The Bulwark Podcast - Will Saletan and Scott Lincicome: A Crime Boss Has Taken Over

Episode Date: February 3, 2025

The president of the United States is putting his Jan 6 accomplices in charge of the Justice Department and the FBI, and clearing out any officials who would be willing to investigate the administration. It's anti-democratic, it's a coup, and it's allowing Elon and his 20-something DOGE buddies to act with impunity as they illegally access classified information and the Treasury's payment system. Meanwhile, the White House can't even get its messaging straight on the tariffs as they sabotage our relationship with allies in the process. Plus, the ethnic scapegoating continues and the Dems at the DNC go all Portlandia when they need to be fighting the aspiring authoritarians.  Will Saletan and Scott Lincicome join Tim Miller. show notes Tim's interview with J.J. McCullough on Canada's retaliatory tariffs

Trying to manage your expenses? With the TD Low-Rate Visa Card, you can. Because rusted breaks happen, and Taco Tuesdays happen. So do dog check-ups, phone plans, spin classes, and orthodontist appointments. But with a low annual interest rate, the TD Low-Rate Visa Card is a smart way to help find some balance. Learn more at td.com slash low rate card. TD, ready for you. A Tim's Donut and Coffee is the original collab. And now, any classic donut is a dollar

when you buy any size original or dark roast coffee. Get a deal on the iconic duo with a Tim's Dollar Donut. Plus tax at participating restaurants for limited time. Terms apply, see app for details. It's time for Tim's. tax at participating restaurants for a limited time. Terms apply. See app for details. Hello and welcome to the Bullwork Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. We've got a two-parter today. I added a bonus segment with Scott Linskow, who's a trade expert to talk about the tariffs that are imminent and already rollicking the stock market. But first it's back for the old timers, for the OGs.

You might remember Will Salatan Mondays. Well, they're back right now. Bill Kristol's on vacation. I'm here with my colleague, Will Salatan. What's up, Will? There's no vacation from Trump, isn't him? That's just everywhere you go. No, he's been texting me.

There was definitely no vacation for him mentally, but he does get one day off the podcast. Can I start with something positive though? Go ahead, man. I don't know if you'll find it positive, but I'm feeling good about a couple of things this morning. All right? Tell me. Here's number one.

This is a shit show. This is a total shit show. And I knew it would be a shit show. We told everybody it would, but you know, there was always a chance that Trump would get in there and, I don't know, decide not to do anything, right? And just kind of bleat and like get people to call him sir and not actually do anything and take credit for things that were already kind of percolating positively from the Biden administration. That was one option that could have happened, but instead we have JVL

this morning in the triad predicting a stock market crash and all of the topics we're about to go over is them messing things up. I don't know. Can we not have some pleasure in that? Knowing that they are as bad as we thought they would be. Wait, wait, this is where we are that like the good is bad. Yeah. Yeah.

That's where we are. This is where Tim, is it, is it Schadenfreude or is where we are, that like the good is bad? Yeah, yeah, that's where we are. This is where, Tim, is it schadenfreude or is it that you think that there's something salutary about the pain that will lead to healing? I know, I'm not about healing through pain. No, thank you for saying that. Yeah, it's partially schadenfreude, it's partially just kind of like the, you know, solace and knowing that you are correct, you know, the solace and knowing that we weren't leading people astray. There's something to that. There's a little bit of joy in other seeing other people's pain, but the bad people, the

mega people, not this, there will be some collateral damage. Unfortunately, that's, that's not what I'm happy about, But just their failures is kind of giving me a little joy. No, is that wrong? Well, I don't know. It's a little bit of the tree falls in the forest problem. If you and I are right objectively that this is insane and destructive, but the Republicans keep winning elections doing it, what consolation is there in that? I don't know. Personal validation.

All that matters is the solipsism. All that matters is solipsism. All that matters is having my own brain. Okay, I knew that you'd be on the other side of that, but I figured some of the listeners would be on my side. I'm enjoying it. There's another thing that's related. I don't know. Ezra Klein, you might have heard of him.

He's kind of a minor columnist and we might have him on the pot again soon. He had a piece over the weekend that said this, Trump is acting like a king because he's too weak to govern like a president. He's trying to substitute perception for reality. He's hoping that perception then becomes reality. That can only happen if we believe him as part of a longer monologue about just like, this is not actually the actions of somebody who is going to take over the government in a gradual and effective way, like these are the actions of somebody that doesn't know what they're doing and is trying to continue the fraud that he's perpetrated on the country for a long time that covers up his fundamental

political weakness. What's it do to you to Ezra's positive spin? These are the last two positive items of the podcast. Yeah, I don't know about this. First of all, on the perception versus reality thing, look, at some point reality only matters if it intrudes. We went through this election where the reality was Trump was an idiot and he was going to do all this damage.

He created a perception that, I mean, you saw the polls. People believed he was a good president after COVID, after all that craziness. Well, four years later, people are stupid and have short memories, but yeah, they didn't think so at the time. If that's the perception and they keep, you know, then the Republicans keep getting to implement the crazy policies. I will say, I do think, and I know you and Scott are going to talk about the tariffs, but it is a good thing that very early in this process, among the stupid things that

he was going to do and is doing, he's doing one that's gonna hurt a lot of people quickly and will make an impact, I think, on perception. And at that point, the polls start to decline and all that and Republicans might pay attention to that. I don't know, who was I talking to this about last night? Oh, I was talking to JJ McCullough, we did a YouTube video on this topic and he's Canadian.

He was like, he's like, won't the magas not care even if they're, I guess they're probably not even buying guacamole, whatever, you know, even if their maple syrup for their pancakes is going up and won't they just think that that's, you know, whatever part of Trump's grand plan. And I was like, yeah, but the problem is he got a lot of votes from people that did not have those strong ties, right? That were annoyed by prices and had some, you know, annoyances about the cultural shift left of the Democrats and maybe they cared about crime or immigration, right? But like there are people that are not in the cult that were for him.

And I do think that some of them are going to maybe experience the consequences of the vote, but we'll see. I would like to believe that, but I just wanna put on the table the dark theory that I have about all of this, which is maybe Donald Trump and his MAGA party are really bad at governing, but really good at winning elections. I don't think so. Part of how they're really good at doing it

is blaming and scapegoating. And we saw that with COVID, right? We saw like this disaster happens. Trump grossly mismanages. It leads to many more deaths than were necessary, but he talks about the China virus. He blames everybody else. But then he lost.

Well, he lost that election, but then he won the next one. All right. Well, I don't like this role switch. Okay. I'm the pony. I'm fighting the pony. You're trying to bring me into darkness.

I don't take it. Just let me have it. Let me have it. Your tip, your pony is that things suck. That's not a pony. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's a pony for me.

All right. Things are getting darker from here. So, uh, I hope everybody enjoyed that segment. Will, uh, our colleague, Bill Crystal is, it wasn't so much on vacation that he couldn't write a newsletter this morning. He wrote about, uh, the scandals that are currently embroiling the administration that are worse than Watergate. He starts with the firings at the FBI for people that have not been following this.

There were, I guess, six high-level FBI officials that were escorted out of the building late last week. Then there were other FBI officials that were involved in the Trump administration that they were trying to have relieved of their duties. The acting FBI director, Brian Driscoll, actually refused to agree with that request and in a message to staff on Saturday, he reminded FBI agents of their rights to due process and review in accordance with existing policy and law. We had a letter at the bulwark this morning that comes from the Society of Former FBI

Agents, which is not a group that is particularly political. And they are saying that this is an obvious disruption to FBI operations, the degree to which it can't be overstated, the forced retirement of deputy director and now all five executive assistant directors. They say that this extreme disruption is occurring at a time when the terrorist threat around the world has never been greater. It's putting us at great risk. And we have basically, you know, the weekend of the long knives at the FBI.

And this is coming to a head with the cash Patel vote coming up in the Senate. So the big picture on this to me is you and I are like trying to have a, you know, friendly conversation about this, but this is extremely serious. And what's basically happened is that a crime boss has taken over law enforcement. He's president of the United States. He's taken over the justice department, the FB he's, and he's putting his accomplices in charge of the Justice Department, the FBI. Bondi Patel didn't get Gates, but he's

replacing all these other officials. And this is just an extension of the January 6th pardon. So the pardons were these thugs on Trump's behalf beat up cops to try to overthrow an election. So it's anti-democratic, it's fascist, it's a coup, but it's also an attack on law enforcement by criminals. The guy who sent them there then becomes president and he pardons all of the thugs who beat up the cops, right?

And then he goes into the FBI and starts purging anybody. So they've demanded lists of anybody at the agency and anybody in the Justice Department, I believe, like thousands of people who were involved in any of the prosecutions of the criminals who worked for Trump. So Trump's got this paramilitary organization. He's put them back on the street and he's now going after, purging the law enforcement officials who prosecuted them successfully in front of juries, right? They were objectively convicted. It's not clear to me how far this goes. And just to come back to

our original question, Tim, it's not clear to me at what point the American public is going to care about this. If Trump is being Mr. Law and Order against immigrants, is the public going to care that he's letting these criminals out and prosecuting the prosecutors? Pete Yeah, I don't really care if the public cares at this point. It's like, that's a problem for fall of 2026. I think that the, the substantive element here that you talked about, like at the beginning is about how scary it is. You were smart to tie this to the pardons and we had another story out over the

weekend, I guess it's the fourth person that was pardoned that has had another altercation with police. This one is Dylan Harrington. He was nicknamed the MAGA lumberjack. He was arrested for rape. He's raping a woman who was blacked out and did not consent. He had pleaded guilty to assaulting, resisting and impeding officers, was sentenced to 37 months in prison and Trump had pardoned him.

So you have that, you have the paramilitary organization you said, you have this unlawful firing of career federal law enforcement officials, high level law enforcement officials. We talked about this with Andrew Weissman on Friday, just about how important it is to institutional knowledge to have these people and judgment given the most challenging cases. We've gotten rid of all those people. And then JVL tied it also to what is happening with Elon Musk, right? Where Elon Musk is now taking over the Treasury Department,

going into USAID, having his little 20-year-old Doge officials try to bully career officials, get access to classified information, get access to personal financial information. And JVL's point is like, look, if you've cleansed the law enforcement agencies of anyone who would be willing to investigate members of the own administration, then members of your own administration can act with impunity and can commit illegal actions, which Elon Musk is doing.

Right. So all of this is an attack on the rule of law. Now in the context of violent crime, Trump on the rule of law. Now, in the context of violent crime, Trump's pose and the Republican pose, is there the party of law and order there? They stand for the cops. They back the blue against the criminals. Now, we've established that's not true because of the January 6th pardons, the purge of the FBI. What's actually going on is Trump's and the Republican party's distinction is between foreign and domestic, right? We're against foreign lawbreakers. We're against people is between foreign and domestic. We're against foreign lawbreakers.

We're against people who entered this country illegally. We're against someone who steals a tube of toothpaste who came from overseas. But domestically, we're happy to pardon the people who committed violent crimes. Let me take this over to your point about Doge though. So here we have a private organization. So you probably know this better than I do, Tim.

Doge's legal status, right? They're not a government department, right? So here we have a private organization. So you probably know this better than I do, Tim. Doge's legal status, right? They're not a government department, right? None of this is authorized by Congress. This is one guy, Donald Trump, having won one election, basically usurping power, right? They're taking over. Congress appropriates, Congress establishes programs. The executive decides, no, you know what?

I don't care what the Article 2 branch, Article 1 branch did. I'm going to usurp this. I'm going to end this program, cut off these funds. Not only am I going to do it, I'm the elected guy. I'm going to give my buddy, who's not even a government official, access. These people coming in from Musk, what authorization do they have? So Trump's basic position is, never mind all of the rules that were established about who has the right to have access to these payment systems, who established these programs. I won this one election and therefore anybody I choose, I can send in to run the government. It's kind of democracy because he got elected, but it's illiberal democracy and it's anti-rule of law democracy.

It is authoritarianism with one election behind it. Yeah. I mean, here's just one example of what was happening with USAID. This is from CNN. Officials with Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency sparked a tense clash with USAID administrators over the weekend by demanding access to its physical headquarters and digital systems threatening to call security when the agency refused. The incident led to two more senior USAID security officials being placed on leave and Doge ultimately

succeeded in getting classified information. I mean, like that is, that is Hungary, right? You know, like we're doing this thing where it's like we're having these conversations where it's like, are they on the path to Hungary? You know, are we on the path to Russia? What are they going to try to do? How much of this is just PR? How much of this is, you know, whatever Trump leading illiberal things? And like this is unelected people that aren't, I assume don't have security clearances or background checks yet because they're just random officials with Doge going in and bullying existing high-level national security officials with clearances to get classified information.

Then, obviously, the next step of this is to then shut down USAID, which is coming, which reports they're coming, USAID signs were taken down from the Reagan building. They're going to put it under Secretary of State, I guess. That's blatantly not legal. It is thug autocracy. That's what that is. Can I pull on your thread there a minute about Hungary? Yeah.

Because there's a direct connection here with USAID, right? The Orban regime and the Putin regime hate USAID, and they've spoken out against it, and they don't like this whole, you know, what are you guys doing promoting civil society and other, you know, you're interfering in our internal affairs. So undermining USAID in particular on Trump's part is part and parcel of his, you know, de facto alliance with the authoritarians of the world, right? Here's this annoying agency. Yeah, throw China in there too, obviously.

Yeah, right, right. There's an absolutely direct connection. I mean, USAID basically does, you know, good things liberals like. The whole idea of international development is something. Trump's isolationism, America first, a lot of it is we're tired of being the good guys. We're tired of giving things to other people. We're tired of helping other people. We're just going to focus on helping ourselves.

While we're at it, we're going to dismantle this agency that annoys our authoritarian friends. Go ahead and continue down that path because you said you wanted to talk about the geopolitics of the trade wars, you know, because I, and obviously we'll get into this more with Scott, but like that is like that, that all like ties together, right? I mean, this is an effort to completely isolate America from our allies, from having influence in parts of the world, you know, where there's competition for influence with the more authoritarian regimes. And the trade war is directly connected to shutting down USAID in that sense.

And it's also directly connected to the coming threats to NATO that we're going to be seeing in the coming months. Yeah, absolutely. So let me just sort of sketch. I know you and Scott are going to do the economics of this. Just want to do the geopolitics at this. There's the NATO threatening to pull out of NATO, which he's, you know, abandoning Article 5. I won't defend you. There's the EU. Trump just said twice in the last like three days, he said,

am I going to impose tariffs on the European Union? Absolutely. He said that twice. They also are threatening, of course, Panama and Greenland. Trump said twice in the last two days, we're going to take it back, referring to the Panama Canal. We're going to take it back. Greenland, lots of threats to Greenland.

We're picking a war with Denmark, of all things. JD Vance was on TV on Sunday saying that we're going to take more of a territorial interest in Greenland, a territorial interest. So basically what we have is America first, Trump vance means that we are going to target all of our enemies. We're going to pick fights with all of our enemies. Remember Trump said his whole shtick during the campaign was the other side Democrats

are warmongers and there were no wars. He said at every campaign stop, I never started a war. He's starting a war with our allies. It's an economic war in which you, Mr. and Mrs. America are the soldiers, because you're gonna pay at the grocery store and you're gonna pay when you buy appliances and cars. He's starting wars for no reason.

He chose these wars. Another news item I really want to spend some time on is a gentleman by the name of Darren Beatty. Darren Beatty. I don't know which one it is. Doesn't really matter. He's the new acting undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. I want to go through the hit list here on Beatty and then we'll kind of tie

it back to the point you're making. Beatty loves to tell people to take a knee. I want to see if you can notice any trend here. Well, here's our new acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Tim Scott needs to learn his place and take a knee to MAGA. Black Lives Matter must take a knee to MAGA. Ibram Kendi must take a knee to MAGA. Ibram Kendi must take a knee to MAGA. Kay Coles James of Heritage Foundation needs to learn her natural place and take a knee

to MAGA. Any guess on the race of Kay Coles James, Will? Let me guess. It has to do with Ebony? Yes. There you go.ony? Yeah. Yes, there you go. Black. Yeah.

Tim Scott, K. Coles, James. Conservatives, they need to take a knee, they need to learn their place, natural place, and take a knee to MAGA. So this guy is really, he was fired from the first Trump administration for his associations with white nationalists. He was one of the only people too racist to be fired from the first Trump administration. He's been brought back. He's also pro-Weiger genocide essentially, or at least, at least a big excuser of the Weger genocide and talking about how he said that

we treat American rural whites worse than China treats the Weger minority. And then this takes us to South Africa. There was an interesting statement from Trump this morning, from Trump yesterday morning rather. South Africa is confiscating land and treating certain classes of people very badly. It is a bad situation that the radical left media doesn't want to so much as mentioned. The United States won't stand for it. I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of

this situation has been completed. Beatty had said this in the past, the whole concept of modern South Africa is absurd, doomed to fail from the beginning. South Africa was the first modern nation to be refounded on the anti-white principles of critical race theory. Musk is also from South Africa, you might remember, and his attack on USAID may also have something to do with his feelings about the South African leadership. USAID spent a lot of money helping black folks suffering from apartheid in South

Africa. So, I mean, it's not exactly subtle, Will. No, it's not. And it's part of, you know, when I talk about Trump being a fascist or this being a fascist movement, people think, okay, that's extreme language, you know, let's not compare to the Nazis and stuff like that. And you know, look, we have, we don't have people in, you know, murder camps at this point. But part of fascism is ethnic demagoguery, ethnic scapegoating. And that we're seeing lots of that

already in the first couple of weeks of this administration. You mentioned Darren Beatty got fired before. You know, being a white supremacist, being friends with white supremacists, preaching that stuff, that used to be too politically toxic for Trump. He thinks that's an advantage now. They're selling that now. And Tim, a little bit back to your point about politics, it's still amazing to me that in the 2024 election, Trump got, I believe in the vote cast survey, he got 16% of the black vote.

And he got 43% of the Latino vote. And a lot of white liberals said, what the hell? How can you vote for someone who's so overtly bigoted? And I would like to believe that at some point this will register and those numbers will start to return to recognizing that Donald Trump and his party are enemies of threats to,

insulters of degraders of minority communities. I mean, this guy has an amazing history. His campaign, remember the birtherism, Judge Curiel, a Latino judge was like Mexican heritage, Kamala Harris being a DEI hire, all that stuff. At some point, this needs to register. Yeah, I don't know. The Marco Rubio side of it is pretty interesting to me too.

See, he had to hire Beatty, right? And Marco Rubio ran in 2016, as I recall, on kind of a compassionate conservatism updated platform. And Marco Rubio has hired the guy who said that Kay Coles, James of the Heritage Foundation needs to learn her natural place and take a knee to MAGA. And this is the type of person that, that Marco wants as his undersecretary, somebody who is posting just the most overt, obvious racist bile over and over again about conservative black leaders.

I, you know, not that it's okay to do racist stuff about Ibram Kendi, but like this guy is so through the looking glass that he's posting racist shit about Tim Scott and Kate Coles James. And Marco is like, I want this man to be my undersecretary. I just think that the degree of the corruption, the corruption of the soul of these people is, is pretty remarkable. Right. Well, you know, it's not clear to me or what role little Marco had in this. And whether this is sort of, you assume he had to okay it.

I mean, it's his undersecretary. They're okaying anything Trump does at this point. Right. And, and Tim, is this a, is this to balance things out? You know, we did a point to Latino secretary of state, so let's balance it out with an anti Latino, anti, you know, with a, with a white racist. I guess. Yeah.

I mean, I guess that's their version of DEI. Remind me, what's the job that Beatty's getting here? Undersecretary of state for Public Diplomacy. Public Diplomacy. So here we have, not just that we have these bigots in office, but we've put them in jobs where they're supposed to represent the United States overseas.

So we're gonna go to Africa, we're gonna go to Asia, we're gonna go to Latin America with these people. Here, let's put a bigot in charge of public diplomacy. Let's put Kerry Lake, one of the best known liars, recidivist liars in our country in charge of the voice of America. There couldn't be a bigger middle finger to the world. We're basically saying, why should you trust us any more than you would trust the propaganda coming out of regimes in Russia or China? What kind of night is it? A single, double, triple, or a quad?

I'm not talking about caffeine or alcohol. I'm talking about Sol's out of office microdosed THC gummies. This podcast is sponsored by Sol. Sol's new out of office gummies are perfectly microdosed with hemp drive THC and CBD to give any day that chilling on the beach vibe. I was looking for that chilling on the beach vibe on Saturday night, because I was over at my buddy's house. I had a big day ahead of me Sunday.

Lots happening out there in the news. Didn't want to deal with the hangover. We had the kids running around. You know what a nice thing to do is when you have seven-year-old girls running around screaming, pretending like they're cats? A gummy that gives you that chilling on the beach vibe. Now, I'm not a quad man, so be careful out there, everybody. For me, maybe just a five milligram, that'll do the trick.

Come home, watch some severance, watch a little bit of nuggets on DVR, big win over the hornets. Made for a nice little evening, pleasant evening, a little break from everything that was happening on the news, not getting annoyed by the high-pitched squeals of young girls. It's great. It's all positive with the out of office gummies. The out of office gummies help get you that much needed me time at the end of the day or during the day. They're convenient and delicious.

They give you that warm, fuzzy, euphoric microdose feeling without sending you to the moon. You can go for a jog, watch your favorite TV show, or head out to a party, whatever floats your boat. Soul was founded five years ago by brother and sister duo Mike and Angie Lee. Mike's a former world-ranked professional boxer, and Angie is an author and professional speaker. They have the desire to create natural alternatives to medication that tackle problems they deal with themselves like sleeplessness, anxiety, focus, and pain.

And Sol's products are grown right here in the USA. Great news with the tariffs. You know, you don't have to worry about that. So if you want to feel your best, head to GetSol.com and use code theBullwork for 30% off your order. That's 30% off your order using code theBullwork. One last time, GetSol.com and code theBullwork for 30% off. I want to go back to Elon.

We mentioned this, but, um, the treasury story is really something. I mean, doge, I guess in Elon with now with the approval of the new incoming treasury secretary, Scott Besant, Scott Besant, who was, uh, whoever he told me was the normie. This was the guy we don't have to worry about. I guess he's given Elon carte blanche to, I can interfere in the payment system. Among the things that he said that he wants to put a stop payment on his payment to Lutheran religious services, because the Lutheran services, they're

providing services for immigrants. Obviously we wouldn't want to do that. So, you know, the Christian, the presidency, the presidency brought in by Christians who, you know, great evangelical Christians like Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell Jr., they're shutting down all payments to the Lutheran religious services. Anyway, JBL has kind of, has an even darker take on what's happening. He writes this, Elon Musk allegedly has control of the system the US government uses to disburse congressionally mandated payments. Musk claims that he's personally putting a stop

to pants he does not like. First, this obviously could not happen unless the FBI had been neutered because these actions are badly illegal. Of course, if DOJ and FBI refuse to investigate the crimes, are they really crimes at all? But then he goes on to talk about how, Musk wants X to be a payment system.

And, you know, his, his dark vision of what's possibly coming is that, is that Elon wants to get his own private businesses involved in payments from the government. You would have said that that was a crazy conspiracy to even suggest, but boy, I don't know what they'd be doing differently if they were planning on doing that. Yeah. Well, that's just oligarchy, right? This happens in other countries.

This wasn't supposed to happen here, that a guy gets elected and puts his billionaire friend in charge of the government, gives him special access. I think in Russia, the oligarchs, before some of them tangled with Putin, had this kind of leverage. Scott Besson and these normies though, they're no protection. Cause I mean, remember Scott Besson got that job for one reason, which was that he claimed that all the stock market increases under Joe Biden were because people expected Donald Trump to be president, right?

And that was just, so he flattered his way into the job. He's a total yes man. Right. If Elon's goons, I don't know what to call these guys, they may be not carrying cudgels, but they're, you know, they work for Elon, they come in and they say, we want to access to this stuff. Here, sign this piece of paper. Scott Besant, he's not in that job because he's brave. He's a coward like the rest of them. I mean, the entire party is populated with people who do bad things or people who are too weak to stand up to those who do bad

things. And Besant is one of those. So of course, he's going to sign that. So we're messaging about our topics for today. The worse than Watergate firings at the FBI, shuttering of USAID, this racist that's going to the Secretary of State, Elon taking over the Treasury, let's see, the January 6th pardon guys, raping people, the tariff, the trade war, et cetera, et cetera. So we're discussing potential topics. You said to me, also the outrage is not high enough about what he's doing on DEI.

So I just figured I'd let you cook on that for a little bit too. Yeah. I don't even know how to distill this. It's amazing to me that there's a plane crash. Donald Trump steps up to a microphone, says without any evidence that this is blame, he blames DEI, says that the crash is all about being smart. Now, the obvious explanations were offered to Trump, well, we have a shortage of air traffic controllers, there was technology, there was a question of that.

He dismissed the obvious explanation, he says, no, it's because we don't have smart enough people, and the reason we don't have smart enough people is because of DEI. And then when, when pressed for a little more detail, he starts talking about a lawsuit on the part of white applicants who didn't get jobs at FAA that they got discriminated against. So basically, the very clear message is this plane crashed because we hired black and brown people at the FAA. Now, this is bullshit. There's no evidence for it.

And statistically, the numbers have changed very little in the last several years. But if you go into a situation where something bad happened and you say it is the fault of hiring black and brown people, which is the message here, and you have no evidence for that, that is straight up bigotry. And that is the kind of scapegoating that authoritarian fascist regimes do. He didn't say Jews. He didn't even say explicitly that we hired black people and they caused this. He did explicitly like you're citing people with mental health issues and paraplegics and

other weird stuff like that. But yeah, I mean, the implication is obvious. That was his first answer. His first answer was that there's this stuff about hiring handicapped people or whatever, disabled people. He switched that and he switched it to white people can't get jobs and that's why we have a shortage, whatever. And then Tim, it wasn't just Trump, the entire chorus came in, JD Vance,

Sean Duffy, the new secretary, came in. They all parroted this line about white people not getting. So it's all part and parcel of what you were discussing earlier of the South Africa thing, the Darren Beatty thing. This is just like revenge of white anti-black anti-brown racism. And it's amazing to me that the reporters and the the media coverage of this hasn't been more forceful about, holy cow, the President of the United States is invoking a

baseless racial explanation for this terrible thing that happened. Well, maybe if we had more Aryans like Darren Beatty watching, you know, at air traffic control, we might be in a better better place. I don't know. But I wanted to let you cook on that because obviously it's racist and horrible. And I think that additionally, it will be illegal the way that they're targeting individuals who work in the government, who are career officials. You know, we already saw the one example. I think I talked on a past podcast about Dan Crenshaw putting up a picture of a black woman and noting that she had changed her bio to take out DE EI and basically saying this woman should be fired essentially.

So there's going to be racist targeting of that. I worry a little bit about the Democrats' response to this. We're going to spend a lot of time all week on all of the horrors that the Republicans are inflicting on Americans. But the Democrats had an election over the weekend where they were going to choose who was going to lead the party in opposition to this. They chose a guy named Ken Martin from Minnesota. He ran what they call the DFL party in Minnesota.

He seems like a fine enough person, I guess. I don't know. He doesn't exactly seem like the knife in his teeth attack dog that I might have wanted for the job. I don't know him that well. Leading up to his election victory, there was a debate that happened. And I want to play a clip from the debate and then discuss something that was roid. How many of you believe that racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Harris's defeat. Okay. So, that's good.

You all pass. So, for people listening, everybody raise their hand. Ken Martin, the person who ended up winning, was like the most excited with the hand raise and he was like pumping his hand up to that question. Jonathan Capehart says they all win in that answer. Okay, I mean, okay, I want to get to that in a second. There's another segment where there's a question from somebody in the audience about whether the DNC needed to have a permanent seat, at-large seat for somebody who's transgender. There's another question about whether they needed Muslim affinity groups to do outreach to the Muslims.

Everybody on stage, all the different candidates supported both of those objectives, except for one person, Faze Shaker, who was Bernie's campaign manager. So here I am handing it to Bernie's campaign manager, but he was like, I don't know, I think maybe we should focus a little less on this stuff and assess on this stuff a little bit less. And so anyway, Will, I made you his homework, watched some of this and I'm wondering what you think. Because I was not seeing a party that learned a lot from their defeat when I was watching this candidate forum.

So Tim, I did watch it and I want that hour back. Sorry about that. I owe you one. I wasn't so much struck by the issues about reaching out to this and that group in the rainbow, which obviously in the 2024 campaign hurt them to the extent that voters thought that the Democratic Party, because it cared about transgender people or cared about this or that minority, didn't care about economics.

And I don't know how to solve that problem. And I don't want to renounce caring about the issues that affect these groups, because they actually matter. What really struck me from this forum, Tim, was the chaos. I mean, here we have an authoritarian party on the right, and what do we have on the left? We have a party that looked like, from this forum, it was total anarchy.

They couldn't get the attendees to behave themselves and just let the forum continue. It's the old Will Rogers line about how it's not an organized political party. Ken Martin himself had his pitch to the crowd was like, the DNC should not be putting a finger on the scale in primaries. The DNC should not be dictating things. They asked the candidates, Tim, when one candidate wins the presidential primary, should the DNC become an extension of the presidential campaign, which is normal? That's what happens, right?

And one person raised their hand, and they're all looking at each other, because they're afraid. There's nobody leading the party. Everyone's trying to cater to the audience. And so if the audience cares about this or that pet issue, that's what happens. You kind of need somebody who will represent what they think the party should stand for, regardless of what the people in the crowd are saying.

I mean, what you want from the leader of the DNC in this moment is somebody that's going to be the tip of the spear in taking the fight to Donald Trump. And there was just very little of that. Again, besides Faye's, who I thought was really good, who's talking about what, and I'm trying to get him on the pod, but you know, what he thinks the DNC could do from a communication standpoint better. There just was a lot of caring about the internal nonsense that nobody cares about besides random people who are obsessed with democratic party internal politics, I understand that it's an internal debate and I think at a time

when the stakes are lower or, you know, back in 1998, I don't know if it was that big of a deal who the DNC chair was and they could all hash out their own internal disagreements, but I, I, there is a vacuum right now and the vacuum needs to be filled by somebody on the left who is capable of being the torchbearer in the fight against Trump and these guys just weren't it. I want to play one more clip from the outgoing, I'm sorry, I'm sorry to obsess about the identity thing here, well, but like somebody has to say it, like they need to learn about something and so I want to play Jamie Harrison, the outgoing DNC chair. This is him in his intro to talking about the, I guess it was the rules of the vice

chair race for the DNC and making sure they had the right representation. The rules specify that when we have a gender non-binary candidate or officer, the non-binary individual is counted as neither male nor female and the remaining six offices must be gender balanced. With the results of the previous four elections, our elected officers are currently two male and two female. In order to be gender balanced, we must select one male, one female, and one person of any gender. That goes on for another 90 seconds. I spared you the last 90 seconds, but that goes on for another 90 seconds.

Is this fucking Portlandia? Like, what are we doing here? Is the DNC need like full balance between male, female, and non-binary representation on every committee? Like, if there's a great non-binary representation on every committee. Like, if there's a great non-binary candidate to be the vice chair of the DNC, that's awesome. I'm fine with that. Sarah McBride is transgender congresswoman. She seems great.

Put her forth. I support that. But like, what are they doing? Like stop obsessing over this shit. Stop. Just stop. Okay? You can care about representation and making sure that people are at the table without

making yourself into a caricature that makes the country laugh at you. The object of the DNC right now is to build a party that can take on Donald Trump and the aspiring authoritarian that we just went over all the things that they're doing to try to make this an authoritarian country. The opposition needs to be up for that fight, not like obsessing over which committee has the right number of non-binary Native Americans. Okay. We can't, we got to stop.

Okay. Okay, Tim. Yes. But what do you do about the fact that that's bullshit? What do you do about the fact that the OCD level obsession with non-binary, you know, two of this and one of that and three of that, okay, like it's absurd. No, it's our cure. It's absurd. We need two of every race and gender, you know, two of every sexual identity. We need two intersex, two bisexuals. We need two of everything.

Right. Okay. That's all ridiculous, but it's niche, right? It's like this, it's not the essence of the party, but Republicans manage to take that wherever it exists and make it look like that's the essence of the party. That is not true though, Will. It is the essence of the party. Was Jamie Harrison up there talking about how we need to make sure that there are,

there's a vice chair that didn't go to college or that there's a vice chair from, you know, communities that have been hollowed out by the economic crisis. I don't fucking know. Like you show people what you care about by what you talk about. Like that's how you show people what you care about by what you talk about. That's how you show people what you care about. And the Democrats over and over show people what they care about is identity politics, making sure everybody has a seat at the table. They just, I'm sorry, that is it.

The Republicans don't do this. They don't have this happening at their meetings and people notice that. There's crazy stuff that happens at Republican meetings. Yeah, of course. Yeah, of course. There's other crazy shit that the Republicans have. The Republicans have plenty of baggage that they have to carry. Yeah.

Why? What is the value of this? Okay. But you've picked out that procedural vote, that 90 seconds or two minutes of Jamie Harrison. Okay. That's stupid. But like, no, in reality, they did talk about a lot of economic issues. It's just that that doesn't get the attention. Maybe people think it's like exotic, you know, and so it gets more news when they talk about, you know,

three non-binary whatevers that have to be on the committee. I'm sorry. I don't, you don't think that that's happening in meetings at Democratic HQ that there are people in private, like trying to discuss on a strategy of like, oh, we got to make sure that we're representing. I do think it is impacting their strategy. I don't think that there's anybody in these rooms that are working class Americans that did not go to fucking fancy schools. I just don't think there is.

I think that the rooms are full of people that care about about this like campus politics shit. I got on balance. I don't think that's true. I don't think I mean, if you, like you, you mentioned vice Shakira, like he, he, he was, he was talking about the whole Bernie campaign. Right. He was the last person he went into. He entered the race at the end because he was like, somebody has to like talk different. Let me put in a plug for one guy who was at that thing and didn't win.

Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, right? He was, he was in that. And he was really good. He wasn't going to win, didn't win, but he's a really good spokesman for the party. He's very good at being on message. And his message is about working people and basic material issues that they care about. But the question that your comments raise for me, Tim, is do you think that if the Democrats talk at all about transgender, about this and that group in the rainbow, about two of this and three of that, at any point in a two-hour forum, that that is going to void everything they say about economics? No, they can talk about it in a way that's normal. They can talk about a way that normal people talk about shit. If you wanted to say at that forum, it is outrageous that Donald Trump

is kicking out of the military, people that are transgender, that volunteered to serve, and that this fucking keyboard jockey that ducked the military because he had fake bone spurs in his feet is now trying to tell a patriotic transgender American that they have to be kicked out of the military to appease some like 22-year-old racists on Reddit. Great! Say that! Have passion in your gut for protecting people and for defending people, but don't just like talk about how, oh, oh, you know, we need to make sure that

the AANHPI committee has enough influence, you know, and is that the, like, you know what I mean? Like there's ways to talk about it that they, how they talk about it on Portlandia and there are ways to talk about protecting trans people in the way that they would talk about it at a dinner table in America. Yeah, Tim, I'd love to believe that. I just haven't seen it yet. And I would put it to you, and you tell me whether I'm wrong, that what you just said about kicking transgender people out of the military, it's better than what Jamie Harrison said. But I'm betting you that Trump and his

people would just take what you said and make an ad repeating the same message that Democrats, because Democrats care about transgender people, they them, they don't care about you. And it would have the same effect. Maybe, maybe, I don't know. I don't know. But it would be fine for me if they were, if I felt like they were at least doing their best. I want them to defend people. Marginalized people should be defended. What I don't want is stupid, you know, tokenism because they think that it's helping people

when it's actually just hurting them. Okay, final thing, very important topic. Luka Donchich got traded to the LA Lakers, which is a madness for anybody who pays attention to the NBA. Like at the worst, you could say he's the fourth best player in the NBA. He might be the second best player in the NBA. They traded him to the f*****g Lakers who always get the best people. For Anthony Davis, who's always hurt.

I don't understand it. I feel like we are, it's rigged. The NBA is rigged. They're upset about the ratings. Or maybe Miriam Adelson, who's the new owner of Dallas, maybe she is like sabotaging the team. This is like, what was that movie, Major League, where the owner was trying to sabotage the team?

Maybe she's trying to sabotage the team because Mark Cuban used to be the owner and he's woke now. I don't know. So just a little context here. You are a Denver Nuggets fan. I'm a Houston Rockets fan. So what we have here is a couple of not small market, but smaller market fans complaining about what, first of all, why the hell the Lakers always get these people, right?

Like it's, why the Lakers don't need this. They've got how many championships in their history, right? It's obscene, right? And this is so dumb, this Luka trade. I was like, you know, the tariffs might only be the second dumbest thing anybody's done this weekend because the deal in the NBA is here's how the NBA cap works, people. You can only put five guys on the court, right? If you've got one of those people who like, you can put it in the game in the fourth quarter

and just say, win the game for us. If you've got one and who has to be guarded by two other people and to be stopped at a minimum, you never give that person up. If you've got a Luka Doncic, you never give them up and you will trade anybody else to get them because you can replace all the lower level players. You can't replace the James Hardens, the LeBrons, the Doncic's, right? Everybody in the league, Denver would have liked to get him. Houston would have liked to get him. Everybody would have liked to get him. Why the hell the Lakers get him is just, it's a moral outrage. It's wrong.

Is this wrong? And it doesn't make any sense. It's horrible for the Mavericks long-term, so I don't know why they would do it for their franchise. It might make them a little bit better this year, weirdly, just because Luke's been hurt, but it's outrageous. It certainly would be the second dumbest thing to the tariffs if it wasn't for this little piece of breaking news I got for you, the president of Mexico, Claudia Scheidenbaum says that she has reached an agreement with Trump to delay the tariff by up to a month. So it will rise to the first dumbest move, the

Luca trade over the tariffs if the Canada tariffs also get delayed a month after Trump talks to Trudeau, who knows, but that's the state of play on our very stable economy with our very stable genius president. So Will Salaton, do you have any final thoughts on that? No, I'd like that's fascinating to me that Trump managed to bluff his way all the way to the day before the tariffs go into effect and then pull the chair. But you know, I guess that's going to be standard practice for the next four years. What a joy. All right, Will Salaton. Thanks so much. I'm next. Scott somebody out there has been a victim of identity theft or had that credit

card stolen or been stalked or doxed. This day and age, making sure that your data is private is critical. As a person who exists publicly, especially someone that shares my opinions online, I'm hyper aware of safety and security. It's easier than ever for people to find personal information about me or you online. All this data hanging out there on the internet can have actual consequences and that's why I personally recommend DeleteMe. DeleteMe is a subscription service that removes your personal info from hundreds of data brokers.

Sign up and provide DeleteMe with exactly what information you want deleted, and their experts take it from there. DeleteMe isn't just a one-time service. It's always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the internet. So take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners.

Today get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeleteeme.com slash bulwark and use promo code bulwark at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeleteeme.com slash bulwark and enter code bulwark at checkout. That's joindeleteme.com slash bulwark code bulwark. All right. Hey everybody. As I mentioned at the end of the Will Salatin interview, Trump backed off of the tariff to Mexico, at least for a month. They kicked him back a month in exchange for, I guess, 10,000 troops, Mexican troops coming to the border. So I taped the Scott Lintzcombe part of this interview about the trade war before that news came out. We're going to keep that in here because Scott provides

a lot of really kind of interesting analysis of how this stuff works in practice. And, you know, these threats and bluffs and backoffs and, you know, this whole rigmarole, we're going to be living through this for the next few years. I think it's still very relevant to hear from Scott on what the implications are and as I'm taping this right now, we don't know what if anything will happen with the Canadian and China tariffs, whether we'll try to punch those back a month as well or not. So we will see what happens. And we're back with my buddy, Scott Linsacum. He's the vice president of general economics and trade at the Cato Institute. He's an adjunct professor at Duke law school.

He writes the capitalism newsletter for the dispatch subtly titled. And he also said, I believe, is this right? You're the progenitor of the viral t-shirt tariffs, not only impose economic costs, but also failed to achieve their primary policy aims and foster political dysfunction along the way. You can see why that's a popular t-shirt. Yes. Well, it was a joke that I guess has increasing relevance.

Yes. Increasing and increasing as the minutes go by. Well, I wanted to have you on as, you know, our local tariff experts to dig deep on this. The Wall Street Journal called it the stupidest trade war in history. So I'm turning to you for both the kind of the big picture and now we agree that it's bad.

So that part is covered, but like what exactly is happening and then kind of we'll dig into it. Yeah, so on Saturday, the president issued three executive orders invoking a national emergency with respect to fentanyl and the importation of fentanyl from China, Canada, and Mexico. The Canadian fentanyl emergency. I've been hearing lots about that. Correct, correct. And of course then applying tariffs on imports of all goods from these three countries, 10% for China, because they already had 25% tariffs on a bunch of stuff.

And then 25% on all imports from Canada and Mexico. Leaving aside whether there is a Canadian Fentanyl crisis. There's not, I think we can say at the board that there is not a Canadian fentanyl crisis. I mean, I guess every ounce, every gram of fentanyl that comes across the border is a tragedy, as RFK would say about abortions. But I don't think it rises to a level of crisis. Yes. Well, and the big point, and I think the point that I think is going to be litigated is even if you grant all of these crises, the remedy is utterly disconnected from the emergency itself. I mean, how does applying tariffs on

avocados solve the fentanyl crisis? And that's the the big, I think the bigger issue here is that the remedy is really damaging for the US economy, for the United States global reputation, whatever, however we want to call that. And I really mean that in terms of international economic agreements, because, you know, Canada, Mexico are our biggest trading partners. They have had relatively free trade with the United States since 1994, because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which then Trump rebranded the USMCA and said it was the greatest trade deal ever. So Trump's trade deal, all of that has been thrown away, along with, of course, all of the microeconomic stuff,

right? So you have supply chains that have evolved over decades. Automotive parts will cross the US-Mexico border five, six, seven times before getting put into a vehicle. And they do that again because of this free trade zone. This has been a relatively good thing for the US economy overall. Yes, there have been discrete harms for certain workers and companies,

but overall it's been a good thing. It's allowed US firms to compete against Asian supply chains and European supply chains by diversifying. So all of this is good, and yet Trump's gonna implode all of it because of Fendel. It just, it really makes no sense. We should get into the legal side of this and what legal remedies there are, but just, just to be clear on what the like political side of this is. I mean, Trump acknowledged

what you're saying is that there will be some disruption. He said we may have short term some a little pain. I don't remember him saying that during the campaign, but he acknowledged yesterday that there will be pain for people. He said recently, nothing can be done to forestall tariffs. We have very big deficits and tariffs are something that we are doing. Canada's treat us very unfairly. JD Vance writes yesterday, spare me the sob story.

He's such a dick. Spare me the sob story about how Canada is our best friend. I love Canada and have many Canadian friends. Quick fact check, I find that very challenging to believe that the JD Vans has friends. Well they're very nice people. But does JD has friends that are Canadian? I'd like to see the evidence of that. He writes, but is the government meeting their NATO target for military spending? Are they stopping the flow of drugs in the country? I'm sick of being taken advantage of. And these guys are all over the place, right? I mean, even in their own messaging,

like the fentanyl thing is just such an obvious fig leaf. He's like, he's talking about NATO and all this other shit. And Trump was on truth social bringing up the trade balances, bringing up that this is going to be a great thing for manufacturing. So yeah, the fentanyl thing kind of disappeared within about 12 hours, right? And I would add, it's not just their words that show they understand this is going to be painful for the US economy. It's the actions as well, because they carved out Canadian oil. So Canadian oil gets a special 10% tariff, not the full 25. Now why would you do that if this is going to be good for the American economy?

Well, you do it because in reality, it's going to raise gas prices in the Midwest because we import a ton of Canadian crude oil. We do that not because we're not energy independent or any of that nonsense. We do it because Canada makes a certain type of crude oil that goes in the refineries that are in the Midwest. And again, we have this wonderful free trade relationship with Canadians. So we stopped buying OPEC oil, we started buying Canadian heavy crude, everybody ends up better off, or at least they did, right. So even in their actions, their formal actions, they understand that this is going to be painful. But now, of course,

it's just the great the great covering and distraction. Yeah. I liked this, uh, observation by Brendan Duke. He said, uh, it was just three months ago. Trump was green lighting a pipeline from Canada to own the American libs. But now he's starting a trade war with Canada because he says we import too much oil from them. Right.

I mean, it is the whole thing is just incoherent. I mean, like it, it betray incoherent. I mean, it betrays, he understands, or at least somebody around him understood, like the value of bringing Canadian oil, for the very reason you said, to places where it's geographically convenient and where it works. But I guess that is not as important now

as the tariff temper tantrum. Yeah, and it really reveals a fundamental flaw in a lot of kind of the protectionist mindset is that a lot of the imports from Canada and Mexico are complementary to U.S. production. They do not push out U.S. production. They actually support U.S. production. So a huge chunk of what we import from Canada, Mexico are industrial inputs. So things that we put in cars or microwave ovens or whatever. And that allows us to make more of those things. It allows us to create cheaper gasoline, right? So these are complementary supply chains.

They are not just simply zero sum directly competitive. And the whole protectionist idea with trade deficits and you know, imports bad exports goods really fails when you understand these complementaries, right? When you understand that production actually goes up in the United States as imports go up. So that's a it's a big problem for them. And I, you know, for better or worse, assuming these tariffs actually happen, I think we're going to get a lot of real world lessons in the next couple weeks of how these complementaries work in practice.

So let's just do 101 here. All right. So the tariff, I was getting a text from a buddy last night. He's like, so who collects the tariff again? Right? I mean, like we're just trying to remember our macro 101 from college here. So the tariff at the border, the tariff is actually collected from the importer. Yes. Right? So it's not as if the Canadian exporter then pays a quarter on every dollar to the US government. The importer pays that when they bring it in. Is that right? Yeah,

yeah. So we talk about tariffs when we talk about legal incidents and economic incidents, legal incidents is who pays at the border. Almost always, it's the an American importer. There are a few little exceptions, but forget about those. So a good cross the border customs basically hands you a bill. Typically, you actually get the bill later, but forget about those. So a good cross the border customs basically hands you a bill. Typically, you actually get the bill later, but you get the idea and then you pay it. The economic incidence is trickier, right? Because

foreign producers can in theory lower their prices to offset the tariff, right? So if you used to be charging 100, and there's a 25% tariff, you start charging, you know, 80, 80 plus 20 is you're back to 100. Everything's good, right? Another thing is there are currency movements. So the economic incidence is harder. Generally, though, we have a ton of recent evidence from the Trump 1.0 tariffs. And we found that the economic incidence the burden of these tariffs was primarily falling on domestic American companies and consumers.

How does economic ones get happen like the US we send them a bill like, sorry, you're fucking with us. You still get the exact same legal framework, customs collects the duty from the importer. The only thing that changes is the import price of the good. So, so basically, a foreign producer can say, you know what, I'm going to lower my prices and effectively offset any additional tariff that's applied at the border. It happens

occasionally. And I would imagine you're going to see some of this with with these new tariffs. But in general, most of it is going to be paid by Americans. And the other thing we should note, though, is there's then an invisible tariff. Because tariffs don't just raise the price of imports. They raise the price of domestic goods, too. Because if you're a domestic producer,

you suddenly have more demand and less competition and less supply, less supply in the market. So we econ 101, you raise your prices, right? And supply and demand. Yeah. So this morning, Wall Street Journal had the most predictable headline ever, which is that US steel makers are raising their prices right now because of these tariffs. Well, that'll be great for infrastructure costs

and all the issues, yeah. And great for manufacturers, because you and I, I mean, I don't actually, I don't know about your shopping habits, Tim, but I don't go out and buy big hunks of steel. I don't, usually. Okay, so that's all American manufacturers. So automakers, aircraft manufacturers, energy pipeline producers,

you name it. These are the folks that are going to be eating these new higher prices as well as any higher import prices as well. I love that little economics lesson. Okay, just one more time on Crossing the Border. I want you to do the Sesame Street style. All right. So we've got like you're imagining it's a cartoon. I guess Sesame Street isn't a cartoon. We're going to do a PBS cartoon. It's a guy from Mexico. He's driving up in his truck with avocados.

He's crossing the border legally. It's the customs guy counting the avocados and giving him a bill. Like how does it actually happen? No, it's by value. Typically by value. Sometimes they do it by weight or whatever, but most of our tariffs are what we call ad valorem. It's by value, typically by value. Sometimes they do it by weight or whatever, but most of our tariffs are what we call ad valorem, it's dumb Latin.

It just means by value. So if you have a 25% tariff and you're bringing over $100 worth of avocados, you're gonna get a bill at the border for 25 bucks. The guy shipping it in is getting the bill, but I thought the importer was supposed to be paying for it because then they just charge the importer on the back end. They charge the importer. Yeah. Okay. That's actually a really important point.

Mexico isn't launching avocados across the border. These are, I mean, not yet. It'd be kind of awesome. I talked to some mad Canadians last night. So there might be some maple syrup getting chucked across the border. Almost all trade has a willing consumer on the other end, an importer. Think of a company like Walmart. Walmart is buying from a seller in China or Japan or wherever, Mexico. When the boat arrives with Walmart's purchases, Walmart is then actually taking possession

of those at the border. And it's not a guy with avocados from Mexico. It's actually they're shipping it, Walmart's taking possession, and that's when they're paying the bill to customs. So you kind of mentioned this, but what about just the broader structural supply chain challenges, right? Like, because if you're a US automaker, some of the stuff's coming from China through Mexico to the U.S. or in...

Just last week on Cato, my RA and I did a blog post on the automotive sector in North America's automotive supply chain. We had this nice little map that we showed a single product because Bloomberg went out, good for them. They actually tracked a single product that crossed the border several times to go into a car seat. So in the olden days, so pre these executive orders, that widget, it was a capacitor could actually cross the US Mexico border, the five times that it did end up in a

car seat and have zero tariffs applied. This time, it's going to get tariffed every single time it crosses the border. Why was it going across five times? Comparative advantage. So you have certain factories in the United States are good at certain things like creating circuit boards. It's a complex widget. It has a couple different parts. Yeah, a lot. So it gets put into another thing that gets put into another thing.

So engines are another example of this. They start out as an engine block. They keep getting more stuff added to them. So there is a little buried provision in both of the Canada and Mexico executive orders, not to get too wonky on you, that is barring what we call duty drawback. too wonky on you that is barring what we call duty drawback. This is a system that effectively allows importers to not pay duties if they're exporting the same thing they just imported. So let's say you, you import an avocado, you make guacamole, you put that in a container and you export the guacamole. you can actually get a refund

on the tariff you paid on the avocado. We call that duty drawback. Makes perfect sense. Cause it's not actually entering the United States for consumption. You're actually just processing it. And we want to get that processing value, right? So that's normal.

Yeah, sure. They removed duty drawbacks. So I've heard from several people who are in the supply chains who are like, what, what the heck? What are we even going to do? We can say what the fuck here, but yeah, I got a kid. Yeah. You know, I'm all sanitized. So we have this question of compounding tariffs.

So if you go back to the automotive example, you could have a good that gets a tariff as its starting point gets incorporated into something crosses again, gets another tariff crosses again, gets another tariff. By the end of it, you actually because your your tariffs apply this is sorry, really wonky to the gross value of the product. That means they don't apply to just the value you've added to a product in a certain place. So

let's go back to our guacamole example. Even though the guacamole part of it is only half of the avocados half of the cost, the guacamole is the half of the cost. Tariffs don't do that. They don't say, Oh, we're only going to tear off the additional stuff you did, they just give you the full 100% of the new value of the product, right? So you're effectively because of the system, which makes sense, it's hard to determine value add at the border, nobody's gonna do

that. So because of the system, though, you can end up with tariffs that are just kind of exponentially increasing because of these things across the border so many times. Well that's going to do good things for prices. I think the other funny thing I saw about this, two more funny things I want to share with you. One was they've removed the de minimis exception. And so this was like, you know, if a Canadian grandma wants to send her American, you know,

wants to send a gift to her grandchild who now lives in Austin. She like has got to pay a tariff on that now. I guess we're going to have external revenue service people, like 20 year olds, Elon hires from the Reddit message board, I guess, is going to be going through the mail to figure out if there are any tariffs that need to happen now? This is another one of those kind of hugely under-reported things. So the de minimis exception does have raised some concerns, right? Because effectively, after the China tariffs were applied, a bunch of manufacturers realized they could set up warehouses in Mexico and Canada and bring in small shipments from China, storm the warehouse and then send it to the United States duty free, right, because they're small dollar values. So there are

needs for reforms. But by simply banning all de minimis shipments, you're you're actually hitting a lot of perfectly legal trade and a lot of stuff like you said, like grandma's cookies from from Canada. But the other big point is, I don't know how customs is actually going to enforce this. So some people look because de minimis reform has been a thing that has been discussed for years now because of the kind of she and and Tmoo taking

advantage of this system, which by the way, again, just to be clear, was never a problem until we had all these tariffs in place, right? I just think we're gonna take all the people from USA ID and we're gonna make them we're gonna make them border agents. Well, this is this is what we're getting at 30,000 new customs agents or more customs officials have said to Congress and whatever, the amount of resources it would need to

actually inspect individual de minimis shipments is outrageous. Just it's crazy. They do inspect, they do a sampling system, they scan them, they do everything they can. But there's been this, I mean, we're talking about, I would seem to remember 4 million parcels a day crossing via the de minimis exception. Now, again, I'll just put on my libertarian free trader hat and say, maybe it was actually better to have bulk shipments coming directly from China than having 4 million packages sent across

from Mexico, but sorry, your tariffs have caused this, this big mess. I also liked this from Chuck Grassley this morning. He's trying to blame Biden, of course, Biden inflation increased the input cost to farmers by 20% including particularly the high prices on fertilizer. So I plead with president Trump to exempt potash from the tariff because family farmers get most of our potash from Canada. I was wondering if that was a typo because Chuck Grassley does a lot of typos.

I'm not a farm boy. I'm from the suburbs, but my, my farm husband informs me that potash is a real thing. Yes. And it's in fertilizer. Correct. And that's a big problem. So now we have individual centers begging Mr.

Trump for mercy for random, random products. So this is tariffs 101, right? Tariffs, when you apply them to an input, fertilizer is an input. It's going to harm your downstream producers. Farmers are downstream producers, and tariffs always lead to cronyism and lobbying, because everybody wants an exception or exemption, or they want their own tariffs.

And I think we found the feature for Trump. Well, for sure. Well, the last time Trump implemented a bunch of tariffs, there was an exemption process through both Commerce Department and USTR. And then a bunch of enterprising economists went back and looked and they found that you actually had a much better likelihood of getting your exemption if you donated to Republican candidates and hired a lobbyist who had connections to the Trump administration.

So you know, this is DC 101, right, man? I mean- But Scheinbaum and Trudeau are trying to counteract that by targeting red state businesses. Yes, and that's also trade 101, right? So, retaliation is almost inevitable because politicians in these other places can't look weak to their own domestic constituents,

right? You can't just look like a patsy to Donald Trump. You understand that import tariffs are going to be costly because you're not a mercantilist like Donald Trump. You actually understand this is going to be painful, but you have to do it because you need to get reelected or you know, there's national solidarity, all that kind of stuff. And you can actually, apparently the Canadians are really pissed right now. I did a whole segment on YouTube with our Canadian pal JJ that people can go find. I'll put the link in the show notes and it's, you know, they're hot. They're hot under the collar up there.

And you know, Canadians are like the nicest people ever. So like for them to get upset, you've done something really wrong. So going back to retaliation. So they there's a political incentive to retaliate. There's also a strategic incentive. So if you don't retaliate, you're basically encouraging bad behavior by the by the initial actor. This is all game theory stuff, right? You see a lot of retaliation in this space. But how do you retaliate? Well, you don't want to just do blanket tariffs like Donald Trump did. You want to hit politically influential groups. So you're

going to go after pork producers. They pork guys carry a lot of weight. So you're going to go after pork imports. You're going to go after steel imports. They went after famously went after bourbon because of Mitch McConnell and Kentucky bourbon. So this is very standard practice. You try to do these targeted hits.

Well, that's a shame. And you so finally see what this one you think the impact here if they actually go through with it could be biggest one year tax increase ever. Yeah, $350 billion right off the top, right? And, and I would add, even if this all goes away tonight, I think this may be a good place to close. There are still reasons to expect this to be damaging in the long term because the United States today has effectively abrogated its free trade agreement commitments with its closest trading partners and has done it in a way that is just clearly absurd and damaging. And so if you are a foreign government official, and you are looking to increase economic integration, and you have on the

one hand, China, Xi Jinping, total pain in the butt, lots of problems with China's economic models and human rights. Compared to what you just got with Donald Trump and the United States, the calculus has changed. And I think that this is going to do long-term damage to government's willingness to increase integration with the United States. And that will just mean slower growth, less competitiveness for the U S economy, onward and onward.

And I would note as one of our adjuncts posted over the weekend, it also could come back to bite us when there's another global crisis because governments tend to work together, whether it's through public health or monetary policy or whatever. And trade agreement partners tend to do the best when it comes to working together in these things. But now we're basically destroying those relationships in real time. Wow, that's a good place to end. Thanks to Will Salatin, Scott Linscombe. Everybody else, we'll see you back here tomorrow. Peace. I don't bluff bro, aiming at your head like a buffalo You a rub now, I'ma cutthroat You a tough guy, that's enough jokes

Then the sun die, the night is young though The diamonds still shine, in the rough ho What the fuck though, where the love go? 5, 4, 3, 2, where the ones go? It's a shit show, put you front row Talking shit bro, let your tongue show Money over bitches and above hoes That is still my favorite love quote Put the gun aside, what the fuck for? I sleep with the gun, and she don't snore

What the fuck, yo, where the love go? Trade your ski mask for the muzzo It's a bloodbath, where the suds go? It's a Swiss B, that'll drugs go If she's iffy, that'll drugs go If she's simply, double cup toast I got a duffel, full of hundos That'll love go, where's the uproar? What the fuck though? Where the love go? 5, 4, 3, 2, I let one go

Get the fuck though, I don't bluff bro Aiming at your head, like a buffalo What the fuck though? where the love go? Five, four, three, two, I let one go Get the fuck though, I don't bluff bro Aiming at your head, like a buffalo Get the fuck though, I don't bluff bro I come out the scuffle without a scuffle

Puff puff bro, I don't huff though Yellow diamonds up close, catch a sunstroke At your front door, with a gun still Knock knock, who's there is how it won't go Just a jungle, to have the utmost For the nutso's, and we nutso What the fuck bro, swim from bro We grow up fast, we roll up slow We throw up gangsta, she throw up dope

Drain lock, ain't time like a gun no Put the green in the bag like a lawn mower Hell trick or pull back like a con roll Extra clip and a the bag like a lawn mower Hair trick, I pull back like a Conroe Extra clip and a stash like a console Listenin' to Bono, you listen to Dono What the fuck, bro? What a love go? Swizzy, he the chef, I like my lunch gross

Just look up, bro, that a scuss go I see the shovel, but where did my bro go? To the unknown Only way he comin' back is through his unborns If you see what's in my bag, think I'm a drug lord It's empty when I give it back, now where's the overall? What the fuck though, where the love go? Five, four, three, two, I let one go

I don't give a fuck though, I don't bluff bro Aiming at your head, like a buffalo What the fuck though, where the love go? Five, four, three, two, I let one go. I don't fuck though. I don't bluff bro. Aiming at your head like a buffalo. The Bullork podcast is produced by Katie Cooper

with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown. My car needed repairs, but I could only pay for half of them. An easy loan through lamina.ca made the difference between stressed out driving and a smooth ride to work. Mark went the extra mile on his repairs with a loan from Brokers Lamina at 1-800-NEW-CREDIT. It's easy to apply over the phone or online at Lamina.ca. Load up to $1,500 and get funds in an hour with no documents or credit checks and pay back over three to seven months. Prop up your purchase and apply for a loan now at lamina.ca.

You're getting closer. You can feel it in your whole body. The fear, calculating every detail. Heart racing as you move to the front of the line and tap to pay. We understand when you're in debt everything looks different like the fear of the cost of buying anything. At Farber Debt Solutions we can help you see things the way you did before you were in debt. Farber Debt Solutions licensed

insolvency trustees get the truth about debt. Drive safe and obey the rules of the road. Vehicle owners who receive a red light or speed camera violation can pay or dispute online at toronto.ca slash aps.