A running list of Trump’s many attacks on the press. Donald Trump has pledged to defend the Constitution — even an article that doesn’t exist — but he can’t seem to lay off that pesky First

Donald Trump’s tariffs, implemented during his first term and potentially expanded in a second, have a complex impact on the U.S. economy, with both benefits and drawbacks depending on the perspective. Let’s break it down. On one hand, tariffs—taxes on imported goods—aim to protect domestic industries by making foreign products more expensive, encouraging consumers and businesses to buy American-made goods. During Trump’s first term, he imposed tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) in 2018, as well as significant levies on Chinese goods, peaking at around 19% on average for $250 billion worth of imports. Proponents argue this bolstered U.S. manufacturing jobs. For example, the steel industry saw some job growth—about 7,000 jobs by 2019, according to some estimates—and companies like Nucor reported increased production. The idea is that shielding industries from cheap foreign competition, especially from countries like China with state-subsidized production, levels the playing field and reduces reliance on imports, potentially strengthening national security and economic independence. However, the economic costs are substantial. Tariffs raise prices for imported goods, which hits consumers and businesses that rely on those inputs. A 2019 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimated that Trump’s tariffs cost U.S. consumers and businesses $3 billion per month in added tax costs and another $1.4 billion in efficiency losses from distorted markets. Manufacturers using steel and aluminum, like automakers or appliance makers, faced higher costs—Ford reported a $1 billion hit to profits in 2018. Retaliation also stings: China slapped tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports like soybeans, costing farmers billions; the U.S. government paid out $23 billion in subsidies to offset losses by 2020. Net job gains are murky—while steel jobs rose slightly, a Moody’s Analytics report suggested tariffs eliminated more jobs (in downstream industries) than they created, with a net loss of about 300,000 jobs when factoring in retaliation and higher costs. Trade balances? Trump often claimed tariffs would shrink the U.S. trade deficit. They didn’t. The deficit grew from $552 billion in 2016 to $679 billion in 2020, per U.S. Census Bureau data, partly because tariffs don’t address underlying issues like consumer demand for cheap imports or currency dynamics. Looking forward, Trump’s 2024 campaign floated even bolder ideas: a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and a 10-20% universal tariff on all imports. Economists like those at the Peterson Institute warn this could spike inflation—potentially adding 1-2% to consumer prices—and disrupt supply chains still healing from post-COVID chaos. Goldman Sachs estimated a 0.1% GDP drop per 1% tariff increase, though some argue short-term pain could yield long-term gains if it forces reshoring of industries. Critics, including 16 Nobel laureate economists in a June 2024 letter, called it a “tax on the middle class” that could tank economic growth. In short: Trump’s tariffs boost some domestic sectors like steel and appeal to voters prioritizing “America First,” but they raise costs, spark retaliation, and haven’t historically delivered promised trade wins. The net effect depends on how much you value protectionism versus global efficiency—and how long you’re willing to wait for the payoff.

"Buy Tesla. It's unbelievable that this guy's stock is this cheap. It'll never be this cheap again... Who wouldn't invest in Elon Musk?" That's what U.S. President Donald Trump's billionaire commerce ...

The access would be a major expansion of Elon Musk’s government role and highlight his conflicts of interest.