SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
american economic liberties project
'Welp, There Goes the Economy': Trump Tariffs Trigger Global Alarm
"He's taking a sledgehammer to the economy and pursuing unpopular, reckless trade policies that will do nothing to benefit workers and only serve to increase costs for consumers," warned one expert.
Apr 02, 2025
After U.S. President Donald Trump announced long-anticipated sweeping tariffs at the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday, economists, labor leaders, American lawmakers, and other critics reiterated that the move will negatively impact people worldwide.
The president revealed that on April 5, he will impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods and additional penalties for dozens of countries, including major trading partners—ignoring warnings that, as Jeffrey Sachs wrote in a Common Dreams opinion piece, his "tariffs will fail to close the trade and budget deficits, raise prices, and make America and the world poorer."
Trump's related executive order states that he finds "that underlying conditions, including a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and nontariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners' economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States."
The order adds that the "threat has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States in the domestic economic policies of key trading partners and structural imbalances in the global trading system," and declares a national emergency.
NBC Newsreported Wednesday that "global markets reacted sharply and swiftly... with investors fleeing U.S. stock indexes and companies that rely on global supply chains seeing their stocks plummet." The outlet noted that Dan Ives, an analyst at the investment firm Wedbush Securities, wrote, "President Trump just finished his tariff speech at the White House and we would characterize this slate of tariffs as 'worse than the worst case scenario' the street was fearing."
Trump framed this step in his trade war as "liberation day" and claimed that the duties are "reciprocal," but economists pushed back. Justin Wolfers at the University of Michigan said: "Trump announces his tariffs, which are (somehow?) related to the trade barriers other countries are imposing on the U.S. But... THE NUMBERS HE'S PRESENTING BEAR NO RELATION TO REALITY. It would be absurd to call these reciprocal tariffs. They're grievances."
Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens
said in a statement that "Americans have one simple request of President Trump: lower prices. Instead of answering the call, he's taking a sledgehammer to the economy and pursuing unpopular, reckless trade policies that will do nothing to benefit workers and only serve to increase costs for consumers."
"But Trump doesn't care about what happens to working families, as long as his billionaire donors and advisers are happy," she continued. "Republicans are already
chomping at the bit to use any potential tariff revenue to fund their next massive billionaire tax break."
Kobie Christian, a spokesperson for the national campaign Unrig Our Economy, similarly concluded that "there is no other way to say it—this is an out-of-touch policy designed by a billionaire and for billionaires."
"Virtually no one will benefit from these Republican-backed tariffs—except for the ultrawealthy who will get yet another tax break, paid for by working families," Christian added. "Small business owners will be forced to raise their prices to keep their businesses afloat, and Americans will have to pay even more for everyday goods. These tariffs could even push the economy into a recession. American workers need lower costs, not more tariffs and billionaire handouts."
American Economic Liberties Project's Rethink Trade director, Lori Wallach, declared that "the businesses that profiteered from our old broken trade system should pay for the necessary transition to more balanced trade, not American workers and consumers. President Trump must take immediate action to stop corporations from using the pretext of these tariffs to price gouge the very Americans already slammed by decades of bad trade policy and corporate greed."
Wallach was among those who pointed out that tariffs can be a vital tool. She explained that "Trump's announcement goes much broader, but tariffs against mercantilist countries like China, Germany, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan to counter systemic trade abuses can help restore America's capacity to produce more of the critical products needed for American families to be healthy and safe and for our country to be more resilient and secure."
"But to deliver more American production and good jobs, the goal must be to balance trade, not equalize tariff rates, and tariffs must be consistent," she stressed. "Tariffs must be accompanied by other industrial policies like tax credits to build demand for U.S.-made goods, incentives for investment in new production capacity and bans on stock buybacks, and easier union formation so gains go to wages, not just profits."
The only thing being liberated today is money from the bank accounts of hard-working Americans.
— Robert Reich ( @rbreich.bsky.social) April 2, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest federation of unions, also said that "the strategic use of tariffs can be an effective tool to support our industries and protect jobs at home. But they must be accompanied by policies that invest in our manufacturing base and a strong commitment to promoting workers' fundamental right to organize trade unions and bargain collectively."
"Unfortunately, the Trump administration's attacks on trade union workers' rights at home, gutting of the government agency that works to discourage the outsourcing of American jobs, and efforts to erode critical investments in U.S. manufacturing take us backward," she asserted. "We will continue to fight for trade policy that prioritizes the interests of working people without causing unnecessary economic pain for America's working families."
Some congressional Democrats shared similar criticism. Michigan Congresswoman Debbie Dingell said that "when used strategically, tariffs are a critical tool to bring back jobs and support American workers and industries," but "I'm concerned about the chaotic and immediate implementation of these wide-reaching tariffs."
U.S. Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.)
wrote on social media that "Trump's dumb tariffs are going to drive up costs for real working people. Like the dad who is trying to save money by fixing his car at home. Those parts from AutoZone are made somewhere else and the prices will go up!"
As the White House circulated a multipage sheet of targeted countries, Gomez and Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) were among those who noticed that Russia—which is waging a yearslong war on Ukraine—is absent from the list.
Meanwhile, as critics including Aaron Reichlin-Melnick at the American Immigration Council highlighted, the list included the Australian territory of the Heard Island and McDonald Islands—even though the islands are "completely uninhabited."
"Population zero. I guess we're going to tariff the seagulls?" quipped Reichlin-Melnick. "It kind of feels like a White House intern went through Wikipedia's list of countries and just generated this list off of that with no further research."
Organizer Max Berger
wrote on Bluesky Wednesday, "I like how no one knows whether the president of the United States is going to tank the global economy because he's a fucking idiot—or if he's just doing a bit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Key State of Delaware, 'Corporate Insider Power Grab' Quietly Underway
"Delaware's Senate just chose billionaire insiders—like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg—over pension funds, retirement savers, and other investors by passing S.B. 21."
Mar 18, 2025
The push to pass Senate Bill 21 in Delaware, the "corporate capital of the world," is garnering criticism from some anti-monopoly, economic, and legal experts this week.
"Delaware's Senate just chose billionaire insiders—like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg—over pension funds, retirement savers, and other investors by passing S.B. 21," Laurel Kilgour, research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), said in a Monday statement about state senators' overwhelming support for the "corporate insider power grab" last week.
Delaware lawmakers are swiftly working to overhaul state law after a judge ruled against Musk's $56 billion 2018 compensation package for Tesla. The CEO—who is the world's richest person and now a key leader in President Donald Trump's administration—then moved the incorporation for his other companies elsewhere, and urged other businesses to follow suit. Some are doing so and others are reportedly considering it, including Zuckerberg's Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.
As Business Insiderreported last month, citing Delaware's Division of Corporations, nearly 2.2 million entities are registered in the tiny state, including two-thirds of all Fortune 500 companies.
"This bill only serves to make it easier for corporate boards to rubber-stamp excessive executive pay and self-serving deals that drain returns from pensioners and retirement accounts," warned Kilgour. "Coming on the heels of another panicked giveaway to the corporate defense bar just last year, this is a reckless move that will undermine investor confidence and further erode Delaware's credibility as a fair corporate forum. The Delaware House must step in and stop this dangerous bill before it's too late."
Specifically, as AELP laid out, "S.B. 21 jeopardizes the ability of investors to protect themselves from harmful board decisions that slash returns to investors' hard-earned retirement savings, such as awarding exorbitant executive pay packages that far exceed any rational benchmark, or overpaying to acquire companies in which controlling shareholders have financial stakes."
"The bill makes it easier for corporate boards to insulate directors and controlling shareholders from litigation over conflicts of interest and self-dealing by corporate insiders, narrows who qualifies as a controlling shareholder, imposes a new presumption that board members are independent no matter who they are appointed by, and makes it more difficult for shareholders to discover conflicts by restricting their access to internal corporate records," the nonprofit detailed.
Joseph R. Mason, a Ph.D. economist and fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, also sounded the alarm on S.B. 21 with a Monday opinion piece in the Delaware Business Times.
"I recently conducted an economic impact study on the likely effects of Senate Bill 21 (S.B. 21) on the Delaware economy. Based on my findings, a reasonable estimate of the annual economic activity lost due to S.B. 21's passage is $117 million-$235 million in decreased economic activity and 450-900 lost jobs, statewide," he wrote. "My analysis very likely understates the impact to Delaware, as it only estimates lost economic activity generated by law firms located in the state."
Mason's op-ed followed a Delaware Onlinepiece from attorney Greg Varallo, who is head of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann's Delaware office and represented Richard Tornetta, the Tesla shareholder behind the Musk case in the state.
"On March 5, this paper published an op-ed by William Chandler and Lawrence Hamermesh," Varallo pointed out last week, referring to a former chancellor on the Delaware Court of Chancery who is now a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and a professor emeritus at the Widener University Delaware School of Law.
"In the piece, my old friends extolled the virtues of S.B. 21, going so far as to argue that the bill restored balance to the corporate law playing field. Nonsense. S.B. 21 is a license to steal for corporate controllers like Elon Musk," argued the lawyer, who spent decades leading a defense-side firm.
According to Varallo: "The idea that S.B. 21 will restore 'balance' between the interests of regular investors and billionaires who control companies is demonstrably false S.B. 21 creates 'safe harbors' for controllers to steal from their controlled public companies and from the stockholders who invested in those companies without having to answer for doing so. The bill overturns decades of thoughtfully crafted common law and puts Delaware in direct competition with Nevada for the state which gives controllers the clearest and easiest to follow road map to commit grand larceny."
"This isn't someone else's problem. If your retirement includes index funds, as most do, you are a stockholder in controlled companies because no index fund operates without owning controlled companies," he added. "As a citizen who believes that the independence of our judiciary is at the very core of our form of government, I can't sit still while the proponents of this legislation continue to attack the public servants who serve on the Court of Chancery, the nation's leading business court."
Meanwhile, as the Delaware Business Timesnoted Monday, S.B. 21 is backed by "two of the most powerful Delaware business organizations, the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce and the Delaware Business Roundtable," and groups that testified in support of it include ChristianaCare, the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce, and the Home Builders Association of Delaware.
Despite expert warnings, Delaware lawmakers are continuing their efforts to send S.B. 21 to the desk of Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer, who last week called on them to pass the legislation "as quickly as possible." According to the Delaware General Assembly website, the state House introduced an amendment to the bill on Tuesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Opens Door to Medicare Cuts After Backing GOP Plan to Gut Medicaid
The president's contradictory statements in recent days "cannot mask his betrayal to millions of people across the country who believed he would lower their costs," said one critic.
Feb 20, 2025
Beltway journalists reported Thursday on "confusion" spreading throughout the White House and the Republican caucus following U.S. President Donald Trump's endorsement of a House plan that would slash Medicaid and comments from the administration that suggested Trump will not protect Medicare—but Democratic lawmakers and progressive advocates said the message was crystal clear.
" Donald Trump and Elon Musk want to cut taxes for billionaires like themselves—and pay for it by gutting Medicare and Medicaid," Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, said in a statement. "They don't care if families have to take on crushing debt to pay for care, as long as it makes them much, much richer."
Mitchell offered the translation of contradictory statements from Trump that came Wednesday, with the president expressing support for a House resolution aimed at imposing his border and energy policies and extending his 2017 tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy.
The House resolution "implements my FULL America First Agenda, EVERYTHING, not just parts of it," the president said, suggesting his opposition to a Senate proposal that would push for two separate bills.
Calling for $2 trillion in spending cuts in order to fill the $4.5 trillion hole the tax cuts would blow in the deficit, the proposal would include potential cuts of $880 billion to Medicaid, which have made some Republicans in Congress express doubt that they could support the package without angering millions of constituents who rely on the low-income healthcare program.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is among the Republicans who have expressed "concerns" about the "very deep cuts to Medicaid" included in the House proposal, which Larry Levitt of Kaiser Family Foundation said would "go well beyond eliminating fraud and abuse."
Hours before he endorsed the House plan, Trump said neither Medicaid nor Medicare "is going to be touched" in the Republican budget, and his later comments reportedly came as a surprise to his top aides who were unaware of what Medicaid cuts Trump would be willing to approve.
The White House further muddled its message about how it intends to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, including those who helped fund Trump's election campaign, when a spokesperson attempted to clarify that the government healthcare programs relied on by more than 100 million people would be preserved.
"The Trump administration is committed to protecting Medicare and Medicaid while slashing the waste, fraud, and abuse within those programs—reforms that will increase efficiency and improve care for beneficiaries," White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Politico Wednesday, before sending an updated statement that left out the mention of Medicare.
The administration's attempt to remove Medicare from the conversation about possible cuts didn't get past Democratic lawmakers including Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who said the original comments indicated "a war on Medicare."
Voters who supported Trump because they believed his promises to protect Medicaid and Medicare "were had," according to the administration's latest comments, said Helaine Olen of the American Economic Liberties Project.
"By endorsing House Republicans' budget plan, Trump once again is putting the interests of the ultrawealthy and corporations over the needs of everyday Americans, supporting a plan that devastates the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk. "Trump's statements to the contrary cannot mask his betrayal to millions of people across the country who believed he would lower their costs. Medicaid is more than a pawn in the administration's game: It's an essential program for millions of Americans of all ages."
Trump's newly confirmed commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, further made the White House's objectives clear when he claimed on Fox News that Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are rife with "$1 trillion of waste, fraud, and abuse" and will be slashed.
"We have almost $4 trillion in entitlements and no one's ever looked at it before," said Lutnick. "You know Social Security is wrong, you know Medicaid and Medicare are wrong, so he's gonna cut $1 trillion, and then we're gonna get rid of all these tax scams that hammer Americans."
"Howard Lutnick, Trump's billionaire buddy turned commerce secretary, has confirmed that the administration was simply lying to MAGA supporters about not touching Social Security and Medicare," wrote Malcolm Ferguson at The New Republic on Thursday. "This is a long cry from the party that was telling its voters—many of whom are elderly conservatives on government benefits—that they wouldn't lay a finger on the programs they need most."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular