A day that began (sort of) with a question about tacos ended with the Trump regime’s worst legal defeat (so far). In between, the president scattered pardons like skittles to the MAGA faithful; and Elon Musk took his thoroughly enshittified reputation (and all of our data) home with him, as he formally exited the fiasco formerly known as DOGE.
Happy Thursday.
If you think the fight for sanity, democracy, and the rule of law is worth it, please consider supporting us. Because we can’t do this without you.
To the Contrary is a reader-supported publication. There are no investors. No sugar daddies. We’re not affiliated with any PACS. Or parties. Just me. And the dogs.
How thin skinned is the man-child who occupies the Oval Office? This thin-skinned: Trump angrily lashed out at a reporter who asked him a question about his serial flip-flops on tariffs.
“Mr. President,” CNBC White House correspondent Megan Casella asked Trump, “Wall Street analysts have coined a new term called the TACO trade. They’re saying “Trump Always Chickens Out” on your tariff threats. And that’s why markets are higher this week. What’s your response to that?”
Trump bristled and raged. “Don’t ever say what you said. That’s a nasty question… To me, that’s the nastiest question.”
Considering that we live in an Economy by Whim, the question about TACO trades may also have been dangerous, because there was a non-zero chance that goading Trump this way might lead to a global depression.
Within hours, however, a federal court handed down a stunning ruling that declared Trump’s whole “Liberation day” tariff scheme illegal. The ruling, reported the Financial Times, was “a blow to the White House that could throw the president’s global trade policy into disarray.”
If you were like me, you spent a few minutes last night trying to figure out whether this was the epic smackdown it appeared.
Indeed, it was.
“Is There a Dignified Legal Way, Preferably in Latin, to Say "Holy Shit"? wrote Paul Krugman. He followed up this morning: “I, like many observers, thought that we were past the point where the merits of cases mattered. It’s gratifying to learn that I was wrong.”
The judges, one appointed by President Ronald Reagan, one by President Barack Obama, and one by Trump himself, noted that the U.S. Constitution gives exclusively to Congress the power to impose tariffs. In 1977, Congress passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, often abbreviated as IEEPA, delegating to the president the power to adjust tariffs in times of national emergency, but Trump has used that power far beyond what the Constitution will permit.
Since he took office on January 20, 2025, the judges noted, Trump “has declared several national emergencies and imposed various tariffs in response.”
But the IEEPA has “meaningful limits,” the court writes, and “an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would be unconstitutional.” The court blocked all the tariffs Trump imposed under the IEEPA, thus ending Trump’s tariff spree, although the administration will appeal.
“Congress manifestly is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to other the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested,” the court writes.
In a rational and functioning constitutional system, this ruling would wake up a non-brain dead Congress. But, alas, we do not have such a system, nor such a Congress.
Exit take: Predictably, the ruling enraged MAGA, and as Richardson predicts, Trump will appeal the ruling. But here’s a contrarian take: by throwing a spanner into Trump’s trade war, the court may have done Trump a favor, by rescuing him (and the rest of us) from the consequences of his ghastly judgment.
The markets, predictably, are overjoyed.
Your daily reminder that you are not the crazy ones. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
“That question about people dying around the world is an unfair one.” — Rubio, at another congressional hearing later that day
Rubio was brushing off evidence that members of Congress tried to show him:
Sherman’s staff held up a photo of Pe Kha Lau, 71, a refugee from Myanmar with lung problems. On Feb. 7, Reuters quoted her family as saying she died “after she was discharged from a U.S.-funded hospital on the Myanmar-Thai border that was ordered to close” as a result of Trump’s executive order. The International Rescue Committee said it shut down and locked hospitals in several refugee camps in late January after receiving a “stop-work” order from the State Department.
Another photo held up as Rubio said the death claims were false was of 5-year-old Evan Anzoo. He was featured in a March article by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof titled: “Musk Said No One Has Died Since Aid Was Cut. That Isn’t True.”
Kristof’s article cited a study by the Center for Global Development, which estimated American aid annually saved the lives of about 1.7 million people from HIV/AIDS; 550,000 from humanitarian assistance; 300,000 from tuberculosis; and nearly 300,000 from malaria.
But there is more detailed research about the actual impact of the Trump-Musk-Rubio cuts. Boston University’s Brooke Nichols, has developed a tracker that estimates how many adults and children have died because of the administration’s funding cutbacks to aid groups and support organizations. The overall death count grows by 103 people an hour.1 You can access it here: Impact Dashboard - Impact Counter
Given numerous news reports about people dying because they stopped getting American aid, you would think Rubio’s staff would have prepared him with a better answer than “lie” and “false.” His cleanup response wasn’t much better. The issue is not that other nations are reducing funding — but how the United States suddenly pulled the plug, making it more likely that people would die.
There is no dispute that people have died because the Trump administration abruptly suspended foreign aid. One might quibble over whether tens of thousands — or hundreds of thousands — have died. But you can’t call it a lie. Rubio earns Four Pinocchios.
No MAGA Left Behind
Trump, who began his presidency by pardoning the rioters and seditionists of January 6, is clearly relishing his unchecked power to pardon his loyalists, cronies, and assorted thuggish chums. Over the last few days, he’s granted pardons to two reality stars, a rapper, a MAGA-aligned sheriff, a former crooked GOP congressman, the co-founder of a Chicago gang, and a corrupt nursing home executive with a well-connected mommy.
The rule of law is often portrayed by the statue of Lady Justice, blindfolded, and holding a scale to weight the evidence. But the power to pardon enables the president to remove the blindfold altogether. Clout, fame, wealth, and political fealty can tip the scales.
The attractions for Trump are obvious. Celebrities and courtiers alike have a powerful new reason to curry his favor and he can place family, friends, allies, and perhaps even himself above the law.
Most immediately, the pardons allow him to send unsubtle signals to anyone who might be threatened by the special counsel’s investigation. In theory, Trump could wipe away most of his legal troubles (at least under federal law) with a few strokes of the pen. The pardons have the added advantage of enabling the president to give a powerful middle finger to prosecutors like Preet Bharara and James Comey, who brought some of the charges and whom the president openly loathes.
Trump has also learned that the pardons can be potent political weapons to reward his allies and stoke the enthusiasm of his base.
Of course, there is something deeply sinister about all this, because it transforms the rule of law into a process of arbitrary fear and favor.
But it will make great television.
It seems tedious at this point to note that Trump’s political success owes so much to reality television. But his election (and presidency) demonstrated the extent to which the lines between entertainment and politics have been obliterated.
We all live in the Trump Show now, but the second (or perhaps the third) season may be even more entertaining and irresistible. Imagine: “You’re Fired!” replaced with “You’re Free!” Think of it as Trump Meets Oprah. “A pardon for you and for you . . .”
President Donald Trump is entertaining the idea of pardoning those convicted of conspiring to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2020.
Trump said Wednesday he “will take a look” at pardoning four men convicted on federal charges. That escalates a suggestion from the DOJ’s new pardon attorney, Ed Martin, who recently described the case as a “fed-napping” plot.
“I will take a look at it,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “It’s been brought to my attention.”
The End of Three Beautiful Friendships?
In today’s ‘To the Contrary” Podcast, I’m joined by veteran journalist Ron Fournier to discuss the unraveling of Donald Trump’s bromances with Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, and Benjamin Netanyahu. We unpack the transactional nature of power, the scale and brazenness of Trump’s political corruption, and the challenge of escaping America’s two-party stranglehold. The episode also explores whether a practical, independent political movement—like one emerging in Michigan—might be the key to redefining the nation’s political future. (I’m more skeptical than Ron).
American diplomats in at least two countries have recently delivered internal reports to Washington that reflect a grim new reality taking hold abroad: The Trump administration’s sudden withdrawal of foreign aid is bringing about the violence and chaos that many had warned would come….
In the southeastern African country of Malawi, U.S. funding cuts to the United Nations’ World Food Programme have “yielded a sharp increase in criminality, sexual violence, and instances of human trafficking” within a large refugee camp, U.S. embassy officials told the State Department in late April. The world’s largest humanitarian food provider, the WFP projects a 40% decrease in funding compared to last year and has been forced to reduce food rations in Malawi’s sprawling Dzaleka refugee camp by a third.
To the north, the U.S. embassy in Kenya reported that news of funding cuts to refugee camps’ food programs led to violent demonstrations, according to a previously unreported cable from early May. During one protest, police responded with gunfire and wounded four people. Refugees have also died at food distribution centers, the officials wrote in the cable, including a pregnant woman who died under a stampede. Aid workers said they expected more people to get hurt “as vulnerable households become increasingly desperate.”
Honestly, the Dems, the opposition, whatever you want to call it, should employ what I'll now call a "TACO" strategy. Basically call Trump a chicken, and goad him into either doing terrible, Presidency ending things, or back down. Either way, we win, and Trump has a meltdown for all to see.
For example "Quit flapping your gums and arrest Adam Schiff already. Or are you too much of a chicken to arrest a sitting Senator and just like making threats, you big mouthed pansy."
I have been saying for months that Congress is reneging on its duties and allowing the Executive branch to do what Congress should be doing.
I'm glad to see that the courts are endorsing that view.
Honestly, the Dems, the opposition, whatever you want to call it, should employ what I'll now call a "TACO" strategy. Basically call Trump a chicken, and goad him into either doing terrible, Presidency ending things, or back down. Either way, we win, and Trump has a meltdown for all to see.
For example "Quit flapping your gums and arrest Adam Schiff already. Or are you too much of a chicken to arrest a sitting Senator and just like making threats, you big mouthed pansy."