Hub and UnPopulist Podcasts About the Tariff Case
The podcasts cover the case and its relationship to the more general problem of abuse of emergency powers.
The podcasts cover the case and its relationship to the more general problem of abuse of emergency powers.
Both are wins for free trade, but only one vindicates the separation of powers.
For both practical and constitutional reasons, this is the obvious way out of the chaos Trump's tariffs have created.
The Wall Street Journal, CBC, and Time published good articles on the story behind the case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
Plus: Javier Milei puts state-run TV to good use, Texas' THC antagonism, rent control lunacy, and more...
Some of the more informative interviews I have done about our win in the case against Trump's tariffs, in lawsuit filed by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
The decision by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the US District Court for the District Columbia holds IEEPA doesn't authorize the president to impose tariffs at all.
This is a standard order imposing a brief stay of the trial court ruling, while the parties litigate the issue of whether a longer stay should be imposed.
"New opportunities for innovation, economic growth, and global engagement," says one expert.
No. One of the judges in Wednesday's unanimous ruling was a Trump appointee, and the ruling rested on important legal and constitutional principles.
The Court of International Trade just issued a decision striking down Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs and other IEEPA tariffs.
The Court of International Trade ruled that Trump's emergency economic powers do not include the authority to impose tariffs on nearly all imports.
The federal government will reportedly get a "golden share" in U.S. Steel, potentially allowing it to overrule shareholders on some decisions.
The debate over free trade should include more than the costs of Trump's tariffs versus the value of cheaper stuff.
Like that in the similar case filed by Liberty Justice Center and myself, this one indicated judicial skepticism of Trump's claims to virtually unlimited power to impose tariffs.
Whether due to tariffs or because they are made in America, the result would be much higher prices.
The more important the product—and food certainly ranks high on any list—the better it is to allow markets to work.
Middlebury professor Gary Winslett argues the South—not China—poached the Rust Belt’s manufacturing base by out-competing it on policy.
I was interviewed by Brittany Lewis of Forbes.
I will be speaking, along with Cato Institute scholar Walter Olson.
Subaru says it has "adjusted its pricing in response to current market conditions," but we all know what that means.
Plus: Tim Dillon takes on the establishment, Chicago's racist hiring strategies, train fetishes, and more...
On the bright side, at least Trump finally admitted his tariffs are, indeed, paid by Americans.
Seasonally adjusted job openings and capital outlay spending are declining to levels not seen since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Scenes from a trade war.
The article explains why these claims to emergency powers are illegal and dangerous, and how to stop them.
Greg Sargent of the New Republic interviewed me.
The White House calls it "the art of the deal," but a 30 percent tariff on imports from China is economically damaging and constitutionally dubious.
"If this is the end of my American dream," says one small business owner, "I'm going to go down swinging."
Outcomes are hard to predict. But the judges seemed skeptical of the government's claim that Trump has virtually unlimited authority to impose tariffs.
Plus: Homeless encampments in California, taxing university endowments, and more...
The site of George Washington's famed winter encampment might not have existed without colonial-era iron regulations.
Three libertarians—Dave Smith, J.D. Tuccille, and Liz Wolfe—revisit their reluctant votes for Trump, weighing the promises, chaos, and consequences of his second term so far.
Residents of the United Kingdom will get lower tariffs, while Americans are stuck paying higher ones.
The right number of dolls? As many as your kid wants.
Co-founder of AQR Capital Management, Cliff Asness, discusses the decline of market efficiency, the dangers of populist economics, and his libertarian outlook on capitalism.
America is not a department store. And no successful department store would be following Trump's antitrade strategy.
Steve Inskeep of NPR interviewed me about the case against Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs.
"I've been very vocal about congressional authority under a Democratic president or now under a Republican president," the Washington state congresswoman tells Reason.
Sex toys, blenders, baby strollers, microwaves, hair dryers, and other affordable goods that Americans take for granted could soon be in short supply.
Plus: Alcatraz reopening, Bukele corruption scandal, assisted suicide, and more...
This is a key issue in cases seeking to limit executive branch power grabs, including Trump's tariffs. Judge Ryan Nelson (a conservative Trump appointee) explains why the president is not exempt from the doctrine.
By giving one man the power to impose massive tariffs anytime he wants, Trump's policy undermines the predictability and impartiality that the rule of law requires.
Trump's comment about how "dolls" will "cost a couple of bucks more" is the latest in a long trend of nationalist conservatives disparaging affordable stuff.
The Justice Department is pursuing an antitrust policy inspired by Oren Cass and members of the New Right.
If anything, they sabotage the very forces—dynamism, adaptability, innovation—that create the economic opportunities struggling workers need.
There's nothing "hostile and political" about informing the public of the negative consequences of poor economic policy.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10