Trump II, First Year

Many posts have discussed the presidency.

 Ballotpedia:

Earlier this week marked the one year anniversary since Donald Trump (R) assumed office as the 47th president of the United States, making him one of only two U.S. presidents to serve two non-consecutive terms. Here’s a look at the first year of his second term, by the numbers, though Jan. 16.

Executive actions

Trump issued 229 executive orders, 57 presidential memoranda, and 118 proclamations in the first year of his second term. Trump’s executive order total was the highest first-year executive order total since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D), who issued 568 executive orders in 1933.

Federal judges

Trump nominated, and the Senate confirmed 27 Article III federal judges, including 21 to U.S. District Courts and six to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. During the first year of his first term, Trump nominated, and the Senate confirmed 23 Article III judges, including one Supreme Court Justice, 12 to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and 10 to the U.S. District Courts.

Supreme Court emergency applications

The Trump administration filed 32 emergency applications with the Supreme Court. An emergency application asks the Court for immediate intervention in a case that has not fully progressed through the ordinary procedures required for the Court to issue a regular opinion. The Court granted the Trump administration’s request for intervention in 21 cases.

Presidential pardons

Trump issued 181 presidential pardons and commutations, not including instances of mass pardons. According to the Department of Justice, during fiscal year 2017, Trump issued one pardon and no commutations. Joe Biden (D), Barack Obama (D), and George W. Bush (R) issued no pardons or commutations during their first fiscal year in office.

Tie-breaking votes in the Senate

Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the vice president also serves as the president of the Senate and may cast the deciding vote when there is a tie in the Senate. Vice President J.D. Vance (R) cast seven tie-breaking votes in the Senate.

US and EU Comparisons

 From the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Our « culture » https://t.co/RZK5YlpsCj pic.twitter.com/QeOtT75a2e

— French Response (@FrenchResponse) January 22, 2026

Federal Taxes Are Progressive

As many posts have pointed out, the federal tax system is more progressive than many people believe.  Higher-income people do pay higher rates and bear a larger share of the tax burden than people with lower incomes.

 Congressional Budget Office The Distribution ofHousehold Income, 2022 :

The average federal tax rate for households in the lowest four income quintiles increased in 2022, largely because of the expiration of two policies—the recovery rebate credits and expanded child tax credit—that reduced average tax rates in 2020 and 2021 for all quintiles (though households in the top quintile were generally less affected). Without those two policies, federal tax rates would have remained more stable from 2019 to 2022. Despite increasing in 2022, the average federal tax rate for each income group declined over the 1979–2022 period. The decline was largest for households in the lowest quintile and smallest for households in the highest quintile. 

...

 The share of federal taxes paid by households in the top quin tile increased from 55 percent in 1979 to 70 percent in 2022. Most of that increase is attribut able to the change in the share of federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent of the income distribu tion, which grew by 13 percentage points—from 14 percent in 1979 to 27 percent in 2022

 

Research Spring 2026

Watch this clip from The Wire.  It is the best description of research, ever.

Interview tips from

• UNR
• Harvard

AI

• Always get guidance from your instructor or supervisor about rules and limits.
• Problems:
• Hallucination still happens.
• Can be embarrassing if it is part of public or constituent communication and critics catch on.
• Absent a blanket prohibition on AI, it is usually okay to use it to identify sources.  "Provide sources and links" is a useful part of a prompt. See sites that specialize in finding relevant documents.  For instance: https://consensus.app/

The Internet Archive -- if there is a broken or altered link to what you need, this site might help you find it.  (example: go back to 2024 to find https://www.cdc.gov/global-health/observances/gbv.html)

Great stuff at Honnold Library -- which students usually overlook!

• Nexis Uni: news sources and law journals
• Political science journals
• Dissertation abstracts (search for "California" and "redistricting" in abstracts, and you will see a couple of Rose Institute names)

General Public Policy and Finance

• CRS
• CBO
• GAO
• GovInfo
• Budgets
• Biden White House Archives
• FRED: Federal Reserve Economic Data
  
• Census
• Bureau of Labor Statistics

Congress

• Congress.gov
• Govtrack

Crime

• Bureau of Justice Statistics
• Prisoner statistics
• Crime data explorer
• Gun Violence Archive

Health

• Local data
• HealthData.gov
• Kaiser Family Foundation

National Elections, Parties, Campaign Finance

• Precinct-level national maps
• 2016
• 2020
• 2024 
• US Presidential Election Atlas -- just what the title says, great historical data (but note the unusual color scheme: red is D, blue is R)
• US Elections Project -- turnout data
• Open Secrets -- Center for Responsive Politics site for federal campaign finance and lobbying e information
• FEC -- Federal Election Commission
• FCC Public Inspection Files (ad buys on broadcast stations)

Public Opinion

• Polling Report -- an aggregation of national poll data
• Gallup -- the best-known US pollster, delivering new numbers daily
• Pew Research Center
• 2018 exit poll
• 2020 exit poll
• 2024 exit poll

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.