Trump Flirts With New Tariffs in Major Whiplash

Donald Trump’s tariffs plan has caused a lot of confusion with his repeated reversals, carve-outs, and threats to raise them. So, in an interview that aired Friday, Fox Business’s Maria Baritromo asked the president to clear things up.

“Can you give us a sense of whether or not we are going to get clarity for the business community?” Baritromo asked the president, noting that business leaders need predictability for planning purposes.

Trump’s answer was anything but reassuring.

“Well, I think so. But you know, the tariffs could go up as time goes by, and they may go up, and you know, I don’t know if it’s predictability—” Trump meandered before Baritromo cut him off.

“So that’s not clarity,” Baritromo said. Trump responded by casting doubt on the business leaders and whether they actually want predictability.

“You know I think that they say that. You know it sounds good to say. But, for years, the globalists, the big globalists, have been ripping off the United States, they’ve been taking money away from the United States, and all we’re doing is getting some of it back,” Trump said.

When Trump instituted his tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and China on Tuesday, the stock market plummeted, with leaders in U.S. industries ranging from automobiles to agriculture expressing fears about how they would be affected. On Wednesday, Trump announced a carve-out for U.S. automakers, and on Thursday announced Mexico and Canada would not pay tariffs on products that comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, until April 2.

The real goal of the tariffs against Canada, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt admitted Wednesday, is to decimate the country’s economy to force it to become the U.S. fifty-first state. Such an effort would further cause extreme economic confusion and ruin, and if Trump is serious, this tariff fight won’t end anytime soon.

Amid a flurry of lawsuits against his administration, Trump is trying to make it a whole lot harder to sue him.

According to a memo sent to agency heads on Thursday, the White House is encouraging the use of a rarely used rule that would force anyone who sues the federal government to pay an upfront fee.

“It is the policy of the United States to demand that parties seeking injunctions against the Federal Government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained,” the memo obtained by CNN reads.

More than 100 lawsuits have been filed against the president since he took office in January. The cases range from challenging his immigration policies and funding cuts, to disputes against the Department of Government Efficiency’s attack on federal agencies. Many of the cases have been successful early on, and they are all ongoing.

In the memo, the White House framed the cases as a waste of “substantial resources to fighting frivolous suits instead of defending public safety.”

“Taxpayers are forced not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined, but must needlessly wait for Government policies they voted for,” the memo reads.

The rule the White House is attempting to invoke is rarely used in the courts, and the financial barrier could prevent individuals, organizations, unions, and agencies from taking action against the president.

It’s unclear exactly who would decide how much the plaintiff would have to pay, but the Justice Department would probably ask judges to set the amount, legal expert Mark Zaid told CNN.

That means the fee could be as little as $1, and as high as … who knows? It’s yet another sly move from Trump to dodge accountability for his relentless attack on the Constitution.

The president has decided to throw some weight behind one of his closest advisers when it comes to dealing with South Africa.

Despite tariff-induced tumult at home, Donald Trump took the time Friday morning to lambast South Africa for how it treats its farmers, threatening aggressive foreign policy toward the continent’s strongest economy by announcing that the United States would stop all federal funding to the African nation.

“South Africa is being terrible, plus, to long time Farmers in the country,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “They are confiscating their LAND and FARMS, and MUCH WORSE THAN THAT. A bad place to be right now, and we are stopping all Federal Funding. To go a step further, any Farmer (with family!) from South Africa, seeking to flee that country for reasons of safety, will be invited into the United States of America with a rapid pathway to Citizenship. This process will begin immediately!”

The missive came hand in hand with a complaint from Elon Musk, who whined on X mere hours before that South Africa would not allow his international internet project to get off the ground, due to a lack of diversity at the billionaire’s company.

“Starlink is not allowed to operate in South Africa, because I’m not black,” Musk posted on X Friday morning.

But that wasn’t exactly an accurate reflection of why Musk’s home country has refused to approve SpaceX’s Starlink service.

The South African government’s Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment policy stipulates that all companies that do business in the nation must have at least 30 percent of their ownership or economic involvement owned by Black South Africans.

The mandate is a part of the country’s efforts to correct inequalities left in the wake of apartheid, striving to “advance economic transformation and enhance the economic participation of black people in the South African economy,” per the South African Department of Trade, Industry, and Competition.

Musk has practically made the notion of diversity his enemy as he works—via the Department of Government Efficiency—to strip and defund federal agencies whose missions make mention of inclusivity efforts.

“DEI is just another word for racism,” Musk wrote in January. “Shame on anyone who uses it.”

The world’s richest man’s affinity for Nazi salutes have also called into question his racial ideology, especially as a descendant of Nazi sympathizers. That is according to his father, Errol Musk, who told the Podcast and Chill Network in November that the billionaire’s maternal grandparents supported Adolf Hitler and were members of the German Nazi Party in Canada before moving to South Africa in support of apartheid.

Pete Hegseth’s Department of Defense has marked an image of the USAAF B29 bomber that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima for deletion—and its reason may be the perfect illustration of why right now really isn’t a good time to be closing the Department of Education.

That historical image was among 26,000 that were marked for deletion as part of the  DOD’s rushed efforts to weed out any traces of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion by Wednesday, according to the Associated Press. The photograph was marked for removal because it prominently features the name of the aircraft: Enola Gay, named for the pilot Colonel Paul Tibbetts’s mother. 

The Associated Press published a database Thursday of thousands of images marked for deletion. While some of the photographs were still visible Thursday, it’s not clear if they will remain so. One official told the AP that close to 100,000 files could be deleted as part of the Pentagon’s latest purge. 

It’s not surprising that the sweep for DEI has consequently targeted the records and achievements of women and minorities in the military, removing mentions of Women’s History Month and Black History Month. One collection of images titled “Women’s History Month: All-female crew supports warfighters” saw its main page removed, though one photograph of an all-female C-17 crew remained. Another photograph titled “Engineering pioneer remembered during Black History Month” was deleted, as well. 

Other photographs swept up in the purge included those of service members with the last name Gay, war heroes such as Marine Corps World War II Medal of Honor recipient Private First Class Harold Gonsalves, and a photograph of a group of Army Corps biologists, who appeared to have earned their spot on the chopping block because they were collecting data about fish including, among other things, their gender.

Online, people weren’t at all impressed by the Pentagon’s thoughtless CTRL-F style of searching for woke.

Former Pentagon spokesperson Chris Meagher called the report “bonkers” in a post on X Thursday. 

Rick Pearson, a political reporter for the Chicago Tribune, called the Pentagon’s purge “complete lunacy and literally an attempt to whitewash history” in a post on X.

“Republicans spent years complaining about cancel culture and then took office and banned photos of the Enola Gay because it has the word gay in it,” posted Skyler Johnson, a candidate for New York State Senate. 

“These fuckers are bigots and fucking idiots too,” wrote Army veteran Fred Wellman, who hosts the podcast On Democracy. 

“What a piece of shit you are @SecDef,” he added in a second post. 

The president’s ruthless back-and-forth on enforcing sweeping tariffs against Canada and Mexico is starting to frustrate his MAGA allies.

Last month, Trump announced he would impose a 25 percent tariff on goods from America’s closest neighbors. Two days later, he backtracked, giving Canada and Mexico a one-month delay. On March 4, the tariffs went into effect, sparking retaliatory tariffs from Canada, as well as outcry from America’s Big Three automakers.

Two days later, Trump directed another one-month pause for goods that met his 2020 trade deal, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which a White House official told CNBC covered roughly 50 percent of Mexican imports and 38 percent of Canadian imports. And then, in an interview that aired Friday, Trump said the tariffs could go higher than 25 percent.

As a result, the last week saw drastic market fluctuations, with the stock market tumbling as the tariffs went into effect. The Dow dropped 670 points, and by the end of the week, Republican lawmakers were fed up.

“Almost every industry in Kentucky has come to me and said, ‘It will hurt our industry and push up prices of homes, cars,’ and so, I’m gonna continue to argue against tariffs,” Senator Rand Paul told CNN on Thursday.

Senator Thom Tillis agreed that the administration should back off the tariffs if they were hurting constituents.

“When we start losing, you back off. There’s such a thing as strategic retreat,” Tillis told the network. “At the end of the day, I think we have more leverage than any other nation. But we gotta be smart. And we don’t have all the leverage.”

Louisiana Senator John Kennedy told Fox Business he was “worried” about the tariffs, adding that the president should “recalibrate” if the levies start to cause inflation—while insisting that he’s not doubting Trump’s leadership.

“I’m not saying that tariffs are going to cause inflation. President Trump did them in his first term and they didn’t,” Kennedy said. “I’m saying that we just don’t know. We’re in very obscure territory. We’re in uncharted waters. I think if the tariffs do start to cause inflation, I think the president will back away from them.”

Among other tariff proposals, Trump has enforced a 10 percent tariff hike on Chinese goods. That momentarily caused a panic in February for online retailers as the postal service placed a ban on Chinese packages, which it lifted days later. Casting China as a “bulwark of stability” against a backdrop of Trump-induced chaos, the Asian nation’s top diplomat Wang Yi said that China would “definitely, resolutely counter” America’s tariffs.

Donald Trump’s attempt to take over the National Labor Relations Board hit a snag from a federal judge Thursday.

Trump’s firing of Democratic board member Gwynne A. Wilcox was ruled unlawful by U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell, who ordered Wilcox’s immediate reinstatement and for her to serve out the remainder of her five-year term on the board, which began on September 6, 2023.

In her ruling, Howell wrote that the Constitution “made clear that no one in our system of government was meant to be king—the President included—and not just in name only.

“The President does not have the authority to terminate members of the National Labor Relations Board at will, and his attempt to fire plaintiff from her position on the Board was a blatant violation of the law,” Howell said.

“A president who touts an image of himself as a ‘king’ or a ‘dictator,’ perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution,” Howell added.

Wilcox filed the lawsuit last month after Trump fired her and the board’s general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, a fellow Biden appointee, leaving the board unable to function without a quorum. In a speech after the hearing Thursday, Wilcox said, “I’m ready to get back to work.”

“It’s not just about me, but I’m glad to be the face of this fight,” Wilcox said.

Trump, Elon Musk, and the rest of the right have long targeted the NLRB, and are in fact trying to get the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional and dismantle it with backing from corporations including Amazon, Starbucks, and Trader Joe’s. For now, at least, the NLRB is still around, with long legal fights ahead to save it as well as Wilcox’s position.

Just hours after he rolled back tariffs on Mexico, the president announced Canada will also not pay tariffs on any products that comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, until April 2. It’s Trump’s third flip on tariffs in 72 hours.

He signed an executive order Thursday solidifying the one-month tariff delay on products from both countries.

On Tuesday, Trump implemented 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada, a disastrous move that plummeted financial markets and prompted retaliatory actions from both U.S. trading partners.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded aggressively, immediately implementing retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods and condemning Trump’s betrayal of a longtime ally.

“Every country is very aware that if the American government is willing to do this to their own closest ally, neighbor, and friend, everyone is vulnerable to a trade war,” Trudeau said in a press conference on Tuesday, bypassing Trump and instead speaking directly to the American people.

“Your government has chosen to put American jobs at risk at the thousands of workplaces that succeed because of materials from Canada, or because of consumers in Canada, or both.”

Trump reacted to Trudeau’s address with hostility, and yet again suggested all of Canada’s problems could be solved by becoming the fifty-first American state. His dislike for Trudeau seemingly influenced his decision-making Thursday morning, when he initially retracted tariffs only on Mexico “out of respect” for Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, but not for Canada. Trump on Wednesday also granted a one-month exemption to U.S. automobile companies.

Unsurprisingly, the president has changed his mind yet again, drawing out a trade war that will have disastrous economic consequences.

Notorious Medicare thief and Republican Senator Rick Scott is the only one who wants to admit that his GOP colleagues are plotting to gut an essential health care program.

During an appearance at the Rescuing the American Dream Summit in Washington Thursday, Scott said it was only a matter of time before the government would have to cut spending to “any program you care about.”

“Because Medicare is going bankrupt, Social Security is going bankrupt. You know, inflation can’t go away, interest rates can’t come down. So, my belief is that … we’re gonna have to do this,” the Florida Republican said.

Scott knows a thing or two about bankrupting Medicare. He served as CEO of Columbia/HCA Hospital, which was fined a total of $1.7 billion in 2003 for filing false Medicare claims. At the time, it was the largest health care fraud in history, and while that particular honor has since been passed to another, Scott’s honor remains unrestored.

Scott is one of the few Republicans who doesn’t seem to be in denial about what having approved the latest budget bill to power Donald Trump’s agenda really means. The bill requires the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees Medicaid, to reduce the deficit by at least $880 billion from 2025 to 2034. Mathematically speaking, cuts that big can only come out of massive programs such as Medicaid.

Cutting the incredibly popular program will undoubtedly prove, well, unpopular, but some Republicans have another strategy: Deny, deny, deny.

Republican Representative Brandon Gill tiptoed around the issue during an interview on Fox Business Thursday, driving host Maria Bartiromo up the wall.

“Congressman, I mean, with all due respect, you haven’t given me one offset,” Bartiromo pressed. “OK? You say that you’re not gonna have one problem finding an offset, and so far all I’ve heard you talk about is Elon Musk’s fraud, waste, and abuse cuts, as well as eliminating climate change rules. Again, 76 percent of the money is going to mandatory spending. You know that better than anyone! I’ve got the numbers in front of me. You’ve got $36 trillion in debt.

“Isn’t it time to start looking at the mandatory spending, and trying to figure out how you’re actually gonna cut—I mean, I know nobody wants to say this, but you’ve got stuff like Medicaid, don’t you?” Bartiromo asked.

Gill insisted he had described areas that could be cut, but noted that, “I agree with you, we are going to have to find some rationalizations.”

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency used the U.S. Marshals to physically take over a government agency Thursday, and now that agency head is suing.

Five employees of DOGE along with deputy acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Aid, Peter Marocco, tried to enter the U.S. African Development Foundation headquarters on Wednesday, but were prevented from getting into the building by security and were forced to leave.

USADF staff told a security guard to deny access to the DOGE team and Marocco, who illegally entered the Capitol during the January 6 insurrection, and whom Trump is trying to install as the agency’s new chief. The agency’s employees cited a letter from the USADF’s current chair, Ward Brehm, which stated, “In my absence, I have specifically instructed the staff of USADF to adhere to our rules and procedure of not allowing any meetings of this type without my presence.

“I will look forward to working with Mr. Marocco after such time that he is nominated for a seat on the Board and his nomination is confirmed by the Senate,” Brehm wrote in the letter. “Until these legal requirements are met, Mr. Marocco does not hold any position or office with USADF, and he may not speak or act on the Foundation’s behalf.”

On Thursday, Marocco and DOGE staffers returned to the agency—this time, with the U.S. Marshals. They were able to enter the building, which had no staff present, according to a government source.

Hours later, Brehm filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Marocco and DOGE, which detailed how the group initially threatened to sue the security guard barring them access, and told the building’s property manager that they would bring U.S. Marshals and Secret Service agents if they weren’t allowed into the building.

“Their threats were unsuccessful” that day, the lawsuit states.

Marocco and DOGE staff were trying to carry out Trump’s February 19 executive order, in which he declared the USADF and three other agencies “unnecessary” and subject to elimination. The agency, created by Congress in 1980, supports small businesses and grassroots organizations helping marginalized people in Africa through grants. From 2019 to 2023, it funded 1,050 community enterprises serving 6.2 million people with $141 million in grants.

“Any attempt to unilaterally dismantle the USADF through executive action violates the law and exceeds the constitutional limits of executive authority,” wrote Democratic members of the House’s Foreign Affairs Committee in a letter to President Trump last month.

While DOGE eventually forced its way into the agency, its chief was able to file a lawsuit before any agency staff were fired. Will the maneuver protect the agency and force the Trump administration to close it through congressional action, or is USADF only delaying the inevitable?

California Governor Gavin Newsom shattered his reputation as an advocate for LGBTQ rights and betrayed the Democratic Party on Thursday.

In the debut episode of his new podcast, This Is Gavin Newsom, Newsom broke with his own party’s stance on trans rights and suggested that transgender athletes should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports, a spineless move from the Democrat who is likely preparing for a presidential run in 2028.

“I think it’s an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness—it’s deeply unfair,” Gavin said to his guest Charlie Kirk, a MAGA activist known for pushing Trumpism on college campuses through his organization Turning Point USA.

For decades, Newsom has been a strong supporter of LGBTQ rights, and even defied his own party by issuing same-sex marriage licenses as mayor of San Francisco in 2004, more than a decade before same-sex marriage was legal nationwide. Twenty years later, the governor is breaking with his own party yet again, this time in a weak-kneed turn to the right.

Trans athletes participating in women’s sports has long been a point of attack for Donald Trump and MAGA, and a contentious topic of debate between Democrats and Republicans. On February 5, Trump signed an executive order barring trans athletes from competing in women’s sports. The next day, the NCAA said only athletes assigned female at birth could participate in women’s competition, a heartbreaking move for trans women and nonbinary people competing in the NCAA.

In discussion with Kirk, Newsom touched on his background as a college baseball player and a father to four girls. “I revere sports, so the issue of fairness is completely legit,” Newsom said.

He went so far as to applaud the GOP for its demonization of trans people, praising Trump’s ad “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”

“I saw that—the last couple years, boy did I [see] how you guys were able to weaponize that issue at another level,” Newsom told Kirk.

Why the governor of California chose a 31-year-old MAGA bigot as his companion in a conversation on the rights of a marginalized community remains to be seen. But, according to the trailer for This Is Gavin Newsom, Kirk is just the first of many MAGA guests Newsom will cozy up to in the coming months.

“It’s time to have conversations with people that agree AND disagree with us,” the podcast’s description reads. “It’s time to answer the hard questions and be open to criticism, and debate, without demeaning or dehumanizing one another.” Unless, of course, those in question are trans people.