The president of the United States is putting his Jan 6 accomplices in charge of the Justice Department and the FBI, and clearing out any officials who would be willing to investigate the administration. It's anti-democratic, it's a coup, and it's allowing Elon and his 20-something DOGE buddies to act with impunity as they illegally access classified information and the Treasury's payment system. Meanwhile, the White House can't even get its messaging straight on the tariffs as they sabotage our relationship with allies in the process. Plus, the ethnic scapegoating continues and the Dems at the DNC go all Portlandia when they need to be fighting the aspiring authoritarians. Will Saletan and Scott Lincicome join Tim Miller. show notes Tim's interview with J.J. McCullough on Canada's retaliatory tariffs
Hello and welcome to the Bulldog Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. We've got a two-parter today. I added a bonus segment with Scott Lincecum, who's a trade expert, to talk about the tariffs that are imminent and already rollicking the stock market. But first, it's back for the old-timers, for the OGs. You might remember Will Salatin Mondays. Well, they're back right now.
Bill Kristol's on vacation. I'm here with my colleague... Will Salatin. What's up, Will?
There's no vacation from Trumpism, Tim. It's just everywhere you go.
No, he's been texting me. There's definitely no vacation for him mentally, but he does get one day off the podcast. Can I start with something positive, though? Go ahead, man. I don't know if you'll find it positive, but I'm feeling good about a couple of things this morning. All right? Tell me. Here's number one. this is a shit show. This is a total shit show. And I knew it would be a shit show.
We told everybody it would. But, you know, there was always a chance that Trump would get in there and, I don't know, decide not to do anything, right? And just kind of bleat and get people to call him sir and not actually do anything and take credit for things that were already kind of percolating positively from the Biden administration. That was one option that could have happened.
But instead... We have JVL this morning in the triad predicting a stock market crash. And all the topics we're about to go over is them messing things up. I don't know. Can we not have some pleasure in that? Knowing that they're as bad as we thought they would be?
This is where we are, that like the good is bad? Yeah, yeah, that's where we are. Tim, is it schadenfreude or is it that you think that there's something salutary about the pain that will lead to healing?
I know, I'm not about healing through pain. No, thank you for saying that. Yeah, it's partially schadenfreude. It's partially just kind of like the, you know, solace and knowing that you are correct. The solace and knowing that... We weren't leading people astray. There's something to that. There's a little bit of joy in seeing other people's pain.
But the bad people, the MAGA people, there will be some collateral damage, unfortunately. That's not what I'm happy about. But just their failures is kind of giving me a little joy. No, is that wrong?
Well, I don't know. It's a little bit of the tree falls in the forest problem. If you and I are right, objectively, that this is insane and destructive, but the Republicans keep winning elections doing it.
Yeah.
What consolation is there in that?
I don't know. Personal validation. Yeah. All that matters is solipsism. All that matters is having my own brain. Okay, I knew that you'd be on the other side of that, but I figured some of the listeners would be on my side. I'm enjoying it. There's another thing. It was related. I don't know. Ezra Klein, you might have heard of him.
He's kind of a minor columnist, and we might have him on the pod again soon. He had a piece over the weekend that said this. Trump is acting like a king because he's too weak to govern like a president. He's trying to substitute perception for reality. He's hoping that perception then becomes reality.
That can only happen if we believe him as part of a longer monologue about just like, this is not actually the actions of somebody who is going to take over the government in a gradual and effective way.
These are the actions of somebody that doesn't know what they're doing and is trying to continue the fraud that he's perpetrated on the country for a long time that covers up his fundamental political weakness. What's it to you to Ezra's positive spin? These are the last two positive items of the podcast. Just saying.
Yeah, I don't know about this. First of all, on the perception versus reality thing. Look, look, one, you know, at some point, reality only matters if it intrudes. And, you know, we went through this election where the reality was Trump was an idiot and he was going to do all this damage. And he created a perception that, I mean, you saw the polls. People believed he was a good president.
Like after COVID, after all that craziness.
Well, four years later, people have people are stupid and have short memories. But yeah, they didn't think so at the time.
If that's the perception and they keep, you know, that then the Republicans keep getting to implement the crazy policies. I will say I. I do think and I know you and Scott are going to talk about the tariffs, but it is a good thing that very early in this process, among the stupid things that he was going to do and is doing, he's doing one that's going to hurt a lot of people quickly.
And, you know, we'll make it we'll make an impact, I think, on perception. And at that point, you know, the polls start to decline and all that. And Republicans might might pay attention to that.
I don't know. Who was I talking to this about last night? Oh, I was talking to JJ McCullough. We did a YouTube video on this topic and he's Canadian. He was like, he's like, won't the Magas not care? Even if they're, I guess they're probably not even buying guacamole, whatever, you know, even if their maple syrup for their pancakes is going up and won't they just think that that's,
you know, whatever part of Trump's grand plan. And I was like, yeah, but the problem is he got a lot of votes from people that did not have those strong ties, right. That were annoyed by prices and had some, you know, annoyances about the cultural shift left of the Democrats. And maybe they cared about crime or immigration. Right. But like,
there are people that are not in the cult that were for him. And I do think that some of them are going to maybe experience the consequences of the vote, but we'll see.
I would like to believe that, but I just want to put on the table, the dark theory that I have about all of this, which is maybe, maybe Donald Trump and his MAGA party are, are really bad at governing, but really good at winning elections. I don't think so. Part of how they're really good at doing it is blaming and scapegoating. And we saw that with COVID, right? We saw like this disaster happens.
Trump grossly mismanages. It leads to many more deaths than were necessary. But he talks about the China virus. He blames everybody else. But then he lost. Well, he lost that election, but then he won the next one.
All right. Well, I don't like this roll switch. Okay. I'm the pony. I'm finding the pony. You're trying to bring me into darkness. I don't take it. Just let me have it.
Your pony is that things suck. That's not a pony.
Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's a pony for me. All right. Things are getting darker from here. So I hope everybody enjoyed that segment. Will, our colleague Bill Kristol, wasn't so much on vacation that he couldn't write a newsletter this morning. He wrote about the scandals that are currently embroiling the administration that are worse than Watergate.
He starts with the firings at the FBI for people that have not been following this. There were, I guess, six high-level FBI officials that were involved. escorted out of the building late last week. Then there were other FBI officials that were involved in the Trump administration that they were trying to have relieved of their duties.
But the acting FBI director, Brian Driscoll, actually refused to agree with that request. And in a message to staff on Saturday, he reminded FBI agents of their rights to due process and review in accordance with existing policy and law. We had a letter at the Bulwark this morning that comes from the Society of Former FBI Agents, which is not a group that is particularly political.
And they are saying that this is an obvious disruption to FBI operations, the degree to which it can't be overstated. The forced retirement of director, deputy director, and now all five executive assistant directors. They say that this extreme disruption is occurring at a time when the terrorist threat around the world has never been greater. It's putting us at great risk.
And we have basically, you know, the weekend of the long knives at the FBI. And this is coming to a head with the Kash Patel vote coming up in the Senate.
So the big picture on this to me is, you and I are like trying to have a friendly conversation about this, but this is extremely serious. And what's basically happened is that A crime boss has taken over law enforcement. He's president of the United States. He's taken over the Justice Department. And he's putting his accomplices in charge of the Justice Department, the FBI.
Bandi Patel didn't get Gates, but he's replacing all these other officials. And this is just an extension of the January 6th pardon. So the pardons were... These thugs on Trump's behalf beat up cops to try to overthrow an election. So it's anti-democratic, it's fascist, it's a coup, but it's also an attack on law enforcement by criminals.
The guy who sent them there then becomes president and he pardons all of the thugs who beat up the cops, right? And then he goes into the FBI and and starts purging anybody. So they've demanded lists of anybody at the agency and anybody in the Justice Department, I believe, like thousands of people who were involved in any of the prosecutions of the criminals who worked for Trump.
So Trump's got this paramilitary organization, he's put them back on the street, and he's now going after, purging the law enforcement officials who prosecuted them successfully in front of juries, right? They were objectively convicted. It's not clear to me how far this goes.
And just to come back to our original question, Tim, it's not clear to me at what point the American public is going to care about this. If Trump is being Mr. Law and Order against immigrants, is the public going to care that he's letting these criminals out and prosecuting the prosecutors?
Yeah, I don't really care if the public cares at this point. It's like, that's a problem for fall of 2026. I think that the substantive element here that you talked about, like at the beginning, is about how scary it is. You were smart to tie this to the pardons, and we had another story out over the weekend. I guess it's the 4th
Person that was pardoned that has had another altercation with police. This one is Dylan Harrington. He was nicknamed the MAGA Lumberjack. He was arrested for rape. He's raping a woman who is blacked out and did not consent. He had pleaded guilty to assaulting, resisting and impeding officers, was sentenced to 37 months in prison and Trump had pardoned him.
So you have that, you have the paramilitary organization, you said, you have this unlawful firing of career federal law enforcement officials, high level law enforcement officials.
We talked about this with Andrew Weissman on Friday, just about like how important it is to institutional knowledge to have these people and judgment, you know, given the most challenging cases, we've gotten rid of all those people. And then JVL tied it also to what is happening with Elon Musk, right?
Where Elon Musk is now taking over the Treasury Department, going into USAID, having his little 20-year-old Doge officials try to bully career officials, get access to classified information, get access to personal financial information. And JVL's point is like, look, if you've cleansed the law enforcement agencies of anyone who would be willing to investigate
members of the own administration, then members of your own administration can act with impunity and can commit illegal actions, which Elon Musk is doing. Right. So all of this is an attack on the rule of law.
Now, in the context of violent crime, Trump's pose and the Republican pose is they're the party of law and order. They stand for the cops. They back the blue against the criminals. Now, we've established that's not true because of the January 6th pardons, the purge of the FBI. What's actually going on is Trump's and the Republican Party's distinction is between foreign and domestic, right?
We're against foreign lawbreakers. We're against people who entered this country illegally. We're against someone who steals a tube of toothpaste who came from overseas. But domestically, we're happy to pardon the people who committed violent crimes. Let me take this over to your point about Doge, though. So here we have a private organization. So you probably know this better than I do, Tim.
Doge's legal status, right? They're not a government department, right? None of this is authorized by Congress. This is one guy, Donald Trump, having won one election, basically usurping power, right? They're taking over. Congress appropriates, Congress establishes programs. The executive decides, no, you know what? I don't care what the Article Two branch, Article One branch did.
I'm gonna usurp this. I'm gonna end this program, cut off these funds. Not only am I gonna do it, I'm the elected guy. I'm gonna give my buddy, who's not even a government official, right, access. These people coming in from Musk, what authorization do they have? So Trump's basic position is,
Never mind all of the rules that were established about who has the right to have access to these payment systems, who established these programs. I won this one election and therefore anybody I choose, I can send in to run the government. So it's kind of democracy because he got elected, but it's illiberal democracy and it's anti-rule of law democracy.
It is authoritarianism with one election behind it.
Yeah, I mean, here's just one example of what was happening with USAID. This is from CNN. Officials with Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency sparked a tense clash with USAID administrators over the weekend by demanding access to its physical headquarters and digital systems, threatening to call security when the agency refused.
The incident led to two more senior USAID security officials being placed on leave, and Doge ultimately succeeded in getting classified information. I mean, like that is... That is Hungary. We're doing this thing where it's like we're having these conversations where it's like, are they on the path to Hungary? Are we on the path to Russia? What are they going to try to do?
How much of this is just PR? How much of this is whatever, Trump bleeding, illiberal things? This is unelected people that I assume don't have security clearances or background checks yet because they're just random officials with Doge going in and bullying existing high-level national security officials with clearances to get classified information.
And then, obviously, the next step of this is to then shut down USAID, which is coming, which reports say are coming. USAID signs were taken down from the Reagan building. They're going to put it under Secretary of State, I guess. That's blatantly not legal. It is thug autocracy. That's what that is.
Wait, can I pull on your thread there a minute about Hungary? Yeah. Because there's a direct connection here with USAID, right? The Orban regime and the Putin regime hate USAID and they've like spoken out against it and they don't like this whole, you know, what are you guys doing promoting civil society and other, you know, you're interfering in our internal affairs.
So undermining USAID in particular on Trump's part is part and parcel of his, you know, de facto alliance with the authoritarians of the world, right? Here's this annoying agency.
Yeah, throw China in there too, obviously.
Yeah, right, right. There's an absolutely direct connection. I mean, USAID basically does, you know, good things liberals like. The whole idea of international development is like something. Trump's isolationism, America first, a lot of it is we're tired of being the good guys. We're tired of like giving things to other people. We're tired of helping other people.
We're just going to focus on helping ourselves. And while we're at it, we're going to dismantle this agency that annoys our authoritarian friends.
Well, go ahead and continue down that path, because you said you wanted to talk about the geopolitics of the trade wars. And obviously, we'll get into this more with Scott, but that all ties together, right?
I mean, this is an effort to completely isolate America from our allies, from having influence in parts of the world where there's competition for influence with the more authoritarian regimes, right? And the trade war is directly connected to shutting down USAID in that sense. And it's also directly connected to the coming threats to NATO that we're going to be seeing in the coming months.
Yeah, absolutely. So let me just sort of sketch. I know you and Scott are going to do the economics of this. Just want to do the geopolitics at this. There's the NATO threatening to pull out of NATO, which is, you know, I'm abandoning Article 5. I won't defend you. There's the EU. Trump just said twice in the last like three days. He said, am I going to impose tariffs on the European Union?
Absolutely. He said that twice. They also are threatening, of course, Panama and Greenland. Trump said twice in the last two days, we're going to take it back, referring to the Panama Canal. We're going to take it back, okay? Greenland, lots of threats to Greenland. We're picking a war with Denmark, of all things. J.D.
Vance was on TV on Sunday saying that we're going to take more of a territorial interest in Greenland, a territorial interest. Basically, what we have is America first, Trump, Vance means that we are going to target all of our enemies. We're going to pick fights with all of our enemies. Remember, Trump said his whole shtick during the campaign was the other side Democrats are warmongers.
There were no wars. He said at every campaign stop. I never started a war. He's starting a war with our allies. It's an economic war in which you, Mr. and Mrs. America, are the soldiers because you're going to pay at the grocery store and you're going to pay when you buy appliances and cars. He's starting wars for no reason. He chose these wars.
Another news item I really want to spend some time on is a gentleman by the name of Darren Beatty. I don't know which one it is. It doesn't really matter. He's the new acting Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy. I want to go through the hit list here on Beatty, and then we'll kind of tie it back to the point you're making. Beatty loves to tell people to take a knee.
I want to see if you can notice any trend here. Well... Here's our new acting Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Tim Scott needs to learn his place and take a knee to MAGA. Black Lives Matter must take a knee to MAGA. Ibram Kendi must take a knee to MAGA. Kay Coles-James of Heritage Foundation needs to learn her natural place and take a knee to MAGA.
Any guess on the race of Kay Coles-James, Will? Uh, let me guess. Uh, it has to do with Ebony. Yeah. Yes. There you go. Black. Yeah. Uh, Tim Scott, Katie Coles, James conservatives. They need to take a knee. They need to learn their place, natural place and take a knee to MAGA. So this guy is really, uh, he was fired from the first Trump administration for his associations with white nationalists.
He was one of the only people too racist to be fired from the first Trump administration. He's been brought back, uh, He's also pro-Uyghur genocide, essentially, or at least a big excuser of the Uyghur genocide. And talking about how he said that we treat American rural whites worse than China treats the Uyghur minority. And then this takes us to South Africa.
There's an interesting statement from Trump this morning, from Trump yesterday morning, rather. South Africa is confiscating land and treating certain classes of people very badly. It is a bad situation that the radical left media doesn't want to so much as mention. The United States won't stand for it.
I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed. Beatty had said this in the past, the whole concept of modern South Africa is absurd, doomed to fail from the beginning. South Africa was the first modern nation to be refounded on the anti-white principles of critical race theory.
Musk is also from South Africa, you might remember, and his attack on USAID may also have something to do with his feelings about the South African leadership. USAID had spent a lot of money helping black folks suffering from apartheid in South Africa. So, I mean, it's not exactly subtle, Will. No, it's not.
And it's part of, you know, when I talk about Trump being a fascist or this being a fascist movement, people think, OK, that's extreme language. You know, let's not compare him to the Nazis and stuff like that. And, you know, look, we have we don't have people. in, you know, murder camps at this point. But part of fascism is ethnic demagoguery, ethnic scapegoating.
And that we're seeing lots of that already in the first couple of weeks of this administration. You mentioned Darren Beatty got fired before, you know, being a white supremacist, being friends with white supremacists, preaching that stuff. Yeah. That used to be too politically toxic for Trump. He thinks that's an advantage now. They're selling that now.
And Tim, a little bit back to your point about politics. It's still amazing to me that in the 2024 election, Trump got, I believe in the vote cast survey, he got 16% of the black vote and he got 43% of the Latino vote. And a lot of white liberals said, what the hell? I mean, how can you vote for someone who's so overtly bigoted?
And I would like to believe that at some point this will register and those numbers will start to return to recognizing that Donald Trump and his party are enemies of, threats to, insulters of, degraders of minority communities. I mean, this guy has an amazing history.
His campaign, remember the birtherism, Judge Curiel, a Latino judge, was like Mexican heritage, Kamala Harris being a DEI hire, all that stuff. At some point, this needs to register.
Yeah, I don't know. The Marco Rubio side of it is pretty interesting to me, too. See, he had to hire Beatty, right? And Marco Rubio ran in 2016, as I recall, on kind of a compassionate conservatism updated platform. And Marco Rubio has hired the guy who said that Kay Cole's James of the Heritage Foundation needs to learn her natural place and take a knee to MAGA.
And this is the type of person that Marco wants as his undersecretary, somebody who is posting just the most overt, obvious, racist, vile things. over and over again about conservative black leaders. I, you know, not that it's okay to do racist stuff about Ibram Kendi, but like this guy is so through the looking glass that he's posting racist shit about Tim Scott and Kate Cole's James.
And Marco is like, I want this man to be my undersecretary. I just think that the degree of the corruption, the corruption of the soul of these people is, is pretty remarkable. Right.
Well, you know, it's not clear to me what role little Marco had in this and whether this is sort of, you assume he had to okay it.
I mean, it's his undersecretary.
They're okaying anything Trump does at this point, right? And Tim, is this to balance things out? You know, we did appoint a Latino secretary of state, so let's balance it out with an anti-Latino, anti, you know, with a white racist.
I guess. Yeah. I mean, I guess that's their version of DEI. Remind me, what's the job that Beatty's getting here? Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy.
Public diplomacy. So here we have not just that we have these bigots in office, but we put them in jobs where they're supposed to represent the United States overseas. So we're going to go to Africa. We're going to go to Asia. We're going to go to Latin America with these people. Here, let's put a bigot in charge of public diplomacy.
Let's put Kerry Lake, one of the best known liars, like recidivist liars in our country in charge of the voice of America. There couldn't be a bigger middle finger to the world. And we're basically saying, why should you trust us any more than you would trust the propaganda coming out of regimes in Russia or China?
What kind of night is it? A single, double, triple, or a quad? I'm not talking about caffeine or alcohol. I'm talking about Soul's out-of-office microdosed THC gummies. This podcast is sponsored by Soul. Soul's new out-of-office gummies are perfectly microdosed with hemp-derived THC and CBD to give any day that chillin' on the beach vibe.
I was looking for that chilling on the beach vibe on Saturday night because I was over at my buddy's house. I had a big day ahead of me Sunday. Lots happening out there in the news. You know, didn't want to deal with the hangover. We had the kids running around. You know what a nice thing to do is when you have seven-year-old girls running around screaming, pretending like they're cats?
A gummy that gives you that chilling on the beach vibe. Now, I'm not a quad man, so be careful out there, everybody. You know, for me... maybe just a five milligram. That'll do the trick. Come home, watch some severance, watch a little bit of nuggets on DVR, big win over the Hornets made for a nice little evening, pleasant evening, a little break from everything that was happening on the news.
not getting annoyed by the high-pitched squeals of young girls. It's great. It's all positive with the out-of-office gummies. The out-of-office gummies help get you that much-needed me time at the end of the day or during the day. They're convenient and delicious. They give you that warm, fuzzy, euphoric microdose feeling without sending you to the moon.
You can go for a jog, watch your favorite TV show, or head out to a party. Whatever floats your boat. Soul was founded five years ago by brother and sister duo Mike and Angie Lee. Mike's a former world-ranked professional boxer and Angie is an author and professional speaker.
They have the desire to create natural alternatives to medication that tackle problems they deal with themselves like sleeplessness, anxiety, focus, and pain. And Soul's products are grown right here in the USA. Great news with the tariffs. You know, you don't have to worry about that. So, if you want to feel your best, head to GetSold.com and use code THEBULLWORK for 30% off your order.
That's 30% off your order using code THEBULLWORK. One last time, GetSold.com and code THEBULLWORK for 30% off. I want to go back to Elon. We mentioned this, but the Treasury story? It's really something. I mean, Doge, I guess, and Elon now with the approval of incoming Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, who everybody told me was the normie. This is the guy we don't have to worry about.
I guess he's given Elon carte blanche to... interfere in the payment system. Among the things that he said that he wants to put a stop payment on is payment to Lutheran religious services because the Lutheran services, they're providing services for immigrants. Obviously, we wouldn't want to do that. So, you know, the
The Christian, the presidency, the presidency brought in by Christians who, you know, great evangelical Christians like Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell Jr. They're shutting down all payments to the Lutheran religious services. Anyway, JVL has kind of an even darker take on what's happening.
He writes this, Elon Musk allegedly has control of the system the US government uses to disperse congressionally mandated payments. Musk claims that he's personally putting a stop to payments he does not like. First, this obviously could not happen unless the FBI had been neutered because these actions are badly illegal.
Of course, if the DOJ and FBI refuse to investigate the crimes, are they really crimes at all? But then he goes on to talk about how, you know, Musk wants X to be a payment system. And his dark vision of what's possibly coming is that Elon wants to get his own private businesses funded. involved in payments from the government.
You would have said that that was a crazy conspiracy to even suggest, but boy, I don't know what they'd be doing differently if they were planning on doing that. Yeah, well, that's just oligarchy, right?
This happens in other countries. This wasn't supposed to happen here, that a guy gets elected, puts his billionaire friend in charge of the government, gives him special access. I think in Russia, the oligarchs before some of them tangled with Putin had this kind of leverage. Scott Besson and these normies, though, they're no protection.
Because I mean, remember, Scott Besson got that job for one reason, which was that he claimed that that all the stock market increases under Joe Biden were because people expected Donald Trump to be president, right? And that was just, so he flattered his way into the job. He's a totally yes man, right? If Elon's goons, I don't know what to call these guys.
They may be not carrying cudgels, but they're, you know, they work for Elon. They come in and they say, we want to access to this stuff. Here, sign this piece of paper. Scott Besant, he's not in that job because he's brave. He's a coward like the rest of them. I mean, the entire party is populated with people who do bad things or people who are too weak to stand up to those who do bad things.
And Besant is one of those. So, of course, he's going to sign that.
So we are messaging about our topics for today. You know, the worse than Watergate conversation. firings at the FBI, shuttering of USAID, this racist that's going to the Secretary of State, Elon taking over the Treasury, let's see, the January 6th pardon guys raping people, the tariff, the trade war, et cetera, et cetera. So we were discussing potential topics.
You said to me, also the outrage is not high enough about what he's doing on DEI. So I just figured I'd let you cook on that for a little bit too.
Yeah, I don't even know how to distill this. It's amazing to me that There's a plane crash. Donald Trump steps up to a microphone, says without any evidence that this is, he blames DEI, says that the crash is all about being smart. Now, the obvious explanations were offered to Trump. Well, we have a shortage of air traffic controllers. There was technology. There was a question of that.
He dismissed the obvious explanation. He says, no, it's because we don't have smart enough people. And the reason we don't have smart enough people is because of DEI. And then when pressed for a little more detail, he starts talking about a lawsuit on the part of white applicants who didn't get jobs at FAA that they got discriminated against.
So basically, the very clear message is this plane crashed because we hired black and brown people at the FAA. Now, this is bullshit. There's no evidence for it. And statistically, the numbers have changed very little in the last several years.
But if you go into a situation where something bad happened and you say it is the fault of hiring black and brown people, which is the message here, and you have no evidence for that, That is straight up bigotry. And that is the kind of scapegoating that authoritarian fascist regimes do. He didn't say Jews. He didn't even say explicitly that we hired black people and they caused this.
He did explicitly, like he was citing people with mental health issues and paraplegics and other weird stuff like that. But yeah, I mean, the implication is obvious.
That was his first answer. His first answer was there's this stuff about hiring handicapped people or whatever, disabled people. He switched that and he switched it to white people can't get jobs and that's why we have a shortage, whatever. And then, Tim, it wasn't just Trump. The entire chorus came in. J.D. Vance, Sean Duffy, the new secretary came in.
They all parroted this line about white people not getting... So it's all part and parcel of what you were discussing earlier of like the South Africa thing, the Darren Beatty thing. This is just like revenge of white, anti-Black, anti-Brown racism. And...
It's amazing to me that the reporters and the media coverage of this hasn't been more forceful about, holy cow, the president of the United States is invoking a baseless racial explanation for this terrible thing that happened.
Well, maybe if we had more Aryans like Darren Beatty watching, you know, air traffic control, we might be in a better place. I don't know. But I wanted to let you cook on that because obviously it's racist and horrible. And I think that additionally, though, it will be illegal the way that they're targeting individuals who work in the government, who are career officials.
You know, we already saw the one example. I think I talked on a past podcast about Dan Crenshaw. putting up a picture of a black woman and noting that she had changed her bio to take out DEI and basically saying this woman should be fired, essentially. So there's going to be racist targeting of that. I worry a little bit about the Democrats' response to this.
We're going to spend a lot of time all week on all the horrors that the Republicans are inflicting on Americans. But the Democrats had an election over the weekend where they were going to choose who was going to lead the party in opposition to this. They chose a guy named Ken Martin from Minnesota. He ran what they call the DFL party in Minnesota. He seems like a fine enough person, I guess.
I don't know. He doesn't exactly seem like the knife in his teeth attack dog that I might have wanted for the job. I don't know him that well. Leading up to his election victory, there was a debate that happened. And I want to play a clip from the debate and then discuss something that was really...
How many of you believe that racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Harris's defeat? Okay. So that's good. You all pass.
So for people listening, everybody raised their hand. Ken Martin, who presented up winning, was like the most excited with the hand raise. And he was like pumping his hand up to that question. Jonathan Capehart says they all win in that answer. Okay. I mean, okay. I want to get to that in a second.
There's another segment where there's a question from somebody in the audience about whether the DNC needed to have a permanent seat or at-large seat for somebody who's transgender. There's another question about whether they needed Muslim affinity groups to do outreach to the Muslims.
Everybody on stage, all the different candidates supported both of those objectives, except for one person, Faze Shaker, who was Bernie's campaign manager. So here I am handing it to Bernie's campaign manager. But he was like, I don't know, I think maybe we should focus a little less on this stuff and obsess on this stuff a little bit less.
And so, anyway, Will, I made you as homework watch some of this, and I'm wondering what you think. Because I was not seeing a party that learned a lot from their defeat when I was watching this candidate forum.
So, Tim, I did watch it, and I want that hour back. Sorry about that. I owe you one. So, I wasn't so much struck by the issues about reaching out to this and that, you know,
group in the rainbow, which obviously in the 2024 campaign hurt them to the extent that voters thought that the Democratic Party, because it cared about transgender people or cared about this or that minority, didn't care about economics. And I don't know how to solve that problem. And I don't want to renounce caring about the issues that affect these groups because they actually matter.
What really struck me from this forum, Tim, was the chaos. I mean, here we have an authoritarian party on the right. And what do we have on the left? We have a party that looked like, from this forum, it was total anarchy. They couldn't get the attendees to behave themselves and just let the forum continue.
you know, it's the old Will Rogers line about how it's, you know, not an organized political party. And Ken Martin himself had, you know, his pitch to the crowd was like, the DNC should not be putting a finger on the scale in primaries. The DNC should not be dictating things.
They asked the candidates, Tim, when one candidate wins the presidential primary, should the DNC become an extension of the presidential campaign, which is normal. That's what happens, right? And like one person raised their hand And they're all looking at each other like because they're afraid. There's like nobody leading the party. Everyone's trying to cater to the audience.
And so if the audience cares about this or that pet issue, that's what happens. You kind of need somebody who will represent what they think the party should stand for, regardless of what the people in the crowd are saying.
I mean, what you want from the leader of the DNC in this moment is somebody that's going to be the tip of the sphere in taking the fight to Donald Trump. And there was just very little of that. Again, besides FaZe, who I thought was really good, who's talking about what – and I'm trying to get him on the pod – but what he thinks the DNC could do from a communication standpoint better.
There just was a lot of caring about the internal nonsense that nobody cares about besides random people who are obsessed with Democratic Party internal politics. I understand that it's an internal debate. And I think at a time when the stakes are lower, or back in 1998, I don't know if it was that big of a deal who the DNC chair was, and they could all hash out their own internal disagreements.
But there is a vacuum right now. And the vacuum needs to be filled by somebody on the left who is capable of being the torchbearer in the fight against Trump. And these guys just weren't it. I want to play one more clip from the outgoing. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to obsess about the identity thing here. Well, but like somebody has to say it like they need to learn about something.
And so I want to play Jamie Harrison, the outgoing DNC chair. This is him in his intro to talking about the. I guess it was the rules of the vice chair race for the DNC and making sure they had the right representation.
The rules specify that when we have a gender non-binary candidate or officer, the non-binary individual is counted as neither male nor female and the remaining six officers must be gender balanced. With the results of the previous four elections, our elected officers are currently two male and two female.
In order to be gender balanced, we must elect one male, one female, and one person of any gender.
That goes on for another 90 seconds. I spared you the last 90 seconds, but that goes on for another 90 seconds. Is this fucking Portlandia? What are we doing here? Does the DNC need full balance between male, female, and non-binary representation on every committee? If there's a great non-binary candidate to be the vice chair of the DNC, that's awesome. I'm fine with that, Sarah McBride.
Transgender congresswoman, she seems great. Put her forth. I support that. But what are they doing? Stop obsessing over this shit. Stop. Just stop. You can care about representation and making sure that people are at the table without making yourself into a caricature that makes the country laugh at you.
Like the object of the DNC right now is to build a party that can take on Donald Trump and the aspiring authoritarian that we just went over all the things that they're doing to try to make this an authoritarian country. The opposition needs to be up for that fight, not like obsessing over which committee has the right number of non-binary Native Americans. OK, we got to stop.
Okay. Okay, Tim.
Yes.
But what do you do about the fact that that's bullshit? What do you do about the fact that the OCD level obsession with non-binary, you know, two of this and one of that and three of that. It's absurd.
Snow is our care. It's absurd. We need two of every race and gender, you know, two of every sexual identity. We need two intersex, two bisexuals. We need two of everything.
Right. Okay. That's all ridiculous, but it's niche, right? It's like this. It's not the essence of the party. But Republicans managed to take that wherever it exists and make it look like that's the essence of the party.
That is not true, though. Well, it is the essence of the party. Was Jamie Harrison up there talking about how we need to make sure that there's a vice chair that didn't go to college or that there's a vice chair from... communities that have been hollowed out by the economic crisis. I don't fucking know. You show people what you care about by what you talk about.
That's how you show people what you care about. And the Democrats over and over show people what they care about is identity politics, making sure everybody has a seat at the table. They just... I'm sorry. That is it. The Republicans don't do this. They don't have this happening at their meetings. And people notice that. There's crazy stuff that happens at Republican meetings. Yeah, of course.
Yeah, of course. There's other crazy shit that the Republicans have. The Republicans have plenty of baggage that they have to carry. Yeah. Why? What is the value of this?
Okay, but you've picked out that procedural vote, that 90 seconds or two minutes of Jamie Harrison. Okay, that's stupid. But like, no, in reality, they did talk about a lot of economic issues. It's just that that doesn't get the attention.
Maybe people think it's like exotic, you know, and so it gets more news when they talk about, you know, three non-binary whatever's that have to be on the committee.
I'm sorry. I don't you don't think that that's happening in meetings at Democratic HQ, that there are people in private like trying to discuss on the strategy of like, oh, we got to make sure that we're representing. I do think I do think it is impacting their strategy. I don't think that there's anybody in these rooms that are working class Americans that did not go to fucking fancy schools.
Like, I just don't think there is. I think that the rooms are full of people that care about this like campus politics shit. Like, on balance. I don't think that's true.
I don't think... I mean, if you... Like, you mentioned Faiz Shakir. Like, he was talking about the whole Bernie campaign.
Right, he was the last person. He entered the race at the end because he was like, somebody has to, like... talk different.
Let me put in a plug for one guy who was at that thing and didn't win. Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, right? And he was really good. He wasn't going to win, didn't win, but he's a really good spokesman for the party. He's very good at being on message. And his message is about working people and basic material issues that they care about.
But the question that your comments raised for me, Tim, is, do you think that if the Democrats talk at all about transgender, about this and that group in the rainbow, about two of this and three of that, at any point in a two-hour forum, that that is going to void everything they say about economics.
No, they can talk about it in a way that's normal. They can talk about it in a way that normal people talk about shit. If you wanted to say at that forum, it is outrageous that Donald Trump is kicking out of the military. people that are transgender, that volunteered to serve, and that this fucking keyboard jockey that ducked
The military, because he had fake bone spurs in his feet, is now trying to tell a patriotic transgender American that they have to be kicked out of the military to appease some like 22-year-old racists on Reddit? Great. Say that. Have passion in your gut for protecting people and for defending people.
But like, don't just like talk about how, oh, oh, you know, we need to make sure that the AANHPI committee has enough influence, you know, and is that like, you know what I mean? Like, there's ways to talk about it that they tell how they talk about it on Portlandia. And there are ways to talk about protecting trans people in the way that they would talk about it at a dinner table in America.
Yeah.
Yeah, Tim, I'd love to believe that. I just haven't seen it yet. And I would put it to you, and you tell me whether I'm wrong, that what you just said about kicking transgender people out of the military, it's better than what Jamie Harrison said.
But I'm betting you that Trump and his people would just take what you said and make an ad repeating the same message that Democrats, because Democrats care about transgender people, they don't care about you. And it would have the same effect.
Maybe. Maybe. I don't know. I don't know. But it would be fine for me if I felt like they were at least doing their best. I want them to defend people. Marginalized people should be defended. What I don't want is stupid tokenism because they think that it's helping people when it's actually just hurting them. Okay. Final thing. Very important topic.
Luka Doncic got traded to the LA Lakers, which is madness for anybody who pays attention to the NBA. At the worst, you could say he's the fourth best player in the NBA. He might be the second best player in the NBA. They traded him to the fucking Lakers, who always get the best people. For Anthony Davis, who's always hurt, I don't understand it. I feel like we are...
it's rigged the nba is rigged they're they're upset about the ratings or maybe miriam adelson who's the new owner of dallas maybe there's maybe she is like sabotaging the team this is like what was that movie major league where the owner was trying to sabotage the team maybe she's trying to sabotage the team because mark cuban used to be the owner and he's woke now i don't know
So, just a little context here.
You are a Denver Nuggets fan. I am. I'm a Houston Rockets fan. So, what we have here is a couple of, not small market, but smaller market fans complaining about, first of all, why the hell the Lakers always get these people, right? Yeah. Why the Lakers don't need this? They've got how many championships in their history, right? It's obscene, right? And this is so dumb, this Luca trade.
I was like, you know, the tariffs might only be the second dumbest thing anybody's done this weekend because the deal in the NBA is, here's how the NBA cap works, people. You can only put five guys on the court, right? If you've got one of those people who like, you can put it in the game in the fourth quarter and just say, win the game for us.
If you've got one and who has to be guarded by two other people and to be stopped at a You never give that person up, right? If you've got a Luka Doncic, you never give them up and you will trade anybody else to get them because you can replace all the lower level players. You can't replace the James Hardens, the LeBrons, the Doncic's, right?
Everybody in the league, Denver would have liked to get him. Houston would have liked to get him. Everybody would have liked to get him. Why the hell the Lakers get him is just, it's a moral outrage. It's wrong.
It's wrong. And it doesn't make any sense. It's horrible for the Mavericks long-term, so I don't know why they would do it for their franchise. It might make them a little bit better this year, weirdly, just because Luka's been hurt. But... Ah, it's outrageous. It certainly would be the second dumbest thing to the tariffs if it wasn't for this little piece of breaking news I got for you.
The president of Mexico, Claudia Scheidenbaum, says that she has reached an agreement with Trump to delay the tariff by up to a month. So it will rise to the first dumbest move, the Luca trade, over the tariffs if... The Canada tariffs also get delayed a month after Trump talks to Trudeau. Who knows?
But that is that's the state of play on our very stable economy with our very stable genius president. So, Will Salatin, do you have any final thoughts on that?
No, I'd like that's fascinating to me that that Trump managed to bluff his way all the way to the like the day before the tariffs go into effect and then pull the chair. But, you know, I guess that's going to be standard practice for the next four years.
What a joy. All right. Will Salatin, thanks so much. I'm next. Scott Lincecum. I'm sure you know somebody out there has been a victim of identity theft or had that credit card stolen or been stalked or doxxed. This day and age, making sure that your data is private is critical.
And as a person who exists publicly, especially someone that shares my opinions online, I'm hyper aware of safety and security. It's easier than ever for people to find personal information about me or you online. All this data hanging out there on the internet can have actual consequences. And that's why I personally recommend Delete.me.
Delete.me is a subscription service that removes your personal info from hundreds of data brokers. Sign up and provide Delete.me with exactly what information you want deleted and their experts take it from there. Delete Me isn't just a one-time service. It's always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the internet.
So take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me, now at a special discount for our listeners. Today, get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeleteme.com slash bulwark and use promo code bulwark at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeleteme.com slash bulwark and enter code bulwark at checkout. That's joindeleteme.com.
Slash Bulwark. Code Bulwark. All right. Hey, everybody. As I mentioned at the end of the Will Salatin interview, Trump backed off of the tariff to Mexico, at least for a month. They kicked it back a month in exchange for, I guess, 10,000 troops, Mexican troops going to the border. So I taped the Scott Lincecum part of this interview about the trade war before that news came out.
We're going to keep that in here because Scott provides a lot of really kind of interesting analysis of how this stuff works in practice. And, you know, these threats and bluffs and backoffs and, you know, this whole rigmarole, we're going to be living through this for the next few years. So I think it is still very relevant to hear from Scott on what the implications are.
And as I'm taping this right now, we don't know what, if anything, will happen with the Canadian and China tariffs, whether we'll try to punch those back a month as well or not. So we will see what happens. And we're back with my buddy Scott Lincecum. He's the Vice President of General Economics and Trade at the Cato Institute. He's an adjunct professor at Duke Law School.
He writes the Capitalism Newsletter for the Dispatch, subtly titled. And he also said, is this right? You're the progenitor of the viral t-shirt, tariffs not only impose economic costs, but also fail to achieve their primary policy aims and foster political dysfunction along the way. You can see why that's a popular t-shirt. Yes.
Well, it was a joke that I guess has increasing relevance.
Yes. Increasing and increasing as the minutes go by. Well, I wanted to have you on as, you know, a local tariff expert to dig deep on this. The Wall Street Journal called it the stupidest trade war in history. So I'm turning to you for both the kind of the big picture. And now we agree that it's bad. So that part is covered. But like what exactly is happening? And then kind of we'll dig into it.
Yeah. So on Saturday, the president issued three executive orders invoking a national emergency with respect to fentanyl and the importation of fentanyl from China, Canada, and Mexico.
The Canadian fentanyl emergency. I've been hearing lots about that.
Correct, correct. And, of course, then applying tariffs on imports of all goods from these three countries. 10% for China, because they already had 25% tariffs on a bunch of stuff. And then 25% on all imports from Canada and Mexico. Leaving aside whether there is a Canadian fentanyl crisis.
There's not. I think we can say at the board that there is not a Canadian fentanyl crisis. I mean, I guess every ounce, every gram of fentanyl that comes across the border is a tragedy, as RFK would say about abortions. But I don't think it rises to the level of crisis.
Yes. Well, it's – and the big point and I think the point that I think is going to be litigated is even if you grant all of these crises, the remedy is utterly disconnected from the emergency itself. I mean how does applying tariffs on avocados solve the fentanyl crisis?
That's the big – I think the bigger issue here is that the remedy is really damaging for the US economy, for the United States global reputation, whatever – however you want to call that. I really mean that in terms of international economic agreements. Because, you know, Canada and Mexico are our biggest trading partners.
They have had relatively free trade with the United States since 1994 because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which then Trump rebranded the USMCA and said it was the greatest trade deal ever. So Trump's trade deal, all of that has been thrown away. along with, of course, all of the microeconomic stuff, right? So you have supply chains that have evolved over decades.
Automotive parts will cross the US-Mexico border five, six, seven times before getting put into a vehicle. And they do that, again, because of this free trade zone. This has been a relatively good thing for the US economy overall, right? Yes, there have been discrete harms for certain workers and companies. But overall, it's been a good thing.
It's allowed US firms to compete against Asian supply chains and European supply chains by diversifying. So all of this is good. And yet, Trump's going to implode all of it because of fentanyl. It just it really makes no sense.
We should get into the legal side of this and what legal remedies there are. But just just to be clear on what the political side of this is. I mean, Trump acknowledged what you're saying is that there will be some disruption. He said we may have short term some a little pain. I don't remember him saying that during the campaign, but he acknowledged yesterday that there will be pain for people.
He said recently, nothing can be done to forestall tariffs. We have very big deficits and tariffs are something that we are doing. Canada has treated us very unfairly. J.D. Vance writes yesterday, spare me the sob story. He's such a dick. Spare me the sob story about how Canada is our best friend. I love Canada and have many Canadian friends. Quick fact check.
I find that very challenging to believe that J.D. Vance has said.
Well, they're very nice people.
But does J.D. has friends that are Canadian? I'd like to see the evidence of that. But is the government meeting their NATO target for military spending? Are they stopping the flow of drugs in the country? I'm sick of being taken advantage of. And these guys are all over the place. Right. I mean, even in their own messaging, like the fentanyl thing is just such an obvious fig leaf.
He's like he's talking about NATO and all this other shit.
And Trump was on Truth Social bringing up the trade balances, bringing up that this is going to be a great thing for manufacturing. So yeah, the fentanyl thing kind of disappeared within about 12 hours, right? And I would add, it's not just their words that show they understand this is going to be painful for the US economy. It's the actions as well, because they carved out
canadian oil so canadian oil gets a special 10 tariff not the full 25 now why would you do that if this is going to be good for the american economy well you do it because in reality it's going to raise gas prices in the midwest because we import a ton of canadian crude oil we do that not because we're not energy independent or any of that nonsense we do it because canada makes a certain type of crude oil that goes in the refineries that are in the midwest
And again, we have this wonderful free trade relationship with Canadians. So we stopped buying OPEC oil. We started buying Canadian heavy crude. Everybody ends up better off, or at least they did, right? So even in their actions, their formal actions, they understand that this is going to be painful. But now, of course, it's just the great covering and distraction.
Yeah, I liked this observation by Brendan Duke. He said it was just three months ago. Trump was green lighting a pipeline from Canada to own the American libs. But now he's starting a trade war with Canada because he says we import too much oil from them. Right. And it is the whole thing is just incoherent. I get it betrays.
He understands or at least somebody around him understood like the value of of bringing Canadian oil, for the very reason you said, you know, to places where it's geographically convenient and, you know, where it works. But I guess, you know, that is not as important now as the tariff temper tantrum.
Yeah, and it really reveals a fundamental flaw in a lot of kind of the protectionist mindset is that a lot of the imports from Canada and Mexico are complementary to US production. They do not push out US production. They actually support US production. So a huge chunk of what we import from Canada and Mexico are industrial inputs, so things that we put in cars or microwave ovens or whatever.
And that allows us to make more of those things. It allows us to create cheaper gasoline, right? So these are – complementary supply chains. They are not just simply zero-sum directly competitive. And the whole protectionist idea with trade deficits and imports bad, exports goods really fails when you understand these complementaries, right?
When you understand that production actually goes up in the United States as imports go up. So, it's a big problem for them. And for better or worse, assuming these tariffs actually happen, I think we're going to get a lot of real-world lessons in the next couple weeks of how these complementaries work in practice.
So let's just do 101 here. All right. So the tariff, I was getting a text from a buddy last night. He's like, so who collects the tariff again? Right. I mean, like, we're just trying to, you know, remember our, our, you know, macro 101 from college here. So the tariff at the border, the tariff is actually collected from the importer. Yes. Right.
So, you know, it's not, it's not as if the Canadian exporter then pays a quarter on every dollar to the US government. The importer pays that when they bring it in. Is that right? Yeah.
Yeah, so we talk about tariffs when we talk about legal incidents and economic incidents. Legal incidents is who pays at the border. Almost always, it's an American importer. There are a few little exceptions, but forget about those. So a good cross at the border, customs basically hands you a bill. Typically, you actually get the bill later, but you get the idea. And then you pay it.
The economic incidence is trickier, right? Because foreign producers can, in theory, lower their prices to offset the tariff, right? So if you used to be charging 100 and there's a 25% tariff, you start charging 80. 80 plus 20, you're back to 100. Everything's good, right? Another thing is there are currency movements. So the economic incidence is harder.
Generally, though, we have a ton of recent evidence from the Trump 1.0 tariffs. And we found that the economic incidence, the burden of these tariffs was primarily falling on domestic American companies and consumers.
How do those economic ones happen? Like the US, we send them a bill? Like, sorry, you're fucking with us?
You still get the exact same legal framework. Customs collects the duty from the importer. The only thing that changes is the import price of the good. So basically, a foreign producer can say, you know what, I'm going to lower my prices and effectively offset any additional tariff that's applied at the border. It happens occasionally. And I would imagine you're going to see some –
of this with these new tariffs. But in general, most of it is going to be paid by Americans. And the other thing we should note, though, is there's then an invisible tariff. Because tariffs don't just raise the price of imports. They raise the price of domestic goods, too. Because if you're a domestic producer, you suddenly have more demand and less competition and less supply in the market.
So we, Econ 101, you raise your prices, right? Supply and demand. Yeah. So this morning, Wall Street Journal had the most predictable headline ever, which is that U.S. steelmakers are raising their prices right now. because of these tariffs.
Well, that'll be great for infrastructure costs and all the issues, yeah.
And great for manufacturers, because you and I, I mean, actually, I don't know about your shopping habits, Tim, but I don't go out and buy big hunks of steel.
I don't, usually.
Okay. So, that's all American manufacturers. So,
automakers aircraft manufacturers energy pipeline producers you name it these are the folks that are going to be eating these new higher prices as well as any higher import prices as well i love that little economics lesson okay just one more time on crossing the border i want you to do the sesame street style all right so we've got like you're imagining it's a cartoon i guess sesame street isn't a cartoon we're gonna do a pbs cartoon
It's a guy from Mexico. He's driving up in his truck with avocados. He's crossing the border legally. Is the customs guy counting the avocados and giving him a bill? How does that actually happen?
No, it's by value. Typically by value. Sometimes they do it by weight or whatever, but most of our tariffs are what we call ad valorem. It's dumb Latin. It just means by value. So if you have a 25% tariff and you're bringing over $100 worth of avocados, you're going to get a bill at the border for $25.
The guy shipping it in is getting the bill, but I thought the importer was supposed to be paying for it because then they just charge the importer on the back end.
They charge the importer, yeah.
Okay.
That's actually a really important point. Mexico isn't launching avocados across the border. These are – I mean – Not yet.
It'd be kind of awesome. I talked to some mad Canadians last night. So there might be some maple syrup getting chucked across the border.
Almost all trade has a willing consumer on the other end, an importer. So think of a company like Walmart. Walmart is buying from a seller in China or Japan or wherever, Mexico. And when the boat arrives with Walmart's purchases, Walmart is then actually taking possession of those at the border. And it's not a guy with avocados from Mexico.
It's actually, they're shipping it, Walmart's taking possession, and that's when they're paying the bill of customs.
So you kind of mentioned this, but what about just the broader structural supply chain challenges, right? Because if you're a U.S. automaker, some of this stuff's coming from China through Mexico to the U.S.
So just last week on Cato, my RA and I did a blog post on the automotive sector and North American automotive supply chain. And we had this nice little map that we showed a single product because Bloomberg went out good for them. They actually tracked a single product that crossed the border several times to go into a car seat.
So in the olden days, so pre these executive orders, that widget, it was a capacitor, could actually cross the US-Mexico border the five times that it did, end up in a car seat, and have zero tariff supply. This time, it's going to get tariffed every single time it crosses the border. Why was it going across five times? Comparative advantage.
So you have certain factories in the United States are good at certain things, like creating circuit boards.
Oh, it's a complex widget. It has a couple different parts. Yeah, a lot.
So it gets put into another thing that gets put into another thing. So engines are another example of this. They start out as an engine block. They keep getting more stuff added to them. There is a little buried provision in both of the Canada and Mexico executive orders, not to get too wonky on you, that is barring what we call duty drawback.
This is a system that effectively allows importers to not pay duties if they're exporting the same thing they just imported. So let's say you import an avocado, you make guacamole, you put that in a container and you export the guacamole. You can actually get a refund on the tariff you paid on the avocado. We call that duty drawback.
Makes perfect sense because it's not actually entering the United States for consumption. You're actually just processing it. And we want to get that processing value, right? So that's normal.
Yeah, sure.
They removed duty drawbacks. So I've heard from several people. who are in these supply chains who are like, what, what the heck, what are we even going to do?
We can say what the fuck here, but yeah, I got a kid.
Yeah. And you know, I'm all sanitized. So we have this question of compounding tariffs. So if you go back to the automotive example, You could have a good that gets a tariff as its starting point, gets incorporated into something, crosses again, gets another tariff, crosses again, gets another tariff.
By the end of it, you actually – because your tariffs apply – this is, sorry, really wonky – to the gross value of the product. That means – They don't apply to just the value you've added to a product in a certain place. So let's go back to our guacamole example. Even though the guacamole part of it is only half of the – avocado is half of the cost. The guacamole is the half of the cost.
Tariffs don't do that. They don't say, oh, we're only going to tariff the additional stuff you did. They just give you the full 100% of the new value of the product, right? So – You're effectively, because of this system, which makes sense, it's hard to determine value-add at the border. Nobody's going to do that.
Because of the system, though, you can end up with tariffs that are just exponentially increasing because these things cross the border so many times.
Well, that's going to do good things for prices, I think. The other funny thing I saw about this, two more funny things I want to share with you. One was they've removed the de minimis exception. Yes. And so this was like, you know, if a Canadian grandma wants to send her American, you know, wants to send a gift. Right. To her grandchild who now lives in Austin.
They got to pay a tariff on that now. I guess we're going to have external revenue service people like 20 year olds Elon hires from the Reddit message board I guess is going to be going through the mail to figure out if there are any tariffs that need to happen now.
This is another one of those kind of hugely underreported things. So the de minimis exception does have raised some concerns, right?
Because effectively, after the China tariffs were applied, a bunch of manufacturers realized they could set up warehouses in Mexico and Canada and bring in small shipments from China, store them in the warehouse, and then send them to the United States duty-free, right? Because they're small dollar values. Got it.
There are needs for reforms, but by simply banning all de minimis shipments, you're actually hitting a lot of perfectly legal trade and a lot of stuff, like you said, like grandma's cookies from Canada. But the other big point is – I don't know how customs is actually going to enforce this.
So some people look – because de minimis reform has been a thing that has been discussed for years now because of the kind of Sheehan and Timu taking advantage of this system, which by the way, again, just to be clear, was never a problem until we had all these tariffs in place, right?
I just think we're going to take all the people from USAID and we're going to make them border agents.
Well, this is what we're getting at. 30,000 new customs agents or more. Customs officials have said to Congress and whatever, the amount of resources it would need to actually inspect individual de minimis shipments is outrageous. It's crazy. They do inspect. They do a sampling system. They scan them. They do everything they can. Sure.
But there's been this, I mean, we're talking about, I seem to remember 4 million parcels a day crossing via the de minimis exception now. Now, again, I'll just put on my libertarian free trader hat and say, maybe it was actually better to have bulk shipments coming directly from China than having 4 million packages sent across from Mexico. But sorry, your tariffs have caused this big mess.
I also like this from Chuck Grassley this morning. He's trying to blame Biden, of course. Biden, inflation increased the input cost to farmers by 20%, including particularly the high prices on fertilizer. So I plead with President Trump to exempt potash from the tariff because family farmers get most of our potash from Canada.
I was wondering if that was a typo because Chuck Grassley does a lot of typos. I'm not a farm boy. I'm from the suburbs, but my farm husband informs me that potash is a real thing. Yes. And it's in fertilizer. Correct. Correct. And that's a big problem. So now we have individual centers begging Mr. Trump for mercy for random products.
So this is tariffs 101, right? Tariffs, when you apply them to an input, fertilizer is an input. It's going to harm your downstream producers. Farmers are downstream producers. And tariffs always lead to cronyism and lobbying because everybody wants an exception or exemption or they want their own tariffs.
And I think we found the feature for the-
Well, for sure. Well, the last time Trump implemented a bunch of tariffs, there was an exemption process through both Commerce Department and USTR.
And then a bunch of enterprising economists went back and looked and they found that you actually had a much better likelihood of getting your exemption if you donated to Republican candidates and hired a lobbyist who had connections to the Trump administration. So, you know, this is DC 101, right, man?
I mean – But Scheinbaum and Trudeau are trying to counteract that by targeting – red state businesses. Yes.
That's also trade 101. Retaliation is almost inevitable because politicians in these other places can't look weak to their own domestic constituents. You can't just look like a patsy to Donald Trump. You understand that import tariffs are going to be costly because you're not a mercantilist like Donald Trump. You actually understand this is going to be painful.
But you have to do it because you need to get reelected or there's national solidarity, all that kind of stuff. And you can actually – apparently, the Canadians are really pissed right now.
I did a whole segment on YouTube with our Canadian pal, JJ, that people can go find. I'll put the link in the show notes. And it's – they're hot. They're hot under the collar up there.
And Canadians are like the nicest people ever. So for them to get upset, you've done something really wrong. So going back to retaliation. So there's a political incentive to retaliate. There's also a strategic incentive. So if you don't retaliate, you're basically encouraging bad behavior by the initial actor. This is all game theory stuff, right? You see a lot of retaliation in this space. But –
How do you retaliate? Well, you don't want to just do blanket tariffs like Donald Trump did. You want to hit politically influential groups. So you're going to go after pork producers. Pork guys carry a lot of weight. So you're going to go after pork imports. You're going to go after steel producers. imports. They famously went after bourbon because of Mitch McConnell and Kentucky bourbon.
So this is very standard practice. You try to do these targeted hits. Well, that's a shame.
So you wrote this one, you think the impact here, if they actually go through with it, could be the biggest one-year tax increase ever?
Yeah, $350 billion right off the top, right? And I would add, even if this all goes away tonight, I think this may be a good place to close. There are still reasons to expect this to be damaging in the long term, because the United States today has effectively abrogated its free trade agreement commitments with its closest trading partners. And
and has done it in a way that is just clearly absurd and damaging. And so if you are a foreign government official, and you are looking to increase economic integration. And you have, on the one hand, China, Xi Jinping, total pain in the butt, lots of problems with China's economic models and human rights.
Compared to what you just got with Donald Trump and the United States, the calculus has changed. And I think that this is going to do long-term damage to government's willingness to increase integration with the United States. That just means slower growth, less competitiveness for the US economy, onward and onward.
I would note, as one of our adjuncts posted over the weekend, it also could come back to bite us when there's another global crisis because governments tend to work together, whether it's through public health or monetary policy or whatever. Trade agreement partners tend to do the best when it comes to working together in these things.
But now we're basically destroying those relationships in real time.
Now that's a good place to end. Thanks to Will Salatin, Scott Lincecum. Everybody else, we'll see you back here tomorrow.
Peace. I don't bluff bro, aiming at your head, like a buffalo, you a roughneck, I'm a cutthroat, you a tough guy, that's enough jokes, then the sun die, the night is young though, the diamonds still shine, in a rough mode, what the fuck though, where the love go, 5, 4, 3, 2, where the ones go, it's a shit show, put you front row, talking shit bro, let
She come show, money over bitches and above hoes That is still my favorite love quote Put the gun aside, what the fuck for? I sleep with the gun, and she don't snore What the fuck, yo? Where the love go? Trade the ski mask for the muzzle It's a bloodbath, where the sons go?
It's a Swiss B, there the drums go If she iffy, there the drugs go If she simply, double cup toast I got a duffel, full of hundos, there the love go Where's the uproar? What the fuck, though? Where the love go? 5, 4, 3, 2, I let one go Get the fuck, though I don't bluff, bro Aiming at your head like a buffalo What the fuck, though? Where the love go?
5, 4, 3, 2, I let one go Get the fuck, though I don't bluff, bro Aiming at your head like a buffalo Get the fuck, though I don't bluff, bro I come out the scuffle without a scuffle Puff, puff, bro I don't holler At your front door, with a gun store Knock, knock, who's there's how it won't go This the jungle, so have the utmost For the nutso's, and we nutso What the fuck, bro?
That's where I'm from, bro We grow up fast, we roll up slow We throw up gang signs, she throw up dope Dream life, ain't time, let your bum know Put the green in the bag like a lawnmower Hair trigger, pull back like a corn roll Extra clip in the stash Like a console, listenin' to Bono You listen to Dono What the fuck, bro? Where the love go?
Swizzy, he the chef I like my lunch gross Just look up, bro There the scuds go I see the shovel But where the bro go? To the unknown Only way he comin' back is through his unbones If you see what's in my bag, think I'm a drug lord It's empty when I give it back Now where's the love, bro? What the fuck, though? Where the love go?
5, 4, 3, 2, I let one go It's fine, I'll get the fuck, though I don't bluff The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.