Vesper

Trump’s Tariff Fantasy His projection of a U.S. manufacturing boom behind tariff walls leaves out retaliation by other countries and a trade war. https://prospect.org/economy/2025-04-02-trumps-tariff-fantasy/ President Trump’s Rose Garden speech this afternoon was masterful. Except that the connection between the policies he unveiled and their likely impact was entirely delusional. This is Trump’s political magic. It’s too easy for his supporters to forget that he dwells in a universe of his own invention. He described in great detail how the U.S. has lost factory jobs, how the trade deficit with the rest of the world has kept increasing, how free trade has not served America. He had a contingent of autoworkers from the UAW cheering him on. And he promised a restoration of American manufacturing pre-eminence. “This is Liberation Day,” he declared. “This will be remembered as the day American industry was revived.” First, Trump followed through on his threat to impose tariffs of 25 percent on all imported cars. Second, he imposed what he termed reciprocal tariffs, with a different formula for every country. He literally took on the entire world. The only thing Trump left out is that every one of these nations is planning to retaliate. The result will be an entirely gratuitous trade war, in which the U.S. has no allies. In theory, if the rest of the world rolled over for these massive U.S. tariffs, that might produce a domestic manufacturing boom. But there will be retaliatory tariffs against American exports, and consumers everywhere will end up paying higher prices, creating a needless recession. Trump brought out Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to hold a large chart, as a kind of human prop. The chart showed the reciprocal tariffs country by country. The tariffs are based on a rough calculation of tariffs and non-tariff barriers, which just happens to come out at about half in nearly all cases. Trump termed this “a discounted reciprocal tariff” because, he said, “the U.S. is kind.” For example, on China, where the combination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers is calculated at the equivalent of 67 percent, the U.S. levies a reciprocal tariff of 34 percent. In the EU, where actual tariffs are only slightly higher than ours, the total tariff equivalent is supposedly 39 percent so the reciprocal tariff is 20 percent. And so on, country by country. India will be socked with tariffs of 26 percent; Taiwan, 32 percent, etc. The lowest tariffs, for countries with few barriers, such as the U.K. and Brazil, will be 10 percent. In theory, if we start with higher tariffs, reciprocal reductions and the dismantling of non-tariff barriers could be negotiated, to bring tariff levels back down everywhere. This was the painstaking multilateral process during the era of GATT. Trump is proposing to do it, bilaterally, country by country. But that give-and-take involves intricate bargaining about complex details, a process that takes years, while Trump’s depressive medicine takes effect at midnight tonight. And Trump has other fish to fry with many of these countries, which further complicates the process of trade deal-making. Trump went so far out on a limb in making these tariffs the signature achievement of his presidency that it is hard to imagine him selectively relenting, as he has done on past ad hoc tariff threats. Trump’s speech included the usual whoppers and invented pieces of history. My personal favorite was his contention that the Great Depression occurred because the U.S. let tariff levels get too low. The man lives in his own fantasy world, but reality will soon intrude. As a harbinger of things to come, stock futures collapsed on Trump’s announcement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/29/opinion/democrats-strategy-2024.html Last year’s election was close, despite President Trump’s hyperbolic claims about his margin of victory. Still, the Democratic Party clearly lost — and not only the presidential race. It also lost control of the Senate and failed to recapture the House of Representatives. Of the 11 governor’s races held last year, Democrats won three. In state legislature races, they won fewer than 45 percent of the seats. In the aftermath of this comprehensive defeat, many party leaders have decided that they do not need to make significant changes to their policies or their message. They have instead settled on a convenient explanation for their plight. That explanation starts with the notion that Democrats were merely the unlucky victims of postpandemic inflation and that their party is more popular than it seems: If Democrats could only communicate better, particularly on social media and podcasts, the party would be fine. “We’ve got the right message,” Ken Martin, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said while campaigning for the job. “What we need to do is connect it back with the voters.” A key part of this argument involves voter turnout. Party leaders claim that most Americans still prefer Democrats but that voter apathy allowed Mr. Trump to win. According to this logic, Democrats do not need to worry about winning back Trump voters and should instead try to animate the country’s natural liberal majority. “I don’t think we’re going to win over those 77 million that voted for Donald Trump,” Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, the party’s 2024 vice-presidential nominee, said this month. “I’m concerned with the 90 million who stayed home.” It was an unfortunate echo of Hillary Clinton saying that millions of Trump voters were “deplorables” and “irredeemable.” As comforting as these explanations may feel to Democrats, they are a form of denial that will make it harder for the Democratic Party to win future elections. Even many conservatives and Republicans should be concerned about the Democratic denial. The country needs two healthy political parties. It especially needs a healthy Democratic Party, given Mr. Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party and his draconian behavior. Restraining him — and any successors who continue his policies — depends on Democrats’ taking an honest look at their problems. The part of the Democratic story that contains the most truth is inflation. Prices surged during Covid’s supply-chain disruptions, and incumbent parties around the world have suffered. Whether on the political right or left, ruling parties lost power in the United States, Brazil, Britain, Germany and Italy. But some incumbent parties managed to win re-election, including in Denmark, France, India, Japan, Mexico and Spain. A healthier Democratic Party could have joined them last year. The Democrats, after all, were running against a Republican whose favorability rating rarely exceeded 45 percent. Most voters did not like Mr. Trump. They did prefer him to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Polls make clear that inflation was not the only reason. Voters also trusted Republicans more than Democrats on immigration, crime, government spending, global trade and foreign policy. Among the few exceptions were abortion and health care. As the headline of a recent Times news article summarized, “Support for Trump’s Policies Exceeds Support for Trump.” Only 27 percent of Americans now have a favorable view of the Democratic Party. It is the party’s lowest approval rating in decades. The part of that Democratic story that contains the least truth is voter turnout. Nonvoters appear to have favored Mr. Trump by an even wider margin than voters, as Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, has reported. David Shor, the bracingly honest Democratic data scientist, put it well: “We’re now at a point where the more people vote, the better Republicans do.” The good news for Democrats is that winning over nonvoters and Trump voters is not in conflict. People who do not vote have many of the same concerns as voters who flipped to Mr. Trump. Nonvoters are disproportionately working class, young, Asian, Black, Latino or foreign-born, and each of these groups shifted away from Democrats. When Democrats call for ignoring the country’s 77 million Trump voters, they are writing off a diverse group of Americans, many of whom voted Democratic before. We recognize that the Democratic Party is in a difficult position. It must compete with a Republican Party that shows an alarming hostility to American democracy. And we urge Democrats to continue speaking out against Mr. Trump’s authoritarian behavior — his bullying of military leaders, judges, law firms, universities and the media; his disdain for Congress; his attempts to chill speech through deportation; his tolerance for incompetent cabinet secretaries who endanger American troops. Whatever polls say about the political wisdom of such criticism, Democratic silence on these issues would only encourage timidity from other parts of society. It is the rest of the Democratic strategy that requires more rigorous and less wishful reflection. To regain voters’ trust, Democrats should take at least three steps. First, they should admit that their party mishandled Mr. Biden’s age. Leading Democrats insisted that he had mental acuity for a second term when most Americans believed otherwise. Party leaders even attempted to shout down anybody who raised concerns, before reversing course and pushing Mr. Biden out of the race. Already, many voters believe that Democrats refuse to admit uncomfortable truths on some subjects, including crime, illegal immigration, inflation and Covid lockdowns. Mr. Biden’s age became a glaring example. Acknowledging as much may be backward looking, but it would send an important signal. Second, Democrats should recognize that the party moved too far left on social issues after Barack Obama left office in 2017. The old video clips of Ms. Harris that the Trump campaign gleefully replayed last year — on decriminalizing the border and government-funded gender-transition surgery for prisoners — highlighted the problem. Yes, she tried to abandon these stances before the election, but she never spoke forthrightly to voters and acknowledged she had changed her position. Even today, the party remains too focused on personal identity and on Americans’ differences — by race, gender, sexuality and religion — rather than our shared values. On these issues, progressives sometimes adopt a scolding, censorious posture. It is worth emphasizing that this posture has alienated growing numbers of Asian, Black and Latino voters. Democrats who won last year in places where Mr. Trump also won, such as Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, adopted a more moderate tone. They were hawkish about border security and law enforcement, criticizing their own party. They did not make the common Democratic mistake of trying to talk about only economic policy and refusing to engage with Americans’ concerns on difficult social issues. Third, the party has to offer new ideas. When Democrats emerged from the wilderness in the past, they often did so with fresh ideas. They updated the proud Democratic tradition of improving life for all Americans. Bill Clinton remade the party in the early 1990s and spoke of “putting people first.” In 2008, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and John Edwards offered exciting plans to improve health care, reduce inequality and slow climate change. These candidates provided intellectual leadership. Ms. Harris failed to do so in last year’s campaign, and few Democrats are doing so today. Where is the Democrat with bold plans to cut living costs? Or fight the ills of social media? Or help aimless boys who are struggling in school? Where is the governor who does more than talk about an abundance agenda and actually cuts regulations to help America build? New ideas should come from both the party’s progressives and its centrists. The most successful American politicians, like Mr. Obama and Ronald Reagan, deftly mix boldness and moderation. One benefit of being out of power is that it offers time to develop ideas and see which resonate. It is not a time to say, “We’ve got the right message.” Even without reforming themselves, Democrats may fare well in elections over the next two years. Opposition parties usually thrive in midterms. The longer-term picture is less sanguine. The next Republican leader may be more disciplined than Mr. Trump. And both the Senate and the Electoral College look challenging for Democrats. Of the seven states whose population has grown the most since 2020, the Democratic Party won none in last year’s presidential election. Defeat has a long history of inspiring honest reflection in politics. In this time of frustration and anxiety for Democrats, they should give it a try.

here is the state of play as seen by some of the neoliberal, centrist to conservative, anti-progressive Democrats: Democratic Delusions Aren’t Going Away Anytime Soon Here’s why. https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/democratic-delusions-arent-going The concept that Democrats have delusions about their current situation—that they are in denial about the implications of the 2024 election and other trends—is having a moment. No less a discourse arbiter than the Gray Lady has weighed in on the side that, yes, this is a thing. In an op-ed by the New York Times’ Editorial Board, the paper’s distinguished journalists lament: This is indeed delusional. The scale of the delusion is underscored by data just released by David Shor and Blue Rose Research (see also the interviews with Shor by Ezra Klein and Eric Levitz). How anyone can go through these findings and conclude anything other than that Democrats need a radical course correction is beyond me. In that spirit, the Times’ Editorial Board and Shor do urge Democrats to cast off their delusions and offer some suggestions for such a course correction. I mostly agree with their suggestions—indeed, I’d urge the need for even stronger medicine. But I think it’s important to be clear-eyed about the various factors that will make it all too easy for Democrats to ignore or soft-pedal the need for a decisive reckoning with their “toxic brand.” Their delusions, it is likely, will prove quite difficult to get rid of. Here's why. 1. The fool’s gold of Democrats’ low turnout advantage. The dirty little secret of Democrats’ current coalition is that it’s extremely well-engineered for low turnout elections. Democrats used to argue that they wanted really high turnout—ideally everyone voting—in elections because high voter participation is a civic good in democratic societies and because they believed that higher turnout would bring in masses of less engaged, pro-Democratic voters (younger, less educated, less affluent, nonwhite) that would benefit them politically. No more. Now that the Democratic coalition is skewed toward the most educated, most engaged, high information voters, Democrats actually benefit when turnout is low and the voting pool is dominated by their highly engaged voters. Correspondingly, the more voters that show up, the worse it is for the Democrats. As a result, Democrats have become increasingly quiet about their commitment to high turnout and don’t talk much these days about the civic benefits of everyone voting. Maybe it’s not so bad if only the most interested citizens bother to vote! You can’t blame Democrats from enjoying the electoral benefits of their current coalition. If they have a better chance of winning in relatively low turnout elections, they’ll gladly take it—and crow about their victories. But this presents a problem if Democrats do indeed need to get rid of their delusions and reform their party. Every time Democrats overperform in low turnout electoral contexts, that stiffens the spines of those who are resisting substantial change. Look at special elections X and Y, they’ll say, and how well Democrats did, vastly outrunning the underlying partisan lean of the state or district. There’s no need for big changes—we’re doing great! You can see this dynamic playing out in the aftermath of last Tuesday’s special elections for a Wisconsin State Supreme Court seat and for filling House seats in Florida’s 1st and 6th congressional districts. Democrats did indeed overperform and the kvelling in Democratic circles was immediate and loud, especially about the victory of liberal Susan Crawford in the Wisconsin race by 10 points over her conservative opponent, preserving a 4-3 liberal majority on the court. That’s a good result for Democrats but it’s worth noting that last two Wisconsin State Supreme Court races in 2023 and 2020 were won by the liberal candidates with almost identical margins. There may be less here than meets the eye. As Nate Cohn remarked on the day these elections were held: But even if the results don’t do much about these major problems, it is likely to divert Democrats’ attention from doing anything about them. Indeed, they are likely to focus instead on how their overperformance in Tuesday’s and earlier specials augurs well for their quest to take back the House in 2026. And that could be a further problem. David Shor pointed out in his interview with Ezra Klein: A pickle indeed. This table from Shor illustrates how the dynamic for Democrats changes in a high turnout environment. That should concentrate the mind. 2. The comfort food of thermostatic reaction against the GOP. It was predictable that Trump and the GOP would go too far in some respects after he got re-elected. Parties these days do tend to over-read their “mandates” and Trump is, well, Trump and inclined to do things to excess. I think it’s safe to say that he has exceeded expectations in this respect. As a result, the thermostatic reaction is setting in, as voters seek to turn the policy thermostat down to a more comfortable setting. They are not happy with the antics of Elon Musk, how far the cuts in government have gone and their haphazard nature, the lack of attention to lowering prices and the chaotic pursuit of a tariff regime that may raise prices as well as having other negative economic effects. Voters’ discontent is a boon to the Democrats of course and Democrats do not have to change their party much, if at all, to reap the benefits. This is another factor militating against Democrats’ willingness to jettison their delusions. After all if Trump is so terrible and is royally screwing things up, why go to the big trouble of confronting fundamental problems when simply being not-Trump should allow the party to connect to thermostatic reaction? It’s a tempting—and comfortable—strategy. 3. The siren call of economic determinism. It’s no secret that economic issues loomed large in the last election and that Democrats were disadvantaged by that. It’s fair to say that economic issues will continue to be central to the party’s fate in the future. But economic issues are not the only issues. Cultural issues are also hugely important to voters’ views of a political party and how likely that party’s actions are to be consistent with their interests and values. It is not the case that economic factors and issues will necessarily determine voters’ political preferences if only the proper approach can be found. Cultural inclinations are not so easily overruled. But in truth this is what most Democrats seem to believe. They are culture denialists. That is, they do not consider cultural issues real issues. They are typically viewed as politically motivated distractions or as expressions of something else entirely (i.e., racism, sexism, xenophobia, transphobia, etc.) They are not treated as issues that need to be dealt with on their own terms, with the corresponding need to potentially change party positions to accord with popular, particular working-class, preferences. I see the hand of economic determinism in much of what Democrats have offered since the 2024 election. Bernie Sanders and AOC think Democrats should talk more about the “billionaire class” and “fighting oligarchy.” Ro Khanna proposes a “New Economic Patriotism” that would emphasize promotion of American manufacturing and hi-tech development across all regions of the country. Chris Murphy thinks the key to a Democratic revival is advocating the breakup of corporate power. Other Democrats suggest a relentless focus on “kitchen-table” issues (ah, what would Democrats do without that fabled kitchen table…). Even the new kid on the block, the “abundance” liberals, who have more interesting ideas, still leave cultural issues completely out of their framework. The general idea across these approaches is that focusing on economic issues will win back the working class and obviate the need to change anything else. This attempt to magic away the influence of culture has not worked and will not work. To borrow a term from the Marxists, culture is not a part of the “superstructure” which is subservient to the “base.” Culture has a mind and dynamic of its own as Democrats should have learned by now, considering how much it’s hurt the party politically. But the siren call of economic determinism is powerful and remains a key obstacle preventing Democrats from casting off their delusions. For all these reasons, it seems likely that Democratic delusions and, consequently, their “toxic brand” will be with us for quite some time. Those seeking to reform the party have their work cut out for them. New Insights on Why Harris Lost—and Why Democrats Are in Such a Hole https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/new-insights-on-why-harris-lostand For those of us who study American politics, it’s always a treat when David Shor pops up to offer his insights on the latest election. Shor is a Democratic data analyst who normally stays behind the scenes. In the last election, he helped run a super PAC backing Kamala Harris presidential campaign. Shor, a self-styled socialist, is known for speaking tough truths to Democrats about the state of their party. Recently, he emerged with not one but two new interviews—one with Eric Levitz of Vox and the other with Ezra Klein of the New York Times. Shor’s data outfit, Blue Rose Research, has conducted extensive post-election analyses about the 2024 election, and he shared some of their key findings in these interviews, findings that will likely surprise a lot of folks. Below, I highlight some of the most interesting takeaways from these discussions. 1. Politically disengaged voters are becoming more Republican. Shor first discusses a startling trend in the form of the following two graphics: In other words, voters who are far likelier to regularly participate in elections actually voted more Democratic overall in 2024 relative to 2020, but more irregular voters were likelier to swing toward Trump and were a big driver of his win. 2. Relatedly, higher-turnout elections no longer benefit Democrats. Not long ago, Democrats argued that if they could just get more people to turn out, they would have greater success in elections. Many pointed to Barack Obama’s two wins as evidence of this. In 2008 and 2012, the Obama campaign’s top-notch turnout operation helped propel him to historic victories, as they successfully brought out many “lower-propensity” voters who would often vote for Democrats—if they actually showed up at a polling place. But in the two intervening midterm elections (2010 and 2014), many of these voters—and even more reliable Democrats—stayed home, leading to historic wins for Republicans. So the thought in some Democratic circles has been that the higher the turnout, the better their party’s chances. However, Shor outlines how this theory doesn’t appear to have much solid grounding: The Blue Rose chart below shows that if only people who had voted in the 2022 midterms—a lower-turnout election in which Democrats did relatively well—had voted last year, Harris would have won the popular vote and also the Electoral College fairly easily. However, if those who stayed home in 2024 had all turned out, Trump likely would have won by an even greater margin than he did, and Democrats would almost certainly be in a deeper hole in the House and Senate. 3. Trump’s win was due in no small part to substantial gains with racial minorities. According to Shor: The swings were a little less clear for black Americans overall, but Blue Rose’s polling before Biden dropped out of the race found that blacks were “poised to swing 7 to 8 percentage points against [the Democrats].” Shor added: Another way of interpreting this data: race is becoming less of a determining factor in how Americans vote, whereas ideology has become a greater predictor. Perhaps even more startling for many Democrats, immigrant voters are becoming more Republican-leaning too. In fact, Trump appeared to narrowly carry immigrant voters last year, and Shor argues that, astoundingly, roughly half of the net votes that Trump received in 2024 likely came from immigrants. Democrats looking for signs of hope out of this might be able to argue that inflation, which was a unique factor in the 2024 election, scrambled things for voters across a host of demographic lines. But it’s not clear that, moving forward, these voters will be immediately open to voting for Democrats, either—not without hard work. 4. Young voters also appear to have swung heavily toward Trump. Though Democrats have long assumed the support of younger voters, especially since Obama first came onto the national scene, that support now appears to be far less solid. Some of Shor’s data on this front is nothing short of shocking (emphasis below is mine): He added: This graphic, courtesy of Blue Rose, shows that the gender gap between men and women of the millennial generation and older is fairly narrow: roughly 5–10 points. But among Gen Z, it’s ballooned to 20 points or more. Shor offers a couple of theories for why America’s youngest voters have shifted toward the Republicans: We are now far removed from the idea that “demographics are destiny” for the Democrats. There does not appear to be some rising demographic majority, as many left-leaning organizations I’ve worked with in the past believed, of young people, racial minorities, and others who will deliver Democrats sustained electoral success for the foreseeable future. At this point, the party can’t really afford to take any group of voters for granted. 5. Democrats currently face a brutal “issue” landscape. One way that parties try to win elections is by running on issues they think will mobilize voters to their side. Specifically, they often try to take advantage of issues where voters trust them more than the other party. Unfortunately for Democrats, the number of issues on which voters both currently trust them over Republicans and prioritize those issues in their vote choice is staggeringly small. Their best issue, on which they enjoy a smaller advantage than they have historically, is healthcare. Voters also trust Democrats more than Republicans on climate change/the environment and abortion, but they simply don’t prioritize those issues over others at the ballot box. Voters’ top issues? Exactly what virtually every pre-election poll foretold: inflation, the cost of living, and the economy more broadly. On all three, Republicans are trusted to a far greater degree. They also have an advantage on several other key issues, including taxes, crime, immigration, and border security. This runs counter to the arguments of some of Democrats’ more progressive critics, who said that for Democrats to have electoral success, they needed to boost engagement with young, a group they argued cared primarily about the environment, student debt, and the Israel-Hamas war. But as the above chart demonstrates, these issues rarely factor into most voters’ decisions when they cast a ballot (especially student loans). Moreover, pre-election polling showed that all three of these issues were at the bottom of young people’s list of priorities. For Democrats to make a comeback in the years ahead, they need to eat into Republicans’ advantage on the issues voters care most about. As I’ve written elsewhere, they should have ample opportunities to fight Trump and the Republicans on inflation and the economy. And indeed, Shor’s data shows that Trump’s popularity has begun waning, and that Democrats should have some opportunities to pick fights with him on several of those aforementioned issues. As for specific policies Democrats could fight him on, Shor’s data points to Trump’s tax cuts and tariffs as well as threats from DOGE to entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 6. Democrats must contend with the fact that America is a center-right country. This is something I have written about extensively elsewhere. Shor explains: This doesn’t, however, mean that only 20 percent of the country supports the liberal view on all issues. In fact: But Shor offers some key warnings for Democrats, and specifically for their more liberal-leaning voters: And: The country’s center-right tilt has also made it especially difficult for Democrats to have sustained success in the U.S. Senate, the body of Congress that, among other things, is responsible for confirming presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. Even in 2018 and 2020, two great years for Democrats, they struggled to make gains in the upper chamber, and following 2024, they are now under majority status by three seats (or four if you take into account the fact that Republicans have the tie-breaking vote). Worse still, the path toward regaining the majority looks difficult. Shor outlines what voters seem to want from Democrats moving forward: moderating on the culture war while speaking to people’s economic pain and desire to improve their material conditions. Blue Rose’s polling routinely found that inflation was the top issue, and also showed that voters who were frustrated about the economy were overwhelmingly looking for a “shock to the system.” Given that Harris was seen as the candidate defending the system and Trump was the one rebelling against it, it’s not hard to see how America delivered the outcome it did. Shor believes Democrats must speak directly to Americans’ economic discontent to have a chance in swing or even red states where they’ll need to be competitive to win back the Senate—and make gains in other downballot offices—anytime soon. 7. Ideology matters—and voters perceived Democrats as too liberal. Flowing from some points above, this chart is worth highlighting: Since at least 2016—and likely stemming back to Obama’s campaigns as well—the presidential candidate whom voters perceived to be ideologically closer to the median voter has won every time. Last year, it was Trump. Many Democrats will surely protest this characterization of Trump, but it’s important to consider that there is a difference between being reactionary and being ideologically conservative. Trump—at least the candidate—eschewed Republican orthodoxy on everything from gay marriage to abortion to entitlement programs, which clearly gave some swing voters an opening to support him. His willingness to use and abuse the levers of government to his own benefit is anathema to principled conservatism. The takeaway here builds on the above idea that Democrats would likely benefit from moderating on cultural-war issues, especially if they want to be competitive at the national level in a center-right country. Editor’s note: A version of this piece first appeared in the author’s personal Substack.

Donald Trump announces tariffs that could raise the price of almost everything you buy The plan would add staggering taxes to products coming into the US. https://www.theverge.com/news/642240/trump-tariffs-imports-apple-manufacturing At an event in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, Donald Trump unveiled a new set of planned tariffs that are being described as “short-sighted,” and having “no basis in logic,” and being compared to Great Depression-era policies. Holding a giant poster board blowing in the wind, Trump announced staggering new taxes on products coming into the US from abroad. Among the 60 countries listed, tariff rates ranged anywhere from 10 percent to nearly 50 percent: 34 percent for China, 46 percent for Vietnam, 20 percent for the EU, and 49 percent for Cambodia, among others. The US is the world’s biggest importer, bringing in trillions of dollars of goods every year. Relatively little is produced in the US, and the eye-watering taxes will impact supply chains across industries: tech products and gadgets, clothing, food, automobiles, and more. Seeing souring relations between the US and China, some companies have worked to diversify supply chains by moving manufacturing to other countries — Apple, for example, was producing billions of dollars worth of iPhones in India last fall to move away from China. Under Trump’s new plan, Indian imports would get slapped with 26 percent tariffs. The President did not explain how the rates were calculated, but if implemented the steep taxes will like make costs for retailers — and by extension, consumers — skyrocket. The Trump administration has regularly lied about who pays for tariffs, claiming that the exporting nation foots the bill. That’s not how tariffs work, no matter how many times Trump claims otherwise. The New York Times reports that the figures on the chart include a 10 percent “baseline” tariff, meaning the additional hike on Chinese products is 24 percent, plus 10 percent. Temu, Shein, and Amazon Haul are about to get wrecked After the event, Trump also signed an executive order closing the de minimis exemption, a little-known carve out that allows packages valued under $800 to enter the US duty free. Ultra cheap retailers like Shein, Temu, and Amazon Haul use the rule as a loophole to keep prices low, and buyers don’t have to pay any taxes that would otherwise apply to their purchases. By ending the exemption, Trump could destabilize the business model that has hooked Americans looking for a deal on China-reliant online retailers. The massive taxes on imports are reportedly in addition to existing tariffs the Trump administration has levied on imports. He’s also separately added taxes to vehicles and imports from top US trading partners like Canada and Mexico.

Chelsea vs Tottenham Hotspur: Head coaches, players, aims, fears and predictions discussed https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6247106/2025/04/03/Chelsea-tottenham-hotspur-discussion/ Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur face off tonight for the second time this Premier League season. It is one of the standout games from this round of top-flight fixtures, given it is another edition of one of the most vociferous rivalries in the English game. And both sides have plenty to play for at Stamford Bridge, whether to achieve their goals this season or just for the sake of pride. Here, The Athletic’s Chelsea correspondent Liam Twomey and Tottenham Hotspur correspondent Jay Harris discuss the upcoming match. What has changed since the last time the teams met in early December? Liam Twomey: Chelsea’s impressive 4-3 comeback win over Tottenham on December 8 moved them to within four points of Premier League leaders Liverpool, sparking a lively debate about their burgeoning title credentials. Enzo Maresca was notably keen to stress his young team was not ready to battle for top spot, and events in the four months since have proven him grimly correct. If the Premier League had begun on December 9, Chelsea would be 14th. They have won just five of 14 league matches since beating Spurs, garnering 18 points — only four more than Ange Postecoglou’s team. They also have a slightly negative goal difference over that span (18 scored, 19 conceded), which underlines the attacking problems that have undermined them. Injuries to Nicolas Jackson and Noni Madueke have removed two of the most dangerous receivers of incisive passes from talisman Cole Palmer. Palmer has also seen his own goal production dry up completely since scoring in back-to-back Premier League games against Crystal Palace and Bournemouth in January. Chelsea are still fourth (at the time of this conversation), just about on track for Champions League qualification, with key players including Jackson and Madueke nearing returns. But they urgently need a lift to re-establish some positive momentum for a challenging run-in, and beating Spurs again would do just that. Chelsea celebrate after their win over Spurs in December (Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images) Jay Harris: Tottenham were sent into a downward spiral after losing at home to Chelsea for the second season in a row. Postecoglou’s first-choice centre-back partnership Cristian Romero and Micky van de Ven returned from injury in that chaotic game on December 8 but suffered setbacks and have only started together once since then. Spurs won their next game against Southampton but then went on a seven-game winless run which included damaging defeats by Everton and Leicester City. They reached the semi-finals of the Carabao Cup but were thrashed by Liverpool at Anfield in the second leg. Postecoglou has had to juggle a threadbare squad and has been forced to name lots of academy players on the bench. Just when it seemed like the situation was improving with the return of Wilson Odobert, Dominic Solanke and Destiny Udogie, Kevin Danso and Dejan Kulusevski picked up injuries. Tottenham are low on confidence and there is serious doubt over Postecoglou’s long-term future. The only spark of optimism is the possibility of winning the Europa League. There’s discontent at both clubs currently, but which one is having the better season? Twomey: For all of the problems Chelsea are dealing with, no one at Stamford Bridge or Cobham would swap places with Tottenham. Maresca’s team is depleted and clearly flawed, but remains well positioned to earn a return to the Champions League in 2025-26 — by some distance the most important objective for this season. The return in the domestic cups has been disappointing given Chelsea’s history, and Maresca provoked the ire of many fans after a limp FA Cup exit away at Brighton & Hove Albion last month by citing as a “positive” the fact that his players could focus fully on the Premier League and Conference League. But there is still a very good chance that the Italian will end his first season as head coach with a trophy; Chelsea are overwhelming favourites to win the UEFA Conference League and as long as that success goes hand-in-hand with Champions League qualification, 2024-25 will go down as an unequivocal step forward. Harris: Despite losing three of their last five league games, Chelsea are fourth in the table (at the time of this conversation) and have a good chance of qualifying for the Champions League. Spurs have lost over half of their top-flight matches this season and are only above Everton on goal difference but none of the supporters will care if they win the Europa League. However, if Postecoglou fails to deliver success in that competition then this will go down as potentially the worst season in Spurs’ modern history. Tottenham’s chairman Daniel Levy summed it up best, in a statement accompanying their annual financial results, by describing it as a “highly challenging season”. How do both sets of fans feel about the head coach? Twomey: Maresca’s approval rating among supporters has plummeted alongside Chelsea’s form since early December. Part of it is results and part of it is performances; a view has taken hold within a large swathe of the fanbase, reinforced by some of the Italian’s public comments, that the team’s early form in 2024-25 was powered by the chaotic, transitional muscle memory forged during Mauricio Pochettino’s brief tenure and that the more the slower, possession-focused principles of Marescaball have taken hold, the more predictable and less effective Chelsea have become. That theory does not make much allowance for how the loss of several key players to injury (not just Jackson and Madueke but also Romeo Lavia and Wesley Fofana) have upended the balance that Maresca was attempting to establish — but the fact that so few are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt is indicative of broader disillusionment with the club’s direction. The act of criticising Maresca has become a more convenient shorthand for expressing opposition to the overall strategy deployed by majority owners Clearlake Capital. Harris: It feels like the tide is beginning to turn with Postecoglou. The majority of the fanbase backed the Australian throughout a miserable winter when Spurs were ravaged by injuries but performances have not improved since key players have returned and difficult questions are being asked. Spurs were not thrilling at the beginning of the campaign when they had a healthy squad and it is not unreasonable to ask if the injury crisis became a convenient excuse for a team which was already declining. It feels like the tide is turning on Postecoglou (Alex Davidson/Getty Images) And what about the players? Twomey: Many supporters recognise that Chelsea’s unprecedented transfer spending under Clearlake and Todd Boehly has assembled a very talented core of young players, led by the consistently excellent Moises Caicedo and the peerless Palmer, adored at Stamford Bridge. Marc Cucurella is also emerging as something of a cult hero, for his personality and his play. But many others have so far failed to convince a majority of fans, and on Chelsea’s bad days — which have outnumbered the good ones in the last four months — the shortcomings of this team and the holes in this squad are glaring, particularly in both boxes. Robert Sanchez lost the trust of Stamford Bridge to be the team’s starting goalkeeper long ago and has been booed and jeered at times. Jackson is respected for his work ethic and all-round contribution but his erratic finishing is a source of deep frustration, made even more fraught by the lack of credible No 9 alternatives available to Maresca. Harris: There is a core group of players that Spurs should build around for the next five years which includes Solanke, Archie Gray, Lucas Bergvall, Djed Spence, Micky van de Ven, Guglielmo Vicario and a few others. This summer feels like the right time to sell underperforming or injury-prone players who have been given multiple chances including Yves Bissouma and Richarlison. Romero is the vice-captain but he has two years left on his contract and has been linked with a move to Atletico Madrid. Would it be worth cashing in on the World Cup winner whose availability record has been patchy for Spurs anyways? Tottenham triggered a one-year contract extension in Son Heung-min’s contract but his long-term future needs to be resolved too. If you could take one thing from the other club, what would it be? Twomey: Tottenham’s stadium! Chelsea Pitch Owners would never sign off on relocating to north London but within Chelsea there is plenty of grudging admiration for Daniel Levy’s success in delivering what some regard as the finest, most modern club arena in Europe. Stamford Bridge is an iconic home boasting 120 years of history, but the question of what to do about its limited capacity is the defining one hanging over Chelsea’s future. Whether it be on the same site or at Earls Court, they need their own version of Tottenham Hotspur Stadium sooner rather than later. Harris: Tottenham would love to have Chelsea’s strength in depth and the ability to completely change their starting XI for different competitions. You could make a strong argument that Spurs’ failure to replace fringe players who left last summer, including Oliver Skipp, Pierre-Emile Hojbjerg and Emerson Royal, contributed to their injury crisis over winter. Key players were barely afforded any rest until their bodies broke down. If I had to pick a particular player, then I would go for Caicedo. He would offer the defence the protection it desperately craves and could nurture Gray in the No 6 role. What worries you about the other team ahead of the game? Twomey: Tottenham’s league position means they will come to Stamford Bridge with very little to lose, and some of their best wins under Postecoglou have come away from home. Harris: Jackson, Madueke and Palmer being reunited sounds like a recipe for disaster for Spurs. Jackson could return for Chelsea (Carl Recine/Getty Images) And what should the other team be worried about? Twomey: Chelsea showed in the December meeting that they are not cowed by Spurs in the manner they sometimes give the impression of being by other ‘Big Six’ opponents. Maresca also has plenty of attackers (as long as they are fit) who can exploit Postecoglou’s high line. Harris: Tottenham have demonstrated on multiple occasions this season that they can turn up and win important games. They have beaten Manchester City twice, Manchester United three times and earned an impressive 1-0 Carabao Cup victory over Liverpool in January. When everything falls into the right place, Spurs can still cause opponents a lot of problems. What’s a realistic aim now for the rest of the season? Twomey: Chelsea have one of the tougher Premier League run-ins on paper, but finishing well enough to secure Champions League qualification is well within the capabilities of this group. It would also be a huge shock and disappointment if they do not win the Conference League. Harris: Tottenham have lost half of their games in the top flight this season and Postecoglou needs to change that alarming statistic. The main goal though is to lift the Europa League trophy in Bilbao on May 21. Anything less and the chances of Postecoglou sticking around for next season will be slim. How big is Thursday night’s game relative to the usual clashes between these teams? Twomey: We are nowhere near the stakes of the infamous Battle of the Bridge, and Tottenham’s lowly league position means only one of these teams can meaningfully affect their Premier League destiny. But this is a big game for Chelsea and perhaps even more so for Maresca, who needs to boost his popularity with supporters. Few things go further towards achieving that end than beating Spurs. Harris: It is not on the same scale as December’s match when both teams were directly competing with each other towards the top of the table. Tottenham need to win on Thursday to give themselves a confidence boost ahead of the first leg of their Europa League quarter-final against Eintracht Frankfurt next week. What’s your prediction? Twomey: Expect a feisty London derby with shades of real animosity, particularly after the way Chelsea humiliated Spurs in December. As long as Maresca’s team have Jackson back and bring the appropriate level of intensity, they should have enough quality to squeeze out a win. Harris: It will be another erratic encounter where Chelsea look to exploit the space behind Tottenham’s back four through their rapid wingers Madueke and Pedro Neto. If Tottenham are at full strength with Kulusevski and Van de Ven both available, then I can see them coming away with a positive result.

Chelsea’s Palmer, Jackson, Madueke all fit to face Tottenham – Maresca https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6249198/2025/04/02/palmer-jackson-madueke-Chelsea-injury-update/ Chelsea’s Cole Palmer, Nicolas Jackson and Noni Madueke are all fit to play against Tottenham Hotspur at Stamford Bridge on Thursday, head coach Enzo Maresca has said. Chelsea have been without Jackson since February 3 and Madueke since February 14 due to injuries, while Palmer withdrew from England duty over the March international break in order to manage a hamstring problem. But in a press conference at Cobham on Wednesday, Maresca revealed that the 17-day break since Chelsea’s most recent match against Arsenal on March 16 has been sufficient for all three to recover. “Cole is back, he is okay,” Maresca said. “Noni is better. Nico is better. They are all good. “It’s very good. We said many times it’s a game for players and when they are not there for different reasons… it’s exactly what happened with us. We had five, six unbelievable months then six, seven injuries in a row. It’s good to finish (the season) with all of them.” One player Chelsea will be without against Spurs is Romeo Lavia, who made his return from a two-month injury layoff as a late substitute against Arsenal but has since suffered a setback. “He was doing better in terms of progress but unfortunately one day, two days ago he had again a small problem,” Maresca added. “We’re going to see in the next hours.”

satire............... Denmark Offers to Buy Michigan, Citing "Strategic Clog Manufacturing Potential" COPENHAGEN – In an unexpected diplomatic twist, the Danish government has made a formal offer to purchase the U.S. state of Michigan, citing its "enormous strategic value" and "world-class wooden clog production capacity." The move comes in direct response to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s infamous 2019 proposal to buy Greenland, a Danish territory. “We believe Michigan is an underappreciated gem,” Danish Prime Minister Lars Frederiksen announced in a press conference. “It has pristine lakes, friendly people, and an impressive history of manufacturing and wooden clog craftsmanship. In many ways, it is the Greenland of the Midwest.” A Generous Offer The offer, rumoured to be in the range of 250 billion Danish kroner (about $37 billion USD), includes incentives such as lifetime supplies of premium Danish pastries for Michigan residents and exclusive discounts on LEGO sets. “We want Michiganders to feel at home in Denmark,” Frederiksen said, “so we will also implement a government-backed ‘Hygge Initiative,’ ensuring every household gets a complimentary fireplace and wool blankets.” The American Response The U.S. government has yet to formally respond, but early reports indicate mixed reactions. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer released a brief statement saying, “While we appreciate Denmark’s interest, Michigan is not for sale—no matter how many cinnamon buns they throw in.” Meanwhile, several Michigan residents were reportedly intrigued by the idea, particularly when they heard rumors that Denmark’s social welfare programs might extend to new Danish territories. “Free healthcare and more bicycles? That doesn’t sound so bad,” said one Grand Rapids resident. Geopolitical Ramifications International experts are debating the potential consequences of such a purchase. Some analysts suggest that if Denmark acquires Michigan, Sweden might counter with a bid for Minnesota, escalating tensions in the region. “The Upper Midwest is up for grabs, folks,” said one political commentator. “At this rate, Norway might stake a claim to Wisconsin by year’s end.” What’s Next? Denmark has reportedly sent an official delegation to Holland, Michigan, to discuss terms, including how the state’s clog production could be ramped up for export to Dutch tourist markets. Negotiations may also include whether the Michigan Wolverines would have to rebrand as the “Danish Vikings.” Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, when asked about the proposal, responded, “If they want Michigan that badly, they can have it.” Negotiations are ongoing.

Trump's tariffs list is missing one big country: Russia https://www.axios.com/2025/04/02/trump-tariffs-russia-ukraine-ceasefire Trump and Putin in 2018. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty President Trump unveiled tariffs of at least 10% Wednesday on virtually the entire world, with one notable exception: Russia. The intrigue: Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Axios Wednesday that Russia was left off because U.S. sanctions already "preclude any meaningful trade." However, the U.S. still trades more with Russia than with countries like Mauritius or Brunei that did make Trump's tariffs list. Even remote island territories like Tokelau (pop. 1,500) in the South Pacific and Svalbard (pop. 2,500) in the Arctic Circle — territories of New Zealand and Norway, respectively —were listed for tariffs. However, Leavitt noted that Cuba, Belarus and North Korea were also not included because existing tariffs and sanctions on them are already so high. Breaking it down: The value of U.S.-Russia trade plummeted from around $35 billion in 2021 to $3.5 billion as of last year due to sanctions imposed over Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Russia has asked Trump to lift some of those sanctions as part of the U.S.-mediated ceasefire talks, which have largely stalled. Trump threatened Russia with secondary tariffs on oil earlier this week. He also said he was "pissed off" at Russian leader Vladimir Putin over his recent comments about Ukraine. Leavitt noted that Russia could still face "additional strong sanctions." Worth noting: The other two major economies excluded from Trump's otherwise exhaustive list were Canada and Mexico. Leavitt confirmed that was because Trump already imposed 25% tariffs on both. Go deeper: Putin's envoy to visit Washington for talks on Ukraine

Thanks to Wisconsin, the Republicans Are Shitting Themselves

satire https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/democratic-candidates-beg-musk-to WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—A mad scramble erupted on Wednesday as hundreds of Democratic candidates across the nation begged Elon Musk to visit their states. Democrats who previously thought their electoral prospects were dim pleaded with the South African businessman for a miracle that only his noxious presence can deliver. Additionally, they implored Musk to don stereotypical regional headwear during his visit in the hopes of striking the most off-putting note possible. “No one guarantees a Democratic victory like Elon Musk,” one party strategist said. “He fell apart in Wisconsin like a human Cybertruck.”

I follow MLB a bit, the only US sports league I follow, as it is unique and for me, pretty interesting Boehly came in as part owner in midseason 2012 West Division titles (they have won their division every season since, except for the crazy 2021 season, see below) 2013 92-70 2014 94-68 2015 92-70 2016 91-71 2017 104-58 2018 92-71 2019 106-56 2020 (Covid season, they went 43-17 and were tracking (algorithmically, based off their schedule versus results against other teams that season) to the most wins ever (120) for one season in baseball history, although the 1906 Chicago Cubs won 116 in a 152 game season, 10 fewer games played than now) 2021 2nd place 106- 56 (this was a freak season, as they had the most ever wins (106) of any MLB team that failed to win its division or league, surpassing the 104 wins of the 1909 Chicago Cubs and 1942 Brooklyn Dodgers. The San Francisco Giants won 107 games that season, the only time they won over 100 games in the past 22 seasons, although the Giants did win the World Series in 3 out of 5 seasons from 2010 to 2014, they won it in 2010, 2012, and 2014.) 2022 111-51 2023 100-62 2024 98-64 (if you make 2020 a full season and they had 'only' won 100 games (absolute lock they were tracking to 120), the 8 seasons 2017-2024 were the most wins ever by any team in history over an 8 season span, 817, and 837 (an insane average of almost 105 wins per year (104.625) over 8 years if they had won the projected 120 in 2020) NL Pennants 2017 (lost the World Series to the Houston Astros 4-3) this was tainted as the Astros were later proven to be cheating by stealing signals, but MLB refused to take the title away from the Astros, see below) 2018 (lost the World Series 4 games to 1 to the superb Boston Red Sox side who won 108 games in the regular season that year, the most wins ever for Boston in a single season) 2020 2024 World Series titles 2020 (4-2 over the Tampa Bay Rays) 2024 (4-1 over the NY Yankees)

wooooosh

Mike Pence on the Trump tax

Emery superb manager proven winner would take him in a heartbeat Honours Sevilla UEFA Europa League: 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16 Paris Saint-Germain Ligue 1: 2017–18 Coupe de France: 2016–17, 2017–18 Coupe de la Ligue: 2016–17, 2017–18 Trophée des Champions: 2016, 2017 Villarreal UEFA Europa League: 2020–21

The LA Dodgers now have 8 wins versus no losses best start ever in baseball history for a defending champion

🤬 Chelsea: Romeo Lavia injury woes continue after new setback https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/Chelsea-fc-lavia-injury-new-b1220270.html

Mourinho "physically attacks" opposition manager https://thedailybriefing.io/i/160453707/fenerbahce Another bizarre moment in Jose Mourinho’s career as he grabbed the nose of opposition manager Okan Buruk after last night’s defeat for Fenerbahce! How much trouble could the Special One be in for this? FT Fenerbahce 1-2 Galatasaray [Pictures from Canli] Buruk later said: “He pinched my nose from behind. There was a slight scratch. Of course, it wasn’t a very nice or elegant thing to do. We expect managers to behave more appropriately in such situations. I won’t exaggerate this issue, but it wasn't a classy move.” Galatasaray vice-president Metin Ozturk added: “Our manager Okan and Mourinho congratulated the referees. After that, while Okan was continuing, Mourinho first verbally and then physically attacked him. Where else in the world can he do this? What does he think of Turkey? I believe that Fenerbahce’s management will impose the necessary sanction before the federation does.”

MARNI x HOKA https://www.marni.com/en-us/marni-hoka.html Marni’s bold, maximalist design meets HOKA’s unparalleled performance expertise in the exclusive co-designed BONDI B3LS sneakers. Available in four distinct shades—Poinciana (red), Bracken (charcoal), Tourmaline (blue), and Straw (beige)—this collaboration is a reflection of the shared spirit of creativity and functionality that defines both brands. Elevating the original B3LS silhouette, the MARNI x HOKA edition features a highly responsive rubber sole, cushioned EVA insoles, and a subtly rubberized, lightly padded polyester upper for enhanced comfort and durability. The design is completed with three sets of laces: a monochrome flat pair, a rope tone-on-tone pair and a wider, multicolored option for a bold, contrasting look.

Nike SB Dunk Low x Yuto Matcha https://www.nike.com/launch/t/hf8022-300-nike-sb-dunk-low-pro-yh-na-only Yuto Horigome's second Dunk has officially arrived. The prolific Japanese skateboarder is known for composing strong lines and landing big tricks in big moments. His quiet determination and effortless flow make his skate game a pleasure to watch. For this edition, the upper balances a mix of Light Khaki suede with Asparagus and Legion Green leather overlays. Slight speckling on the Asparagus panels adds to the shoe's overall earthy aesthetic. Yuto included his family crest on the lateral heel as a nod to his family and Japanese heritage. For the fellow riders in the room, this Dunk Low comes equipped with plush padding and a heel Air Zoom unit for cushioned comfort during hard charges and heavy landings. Lace up and skate like Yuto—or, at least try. SKU: HF8022-300

goal stands Asensio again