9 Comments
User's avatar
Luke Christofferson's avatar

JVL at the Bulwark makes this point a lot - we have to make institutions pay for caving to the authoritarian.

We're never going to get to total parity in consequences, nor should we because Trump is crueler than we should ever want to be. But if we can make capitulating like 50% as bad as holding out, I think more institutions would be able to stiffen their spine.

Expand full comment
Matt Colbert's avatar

Here's a question I haven't seen anyone discuss.

It's 2029. Let's assume we have a Democratic president who is generally against tariffs. What is the actual mechanism that the President can use to reduce/eliminate the tariffs?

Do they have to declare another national emergency under IEEPA in order to reduce the tariffs? Do they have to continue under the national emergency that Trump declared? Or can they just... end his national emergency and reduce the tariffs accordingly?

In any of these scenarios, there is a 100% chance that some Republican-aligned group or business interests are going to sue to keep the tariffs in place. They are going to forum shop to get a favorable judge, or maybe it just goes to the US Court of International Trade? Much ink is going to be spilt over whether the next president has the power to reduce the tariffs and how.

Maybe I'm crazy.

Expand full comment
Jeff McNamee's avatar

No, they should just be able to declare them null by saying that the “emegency” is over…or just remove them without the declaration.

Expand full comment
Bill's avatar

That makes sense. The tariffs aren’t statutory so Congress isn’t needed.

Expand full comment
Jeff McNamee's avatar

Well, they are, but the authority is delegated. That means that the next President can make it all go away if the law doesn’t change.

Expand full comment
Matt Colbert's avatar

Hopefully!

Expand full comment
Jeff McNamee's avatar

Well, that’s how it works.

Expand full comment
Dennis D.'s avatar

University boards are making a rational corporate response to the Supreme Court's refusal to preemptively block this presumably illegal behavior. It's a terrible precedent and, as you say probably won't work when the bagmen come for more money.

But, in the here and now, they could have billion dollar holes blown in their operating budgets if litigation drags out two or three years. And no promise that the Court will do the right thing in the end, anyway. They see it as "best to hold off the wolves with acceptable damage and hope the electorate kicks these people out."

Expand full comment
Jaybuoy's avatar

all American Universities should be forced to accept young girls under the age of fourteen .. in honour of Epstein who whilst not trumping Alberts splitting of the atom did do the same thing to a lot of hymens..

Expand full comment