When the Trump administration announced broad, high tariffs in early 2025, importers rushed to bring goods into the United States before the duties took effect. The impact of this import “rush” went beyond causing a brief spike in monthly US imports; firms’ stockpiling of imports helped mitigate cost increases for importers and delay price increases for final consumers. In other words, in the absence of stockpiling, the administration’s import taxes would have proven even more costly for Americans, and consumers would have likely shouldered a higher share of those costs. 

The administration is cracking down on importers stockpiling imports of polysilicon and polysilicon derivatives (most notably solar cells and modules) that will be subject to new tariffs and price floors beginning on December 4. Though narrow in scope, this measure—published in the Federal Register two days after its effective date (September 22)—may pave the way for more expansive restrictions in the future, given the legal basis the administration is relying on to pursue it. 

Read the rest of this post →

Some political elites hold the longstanding view that pursuing a protectionist trade policy could help bolster the American working class. For instance, as Katherine Tai, Biden’s US trade representative, put it: “Tariffs and trade can—and in our view must—be used as part of a strategy for growing the middle class and empowering the working class.” The Trump administration has a similar perspective and has pursued a trade and tariff policy that it claims will help American workers.

However, recent polls from the Cato Institute/​Morning Consult in March of 2,002 registered voters and in August of 4,150 registered voters found that tariffs have not been well received among working-class American voters.

On September 21, the House Budget Committee held a field hearing in Dallas, TX, on the need for a fiscal commission. My ears perked up when former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta started speaking about BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, as a model for overcoming politically difficult budget choices:

Read the rest of this post →

How will America’s distinctive body of defamation law shape what we hear about the forthcoming election? Will we all be subjected to another firehose of stolen-election lies because the New York Times v. Sullivan doctrine, as one Supreme Court Justice has claimed, generates “an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods by means and on a scale previously unimaginable”? (I try to straighten out some election untruths in a new Cato podcast.) Or, conversely, does Sullivan leave even big media organizations so legally exposed that even flimsy lawsuits and threats can inhibit their investigations and reporting? (Plenty of dubious suits keep getting filed.)

Or maybe both? One of the paradoxes of US defamation law—which combines Sullivan’s relatively press-friendly “actual malice” standard with a lack of the loser-pays principle found in many other countries—is that it simultaneously puts coercive leverage in the hands of those who want to bully writers and speakers even as it leaves many defamed parties with no practical legal recourse. 

Read the rest of this post →

Obamacare’s history is one of policymakers disregarding the law to achieve greater control over their fellow citizens. So the Trump administration’s recent announcement that it will stop issuing unlawful and often fraudulent Obamacare subsidies is a welcome departure from that history. The administration has also taken worthwhile steps to curb Medicaid fraud. 

The administration should go further, and not just in Obamacare. Fraud occurs at intolerable levels throughout government health programs. The New York Times cites a Congressional Budget Office estimate that there are perhaps 2.3 million cases of the federal government issuing improper Obamacare premium subsidies, but the administration is canceling just 750,000. Likewise, every year since 1990, the Government Accountability Office has warned Congress that Medicare poses a high risk of “waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement.” 

Read the rest of this post →

Diesel fuel exports from the Middle East have been cut in half this year in some of the ever-spreading economic fallout from the wars in Iran and Ukraine. In the United States, the price of diesel at the pump has soared above $6.50 for the first time. A year ago, the price was $3.70. US diesel inventories have plummeted since the start of the Iran war on February 28, and some diesel consumers are pulling up to the pump only to find it empty. Some retailers have simply run out of supply. 

Most American passenger cars still run on gasoline. So, most voter angst is directed at rising gasoline prices. But trucks, tractors, trains, ships, and much more run on diesel, which is the lifeblood fuel of much of the American industrial and agricultural economy. With six weeks remaining until the upcoming mid-term elections, the price of fuel, including diesel, has moved to the top of voter concerns. A growing number of Members of Congress, led by senior Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, have been urging President Donald Trump to ban the export of diesel fuel. 

Read the rest of this post →

President Trump’s White House has repeatedly attempted to deny journalists access to presidential press conferences. This time, the White House has excluded several journalists because their coverage was allegedly “one-sided” and “negative.” Such efforts by the White House are illegal; they have failed in the past, and they will fail in the future.

The reasons the Trump White House has given in the past for its attempts to pick and choose which journalists are allowed to cover it have varied, but all of them have one thing in common: they cannot be reconciled with the law. Jim Acosta’s press pass was revoked because he continued to ask questions and refused to yield his microphone to another journalist. Brian Karem’s press pass was revoked essentially because he made remarks that were understood as rude and confrontational. The Associated Press was excluded because it used the label “Gulf of Mexico,” rather than “Gulf of America.” 

Read the rest of this post →