Yesterday a federal appellate court handed down an extraordinary order – extraordinary for two reasons. First, the court acted on a Saturday, not normally a working day. Second, the court said the lower, or trial, court made an elementary, indeed a rookie, mistake. The appeals court held that the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction in the matter before him – yet another matter involving the Trump administration. The reasoning behind their ruling could well apply to many more cases involving President Donald Trump’s authority to act.

The matter at hand in the jurisdiction dispute

Actually the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on four appeals before it. All these cases arise out of decisions by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, in response to an executive order by President Trump. That order called for eliminating, “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law,” any non-statutory components and functions of certain agencies. It also called for reducing the statutory functions to “the minimum presence and function required by law.” Executive Order 14238, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy.” This order affected seven named agencies, among them: the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). Kari Lake, former gubernatorial candidate in Arizona, serves as Senior Adviser to the Acting CEO of USAGM.

USAGM controls six different media organs, including

• Voice of America (VOA),

• Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MEBN),

• Reporters Without Borders (abbreviated RSF for the French form Rapporteurs sans frontières),

• Radio Free Asia (RFA),

• Open Technology Fund (OTF), and

• Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), two networks in tandem addressing former members of the Warsaw Pact.

VOA is strictly a government agency, but the other five are private agencies that operate on grants from USAGM.

In response to EO 14238, USAGM:

1. Placed over 1000 employees on administrative leave,

2. Terminated 600 “personal service” contracts,

3. Terminated the grant agreements for MEBN and RFA, and

4. Shut down VOA completely.

USAGM took similar action against RFE/RL and OTF, but their lawsuits are at different stages.

What the various courts have done

On March 21, Reporter Patsy Widakuswara, six other reporters, RSF, and four unions sued to get their jobs back. Widakuswara v. Lake, case 1:25-cv-01015-RCL. They at first filed in the Southern District of New York. On April 4, on the government’s motion, the case was transferred to the District of Columbia court. On April 22, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of that court issued a preliminary injunction ordering the government to:

1. Re-hire all employees on administrative leave and reinstate all personal-service contracts,

2. Restore the RFA and MEBN grants, and

3. Switch VOA back on.

In his Memorandum Opinion, Judge Lamberth asserted that he had jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs had standing. Specifically Judge Lamberth rejected an argument that the Trump administration advanced, that the court lacked jurisdiction according to an “intervening” case on point. Department of Education v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025).

The government appealed the injunction almost immediately to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake, 25-5144. Specifically they appealed the first two parts of the injunction, disputing Judge Lamberth’s assertion of jurisdiction.

As is almost routine, the appellate court issued an administrative stay on Thursday (May 1). Two days later they followed that up with a stay pending appeal – meaning a stay until further notice. The panel, consisting of Judges Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao, and Cornelia Pillard, voted 2-1 to issue the stay. Judges Katsas and Rao are Trump appointees; Judge Pillard is an Obama appointee.

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction

The panel issued their order per curiam, meaning without signatures, and attached a statement under that same condition. Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented from the unsigned statement in nearly every particular.

In their statement, Judges Katsas and Rao thumped Judge Lamberth for asserting a jurisdiction that, they say, he lacks. Article III District Courts have no jurisdiction over:

1. Personnel actions – hiring, firing, and entering into or terminating contracts, nor:

2. Grants and grant revocations.

Judge Lamberth asserted jurisdiction over the personnel actions because he accepted plaintiffs’ arguments that the Trump administration was engaging in “wholesale dismantling” of VOA and USAGM, and that such dismantling was in violation of statute. The panel reminded him that the Administrative Procedure Act does not grant jurisdiction in such cases. As to the grants, the Tucker Act provides that the Court of Federal Claims is the only forum for handling of grant disputes.

Furthermore, contrary to Judge Lamberth’s assertions, the panel found that Department of Education v. California does indeed apply.

Judge Padilla bases her entire dissent on the avowal by Lake that VOA is “irretrievably broken” and produces “radical propaganda.” Apparently the judge feels that VOA has an absolute right to produce whatever content it wishes, and that Presidents may not gainsay it. Given that VOA is a direct agency of the government itself, that assertion strains credulity.

An outside expert

Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent for The Federalist and counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, also weighed in. She dropped a fourteen-post thread on X in full support of the appellate court’s stay and supporting statement.

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: HUGE win from Trump Administration and D.C. Circuit enters stay of lower court injunction. Lower court barred Trump Administration from managing Voice of America. D.C. Circuit stayed decision allowing Trump to move forward w/ firings/grant terminations.

Full order. Thoughts follow.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726388271423522

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726517896425725

Court of Appeals decision is based on fundamental issue of "jurisdiction." This conclusion should have wide-spread ramifications because many of challenges to Trump Administration are about employment decisions which CONGRESS said are NOT for district courts to decide.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726946822803638

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918727511464104404

The Court of Appeals decision is also significant because it addresses the "wholesale" "dismantling" argument being presented in several cases (such as USAID cases). The Administrative Procedures Act is NOT for such claims either & Congress did not waive such immunity! Additionally, Court of Appeals held that district court lacked jurisdiction to restore grants because Congress gave that authority to Court of Claims.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728045579391038

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728443170115984

Court of Appeals also notes how SCOTUS decision compels that result...which it DOES and yet district court ignored SCOTUS. Decision stressed why claims about grants must got to Court of Claims.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728737392038258

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918729207523193043

Court of Appeals adds that Plaintiffs can't avoid Court of Claims by framing as non-APA claims. Court of Appeals again highlights that with no bond the harm to government is irreparable. Also noted that Voice of America isn't being shuttered.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918729730225824112

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730062452433101

Court of Appeals also notes Judiciary Branch must follow the law too!

In sum, this opinion is a HUGE win for Trump because it establishes 3 key principles that apply to many of the other cases being brought against Trump Administration: a) no jurisdiction over firings; b) no jurisdiction over grant terminations;…

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730276907155522

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730625579622660

… and c) you can't get around Congress limiting district court jurisdiction by creative pleading of claims under other theories; d) with no bond harm to government will outweigh other harm; e) public has interest in Article III obey Article I.

Final thought: It is next to impossible to reconcile opinion here with same panels refusal to clarify stay in other case involving USAID and grants from legal perspective. Practically: Judge Katsas in other case figured decision on merits would be soon enough so no harm.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730900256240038

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918731234437394472

With regard to that last thought: part of winning an injunction, or a stay, is a showing of irreparable harm absent either injunction or stay. In the USAID case, Judge Katsas thought a decision on the merits would be forthcoming soon enough to avoid harm.

Kari Lake was understandably pleased with the appeals court decision.

BIG WIN in our legal cases at USAGM & Voice of America. Huge victory for President Trump and Article II. Turns out the District Court judge will not be able to manage the agency as he seemed to want to.

https://x.com/KariLake/status/1918745448640057454

Specifically, USAGM need not rehire the same people Kari Lake fired from VOA, nor restore the RFA and MEBN grants. If VOA must continue, then it will continue with a different cadre running it.

In general, this is the first time in history that courts have tried to tell a President with what voice he and his subordinates must speak. It is also the first time that trial courts have made such elementary reversible errors. “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction” is the quickest way to get a court to throw out a case. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make that abundantly clear. Any judge who tries to set that aside is not fit to sit as a judge. Whether by reason of incompetence or bias, the conclusion is the same.

Prof. Cleveland is right about another thing: this case will affect other such cases. After all, Article III gives Congress full authority to decide jurisdiction.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2025/05/04/news/jurisdiction-courts-exceeding/

Video:

EO 14238:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/20/2025-04868/continuing-the-reduction-of-the-federal-bureaucracy

Court dockets and documents:

Trial level:

Docket:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69846584/widakuswara-v-lake/

Complaint:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211.1.0.pdf

Memorandum Opinion:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211.98.0_1.pdf

Preliminary Injunction:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211.99.0.pdf

Dept. of Ed. v. California order:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a910_f2bh.pdf

Appellate level:

Docket:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940505/patsy-widakuswara-v-kari-lake/

Administrative Stay:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211.107.0.pdf

Stay pending appeal:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41991/gov.uscourts.cadc.41991.01208736131.0.pdf

Margot Cleveland’s thread:

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726388271423522

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726517896425725

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726946822803638

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918727511464104404

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728045579391038

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728443170115984

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728737392038258

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918729207523193043

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918729730225824112

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730062452433101

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730276907155522

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730625579622660

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730900256240038

Kari Lake’s reaction:

https://x.com/KariLake/status/1918745448640057454

Declarations of Truth:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

Representativa Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), otherwise known as AOC, definitely wants to be President. Accordingly she recently made a campaign appearance in southwestern Idaho, and cut a video emphasizing unity of (non-white) ethnic groups. But don’t let her deceive you into thinking she wants to be merely President of the United States. She wants to be President of Earth, and everything she does, she has calculated to that end.

Earlier moves by AOC

On April 15, 2025 (Tax Day, by no coincidence), AOC appeared in Nampa, Idaho’s third most populous city. That city lies near the Snake River that is the Oregon-Idaho border. Social-media influencers remember her mainly for affecting an accent, in the style of former Vice-President Kamala Harris.

https://x.com/townhallcom/status/1912145673685713195

Eight days later her campaign released this video:

Do not let them trick you into thinking we are enemies.

Do not let them trick you into thinking that we can be separated into rural and urban, Black and white and Latino.

We are one.

https://x.com/TeamAOC/status/1915081171513286942

That video is more suited to a Presidential campaign than to a Congressional reelection campaign, and everyone knows this. So a reporter asked her straight-out whether she was running for President. She coyly answered, “Who? Me?”

REPORTER: Are you thinking about running for President?

AOC: Because of my Instagram post? I mean, listen, it's a video!

https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1918019156957397319

She went on to suggest that her message centered on protecting Medicare and Medicaid benefits from cuts. (No one means to cut benefits; the Trump administration is after waste, fraud and abuse.) But yesterday (May 2), AOC returned to her real issue: immigration.

Specifically, in February she held a series of webinars telling illegal aliens how to avoid detection, detention, and deportation. Many of her methods recall Judge Hannah Dugan’s language in misdirecting Immigration and Customs Enforcement operatives and enabling (as she thought) an illegal alien to escape. (He didn’t; they literally outran and caught him anyway, and furthermore, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked Judge Dugan’s judicial powers.) Tom Homan, ICE Director and “Border Czar,” has referred AOC to the Justice Department for criminal investigation and possible prosecution.

I sent an email today to Deputy Attorney General. At what level is that impedement? Is that impediment? I’m not an attorney. I’m not a prosecutor. Is that impediment? Is that impeding our law enforcement efforts. If so, what are we going to do about it? Is she crossing the line? I’m working with the Department of Justice and finding out where is that line that they cross.

“Come and get me!”

Now, two and a half months later, she has made a statement in open defiance of Homan. Reports from Fox, Newsweek, National Review, and The Gateway Pundit have varying details. At a rally in Jackson Heights in Queens, New York, she actually said:

Tom Homan said he was going to refer me to DOJ because I’m using my free speech rights in order to advise people of their constitutional protections. To that I say: Come for me, do I look like I care?

She went on to assert that she did nothing illegal in the webinar.

AOC might have been trying to distract from a heckler who challenged her on her support for Israel in the Fourth Arab-Israeli War. But she is far more likely to have planned to say “Come for me” far in advance of that meeting. Immigration, not Middle East policy, is her primary issue. Welfare benefits of all kinds are incidental; they are the immigration magnet. The Democratic Party, including AOC, declared a battlefront on immigration within days of President Donald Trump returning to office.

And President Trump knows the Democrats have made themselves the Immigration Party, not merely the Abortion Party. Last Monday (April 21) he festooned the White House North Lawn with 100 mugshots of deported criminal illegal aliens.

Does he also know that AOC wants to get herself arrested, as the FBI arrested Judge Dugan last week? That doesn’t matter. If she’s broken the law, which the Justice Department will have to determine, they’ll arrest her, as they must. And she’ll parlay that into her campaign for the Presidential nomination.

Why is immigration so important to Democrats?

Unrestricted entry, especially by immigrants of the quality who were crashing the border regularly in Biden’s day, has two effects. First, they represent the Democratic Party’s new voter base. The obvious criminals make no bones about what they want: opportunity to steal from people, or worse. Less obviously, they’re after handouts. That’s why the “social safety net” has become an immigration magnet.

But more than that, under current law and regulation, the Census Bureau sees fit, or deems it necessary, to count immigrants in the census. The debate on whether to count immigrants, or wait until they become naturalized, might need a Constitutional amendment to resolve. Until then, President Trump’s administration has made several showy mass deportations. They have also settled the Biden administration’s disputes with the State of Texas on border security. (Texas isn’t the only southern border State, but it’s the State with the longest stretch of the southern border.) As a result, border crossings have fallen precipitously, though not to zero.

The only way the Democrats return to power is that immigration returns to Biden-era levels, and immigrants register to vote. If these things do not happen, the Democratic Party is toast. Party leaders know it – and AOC knows it.

The AOC master plan

AOC has flogged the immigration issue for years, and especially since before the Election of 2024. Tom Homan appeared before one of the committees on which she sits. On that occasion she told him straight-out:

With all due respect, Mr. Homan, asylees are not illegal aliens.

Homan, having none of that, retorted that anyone who crosses a U.S. border at a place other than a lawful point of entry, is an illegal alien. Furthermore, “asylum” is more often economic than political. Immigrants flock to the country that will hand things out, for the same reason other countries will run up trade surpluses with the United States and content themselves with buying American Treasury paper. (Or maybe that’s not contentment, but part of a plot to repossess the United States.) America is “rich enough,” and until Trump, Presidents have forgotten where America made its wealth. And that such wealth is finite.

AOC has embraced the Great Replacement of original Americans with non-white, usually mendicant migrants. This can lead only to the destruction of America. But that’s what AOC wants – because she wants to be President, not of America alone, but of the Earth.

To that same end, she is involved in “primarying” some old Democratic Party stalwarts, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), former Speaker of the House. She got into the House by “primarying” an old lion (Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y.), so this is more of the same.

Problems

To be sure, AOC has some serious problems, beyond the obvious. Donald Trump will make sure her mendicant immigrant constituents never vote. He will make sure of that if he has to say, to paraphrase President Andrew Jackson,

John Roberts has made his decision; now let him enforce it.

Her biggest problem will be that Trump has nearly four years to remove Biden’s imported extra voters-in-waiting. Remove them he will. Beyond that, the Democrats are losing their traditional constituencies. Trump has made the melting pot respectable again, more respectable than it ever really was. Furthermore, he is offering, not handouts, but opportunities to members of these constituencies. By doing that, Trump gives the lie to every tenet of critical theory.

Speaking of which, the Alphabet Soup coalition seems about to expel the “trans” part from its ranks. To paraphrase William S. Gilbert:

I know not mercy, men in women’s sports!

Nor does AOC help herself with her apparent support for Israel. Her Squad has surely fractured on that issue, with Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) adamantly supporting HAMAS in the Fourth Arab-Israeli War.

AOC seems oblivious to these problems, or dismisses them as irrelevant. Once again, immigration is her primary focus, for that is how she will become the President of the Earth. Or so she thinks – but it is up to alert American patriots to make sure her plans never come to fruition.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2025/05/03/news/aoc-for-president-earth/

Video:

Fake accents and ethnic unity videos:

https://x.com/townhallcom/status/1912145673685713195

https://x.com/TeamAOC/status/1915081171513286942

https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1918019156957397319

Declarations of Truth:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

President Donald J. Trump has kept tariffs in the news, with announcements that look contradictory until one understands his intentions. Trump wants to use tariffs both to replace the income tax and to prompt a rebuild of America’s manufacturing base. That’s why some of his proposed tariffs are on a ninety-day pause; the countries involved have shown willingness to negotiate. But many Americans, including many political theorists, don’t understand what tariffs are, or even what legitimate purposes they might serve. Herewith another primer on tariffs to address certain misunderstandings that decades of misapplied strategy – or unilateral economic disarmament – have facilitated.

What are tariffs?

Tariffs, or import duties, are taxes that importers pay on goods they bring into a country. True, many (if not most) importers will pass such taxes on to the buyers of the imported goods. Such buyers always have the option not to buy. Wal-Mart exercised that option recently after President Trump raised tariffs on communist China to a total of 125 percent. (In fact Wal-Mart has paid lip service for years to the idea of “buying American.”

Until the end of the nineteenth century, the United States financed its government through tariffs. Then a coalition of bankers, with William Randolph Hearst (the inventor of “yellow journalism”) as their chief agent provocateur, talked the country into the Spanish-American War. (They might have done more than talk if the destruction of USS Maine ACR-1 was due to anything other than a paint-locker fire that spread to the ship’s ammunition magazines.) The United States had not embarked on such an expensive foreign venture ever before. (All America’s wars until then took place on what are now the Contiguous States, the Lower Forty-eight, etc.) So Congress laid a telephone tax on wealthy telephone users (who then were the only ones who had telephones). Then in 1910, the “banksters” met on Jekyll Island to create and launch the Federal Reserve System.

The telephone tax is gone. But in 1913 came the income tax. And after World War II came the mis-called “free trade system.”

The great borrowing binge

Contrary to Erick-Woods Erickson’s execrably flawed analysis, trade deficits always must resolve somehow. Any two countries have between them a current account and a capital account. Current-account transactions are imports and exports. Capital-account transactions are investment in new manufacturing plant and equipment – or sales of bonds. Those bonds might be private company commercial paper, or government bonds.

Today the United States has an aggregate net-resultant current-account trade deficit of over a trillion dollars a year with the rest of the world. That cannot possibly sustain itself forever, and it doesn’t. One would expect these other countries to take all the money (American dollars, which are no longer redeemable in gold) they rake in, and invest in plant and equipment to make things in America to sell to Americans. Occasionally that is exactly what happens. But typically, foreign governments use the excess dollars to buy United States Treasury instruments. These are the short-term “bills,” ten-year “notes,” and thirty-year or “long” “bonds” The Wall Street Journal talks about. One finds this “talk” in a section called “Credit Markets and Money Rates.”

This represents continued borrowing by the United States government – and by extension, its citizens. To compound the absurdity, the U.S. government had created this “understanding” with other countries. Which is: you may “tariff” us all you want, so long as you keep buying our bills, notes and bonds.

One would expect a limit on this activity – except that Congress keeps raising the debt ceiling.

Deadbeat city

What does that make America? America has become not only a debtor nation but a spendthrift and almost a deadbeat nation. The one reason America is not a deadbeat nation is that it has not – yet – defaulted on its paper. But America is paying compound interest that itself is a significant portion of the federal budget. The one President in recent memory who presided over a budget surplus was Bill Clinton. And that was only because he couldn’t persuade a Republican Congress to spend big money on his priorities. Or perhaps he had none, because Bill Clinton was never an ideologue. (This is not an endorsement of Bill Clinton. But remember that a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.)

In any case, federal revenues exceeded expenditures for one or two years in his second term. That’s never happened since.

In the meantime, other countries have been more than content to lend Americans money so that they can keep buying – though they have no work product to buy with. American manufacturing is nearly dead – because other countries have closed their markets to American goods. The ownership of brands is no longer a reliable indicator of what is, and what is not, made in America. That in part reflects foreign companies actually building factories in America. But it also reflects American companies importing goods and slapping their own labels on them.

President Donald Trump wants to put a stop to this.

How Trump plans to use tariffs

Donald Trump has proposed two kinds of tariffs – baseline and reciprocal. The baseline tariff will be ten percent. Americans will always import many, many things they simply can’t “make in the USA.” These are mainly agricultural products, including coffee and tropical fruits. A ten-percent tariff on such staples should provide a comfortable revenue stream. (Rare earths are another story. Trump plans to acquire territories, like the island known variously as Greenland and Kalaalit Nunaat, rich in these minerals.)

Reciprocal tariffs are actually retaliatory. They send the message that no country will ever again close its markets to Americans without consequence. That’s why Trump raised tariffs on Chinese imports to 125 percent, while pausing them on other countries for 90 days.

Other countries can avoid the reciprocal tariffs in one of two ways. Either they open markets to American exporters, or they build factories in America. A factory in America, whether making goods for export or domestic consumption, employs Americans. Many countries are already making both kinds of deal.

A special word about China

China deserves special mention. Their true name for themselves is The Middle Kingdom. Middle of what? Middle of the world. Every Chinese emperor since Noah (who likely founded what became China after disembarking from his Ark) has dreamed of a kingdom that sits in the middle of the world – and rules the world from that position. Whether Chiang Kai-shek thought that way before Mao Zedong drove him out and onto Taiwan is anyone’s guess. But from Mao on, every Secretary General of the Chinese Communist Party has thought in these terms also.

Of course they will continue buying American paper – so they can suddenly declare that they own America, and dictate accordingly. They also have built a system on slave labor. And now they are building a navy to rival the United States Navy – as Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) clearly understands.

Furthermore, they want Taiwan back. To leave an independent Taiwan is to lose face. Some have debated on whether China can take Taiwan, but no one doubts that they’ll try. Fortunately the head of Taiwan Semiconductor has already spoken to President Trump about building a plant in the United States. That plant might become the only off-island asset left to the Taiwanese.

The world has enemies

All of which to address a general principle that many economists, especially libertarians, routinely ignore. The human world has enemies. Libertarians always maintain that one has no enemies but what one makes. That’s not true. China is the prize example of an external enemy who will attack without provocation. To China, merely to exist apart from China is to be an enemy of China. Remember how China sees itself: The Middle Kingdom.

Those same libertarian economists despise tariffs because they do not see national borders as legitimate. Perhaps they never once imagine that anything can be an exclusive public concern. If nothing is an exclusive public concern, then no tax is necessary – because government need not exist. And because tariffs are taxes, tariffs shouldn’t be necessary either.

But that presupposes utopia. And human beings will not build utopia. Whenever they try, they inevitably make it tyrannical. Ray Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451) recognized that. For those who don’t, consider the old Soviet Union. Or again, consider China, which governs itself with a Party named after the principle of holding all things in common.

“We can’t get there from here” – oh, yes, we can

Darrell Castle is one such libertarian – and his blind spots should surprise everyone.

Increased revenue comes at the cost of decreased production thus offsetting any gains.

Not if the revenue comes from overseas (cf. External Revenue Service) and production is to increase in-country.

Tariffs tend to slow down production wherever they are imposed. That is a concept proven time and again by history.

Since when? Tariffs slow down imports and prompt someone to build factories in the markets into which one wants to sell. (Which is what Elon Musk has done with Tesla.)

The idea then is to spur US manufacturing. That is a good thing but only if people have enough income to afford the products.

They’ll have the income in the form of factory wages.

A banana republic sells bananas to us and we sell them cars. We import twice as many bananas as that country does cars so there is a trade deficit. So we put a 100% tariff on bananas so problem solved. The difficulty is that the banana republic now can’t afford nearly as many cars so it’s self-defeating.

This is an example of a “straw man.” Ten percent is the more likely figure, as Trump has said repeatedly.

Some of the things we import in great numbers are vital to the American people. The product I’m thinking of is antibiotics which is almost exclusively made in China now.

First, having those antibiotics made here, is the idea. We have to start somewhere, and sometime, so we might as well start there, and now.

Second, such infections are avoidable, and one can combat them by strengthening the body’s defenses. Pumping someone (especially a child) full of antibiotics, is allopathic medicine. As Joseph R. Mercola D.O. aptly demonstrated, allopathic medicine is often a cop-out. Secretary Kennedy, fortunately, is already on that case.

Conclusion: tariffs can work

Hopefully this essay will clear up some misunderstandings that many have expressed about tariffs, and their proper role. Again, a baseline tariff of ten percent across the board might indeed replace the income tax. Trump intends the much higher reciprocal tariffs to change behavior. That includes restoring incentives to build things in America, for Americans and for those who produce goods America cannot produce.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2025/04/13/news/tariffs-misunderstandings/

Video:

Various sources:

https://retailwire.com/discussion/walmarts-open-call-continues-to-support-products-made-in-the-usa/

https://cnav.news/2025/04/10/editorial/guest/tax-spanish-american-war-century/

https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly

https://cnav.news/2025/04/12/editorial/guest/tariffs-resetting-global-order/

https://cnav.news/2025/04/13/accountability/executive/china-restoring-american-industrial-might/

https://cnav.news/2025/02/07/accountability/executive/china-taiwan-unintended-consequences/

https://cnav.news/2025/03/08/accountability/executive/china-war-plans/

Declarations of Truth:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/