hammering Democrats in the state, including Gov. Gavin Newsom. Few punched in the other direction, toward Republicans. One said “California Democrats just rewrote their gerrymandering plan so voters will see their partisan map on the ballot this November.” Another called Proposition 50, which passed in November, “a scheme critics say is meant to undermine voter-approved protections and entrench one party rule in California.”

A reader who clicked through to the Courier’s website would find stories that largely align with a conservative view of the news, like a video of a child “riding a scooter through San Fran’s drug-ravaged streets,” or an anonymous piece that cites “confidential sources” cautioning against a “left-wing educator” running for a position with an Orange County school district.

What a reader would not find is any disclosure of the Courier’s ownership or funding, including what appear to be ties to a network of conservative organizations in California that, according to one researcher, scaled up a series of right-leaning news sites in three other states just ahead of the 2024 election.

...

One of the named writers describes himself on social media as a “content creator” for the Lincoln Media Foundation, a conservative group, and links to Courier articles. Another shares a name with a Republican strategist based in Orange County, and a third lists a resume with conservative organizations in a short bio.

The Lincoln Media Foundation is tied to the Lincoln Club, a group based in Orange County that bills itself as “the oldest and largest conservative major donor organization in the state of California.” The club funnels anonymously-donated money to conservative candidates and causes.

... 

Researchers have taken to calling sites like those operated by Lincoln Media “pink slime” news, a name coined after a meat-industry additive. These sites don’t produce outright false news, like others, but they do not meet basic journalistic standards. That often means low-quality content and failing to disclose associations with outside organizations.

The sites generally aren’t designed to generate revenue, but to sway public opinion. The majority, according to researchers, lean toward a conservative agenda, and if the site’s stories gain traction on social media, they can travel widely.

 

.

Social Media Influencers and Lobbying

Many posts have discussed social media. 

Maggie Severns, Natalie Andrews, Josh Dawsey, and Eliza Collins at WSJ:

Last summer, Donald Trump’s 28-year-old former campaign aide Alex Bruesewitz had some new advice for the president: reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug. “Nearly 70% of Republican voters support Trump on this. No brainer!,” he said to more than 640,000 followers on X.

What Bruesewitz left out of the post: A political-action committee funded by legal marijuana’s biggest players had just paid him $300,000.

Trump’s return to the White House has transformed the federal government and upended the business of lobbying, creating a new class of Washington operatives that blur the lines between consulting, advocacy and journalism.

Corporate and foreign interests that used to rely primarily on paid lobbyists to pitch their case to lawmakers and administration officials are instead pouring money into trying to get their cause promoted by a group of young, conservative influencers known to be close to Trump’s staff.

A camera-ready pack of Gen-Z social-media natives—many of whom were too young to vote when Trump announced his first run for office—are reaping the rewards. They don’t work for traditional news outlets and are thus unshackled from newsroom ethics rules, such as the typical ban on accepting gifts worth more than $25. They don’t have to follow the disclosure laws that apply to big-money super PACs or lobbyists. And they have large followings eager to hear pro-Trump views, a gold mine for those looking to sway both Washington and the public.

Israel made plans over the past year to spend $900,000 on an influencer campaign with a U.S. audience, according to disclosure documents, as Israel fights negative sentiment on the right. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with conservative social-media stars on at least two of his visits.

The solar energy and health industries have paid thousands of dollars to influencers to support their interests, according to people who have been offered or participated in such deals. Qatar, beverage interests and others have courted those with online political followings.

MAGA influencers are turning access to the White House into lucrative new businesses. Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale has pivoted from campaigning to running a prominent firm that specializes in connecting influencers to companies and others willing to pay for their posts.

Perfidy

Many posts have discussed foreign policy, war powers and the US military.

 Charlie Savage et al. at NYT:

The Pentagon used a secret aircraft painted to look like a civilian plane in its first attack on a boat that the Trump administration said was smuggling drugs, killing 11 people last September, according to officials briefed on the matter. The aircraft also carried its munitions inside the fuselage, rather than visibly under its wings, they said.

The nonmilitary appearance is significant, according to legal specialists, because the administration has argued its lethal boat attacks are lawful — not murders — because President Trump “determined” the United States is in an armed conflict with drug cartels.

But the laws of armed conflict prohibit combatants from feigning civilian status to fool adversaries into dropping their guard, then attacking and killing them. That is a war crime called “perfidy.”

Retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper, a former deputy judge advocate general for the United States Air Force, said that if the aircraft had been painted in a way that disguised its military nature and got close enough for the people on the boat to see it — tricking them into failing to realize they should take evasive action or surrender to survive — that was a war crime under armed-conflict standards.

...

U.S. military manuals about the law of war discuss perfidy at length, saying it includes when a combatant feigns civilian status so the adversary “neglects to take precautions which are otherwise necessary.” A U.S. Navy handbook says lawful combatants at sea use offensive force “within the bounds of military honor, particularly without resort to perfidy,” and stresses that commanders have a “duty” to “distinguish their own forces from the civilian population.”