Trump Crows About Tariffs as Recession Odds Skyrocket

Analysts at the world’s largest bank say that a recession is more likely to happen than not.

Analysts at JP Morgan, the marketing side of JP Morgan Chase & Co., adjusted their prediction Thursday that the United States would experience a recession in the next year, raising their forecasts to a whopping 60 percent from an already troubling 40 percent, according to The Wall Street Journal.

This decision comes after Donald Trump announced sweeping 10 percent tariffs on imports from nearly every country in the world, with additional country-specific tariffs levied on top.

Analysts predicted that retaliatory tariffs could lead to huge disruptions in the supply chain and that the tariff rate, which they expect to increase by 20 percentage points, would be equivalent to the biggest tax hike since 1968, which also led to a recession, according to Reuters.

Trump’s announcement continued to send the stock market tumbling Thursday, amid concerns over a global trade war. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 1,679.39 points, marking its worst session since June 2020, while the Nasdaq Composite saw its steepest drop since March 2020.

When Trump was asked about the crashing markets Thursday, he responded, “I think it’s going very well.” Blatant denial seems to be the name of the game, messaging-wise, as the White House insisted that it was not watching the market.

Trump also enacted a “permanent” 25 percent tariff on all imported vehicles and autoparts—which is already kneecapping the U.S. auto industry. The president has already levied steep 25 percent tariffs on America’s closest trading partners, Mexico and Canada.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced Thursday that the era of U.S. global leadership on trade was “over,” and said his country would begin looking elsewhere for trade partnerships.

Rümeysa Öztürk, the Tufts University student brazenly abducted by masked immigration agents on a public street in Massachusetts, is suffering serious health issues in Homeland Security custody.

Representative Ayanna Pressley, whose district includes the university, posted on Bluesky Thursday night that Öztürk has had three separate asthma attacks in custody while being denied access to her required medications, “a violation of her fundamental right to medical care.”

“This is cruelty, it is neglect, and it is a damning moral and legal failure,” Pressley’s post said.

Öztürk, a doctoral student on Fulbright scholarship, was allegedly detained for engaging “in activities in support of Hamas,” a DHS spokesperson said last week without offering any evidence supporting that charge. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also refused to offer any explanation of why Öztürk was detained without a court order or access to legal counsel, attacking the student for coming “into the U.S. as a visitor” and creating “a ruckus for us.”

Rubio claims to have revoked the visas of “more than 300” international students so far, with no word on whether the State Department, DHS, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement is following due process. Tufts University has offered its support to Öztürk, making a declaration before the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts seeking “relief so that Ms Öztürk is released without delay so that she can return to complete her studies and finish her degree.”

Meanwhile, Öztürk continues to be held in an ICE facility in Louisiana without access to her medication as her attorneys seek to have her transferred back to Massachusetts. True relief, however, will only come if she is granted due process, released from custody, and given the chance to address the allegations against her, if they even have any merit.

A right-wing group with financial ties to Leonard Leo and the Koch network is aiming to halt Donald Trump’s tariff plan.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance sued the president Thursday, claiming that Trump’s decision to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give him the power to “usurp” Congress’s right to control tariffs or “upset the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

In a press release, the group argued that the emergency statute “authorizes specific emergency actions like imposing sanctions or freezing assets to protect the United States from foreign threats.” 

“It does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” the NCLA wrote.

“Congress has sole authority to control tariffs, which it has done by passing detailed tariff statutes. The President cannot bypass those statutes by invoking ‘emergency’ authority in another statute that does not mention tariffs,” the group continued. “His attempt to use the IEEPA this way not only violates the law as written, but it also invites application of the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine, which tells courts not to discern policies of ‘vast economic and political significance’ in a law without explicit congressional authorization.”

The NCLA further argued that Trump had massively overstepped his presidential powers by leaning on the wartime statute.

“In its nearly 50-year history, no other president—including President Trump in his first term—has ever tried to use the IEEPA to impose tariffs,”  they wrote. “NCLA’s lawsuit does not quibble with President Trump’s declaration of an opioid-related emergency, but it does take issue with his decision to impose tariffs in response, without legal authority to do so.”

The group sued Trump on behalf of Simplified, a Florida-based home goods company whose business relies on imported materials from China, arguing that Trump’s move to impose even more tariffs on China would crush the company’s profits. In a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the NCLA asked the court to declare the tariff unlawful, vacate the increase reflected in the U.S. tariff schedule, and effectively block the tariff in its entirety.

“By invoking emergency power to impose an across-the-board tariff on imports from China that the statute does not authorize, President Trump has misused that power, usurped Congress’s right to control tariffs, and upset the Constitution’s separation of powers,” stated NCLA senior litigation counsel Andrew Morris.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen slammed Donald Trump’s outlandish bid to acquire Greenland Thursday, saying that the United States “cannot annex another country.”

During JD Vance’s own humiliating trip to the Arctic island last week, he whipped out some of his venture capitalist jargon to allege that Denmark had “underinvested in the security architecture” of Greenland.  

Frederiksen gave remarks Thursday alongside Greenland’s new Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and his predecessor, Mute Egede, where she voiced her disappointment in the U.S., arguing that Denmark had always been a good ally to the country. 

“When you ask our businesses to invest in the U.S., they do. When you ask us to spend more on our defense, we do; and when you ask of us to strengthen security in the Arctic, we are on the same page,” Frederiksen said. 

“But when you demand to take over a part of the Kingdom of Denmark’s territory, when we are met by pressure and by threats from our closest ally, what are we to believe in about the country that we have admired for so many years?

“This is about the world order that we have built together across the Atlantic over generations: You cannot annex another country, not even with an argument about international security,” Frederiksen said. 

Frederiksen added that she would still work to maintain relations with the U.S. “If we let ourselves be divided as allies, then we do our foes a favor. And I will do everything that I can to prevent that from happening,” she said. 

But it doesn’t seem like Trump intends to make that easy. On Wednesday, the Trump administration levied a 20 percent tariff on all imports from the European Union, including Denmark. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen in Brussels Thursday to reaffirm the “strong relationship” between the two countries, according to a statement from the State Department. 

Elon Musk isn’t leaving politics anytime soon, if his X posts are to be believed.

The tech mogul and fascism enthusiast posted “Fake news” Wednesday afternoon, in response to a Politico article saying that Musk is on the outs with the Trump administration following his disastrous intervention in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election, which saw Brad Schimel, who received more than $25 million from Musk, lose handily.

Shortly after the loss was announced, Musk didn’t cry fraud but instead claimed that he didn’t expect Schimel to win and that the real victory was a voter ID law being enshrined in Wisconsin’s state Constitution. But the alarmed reactions from Republicans both in the state and around the country suggest otherwise, and they now fear similar bloodbaths in the 2026 midterms and beyond.

Democrats, meanwhile, rallied behind the news, with DNC Chair Ken Martin saying, “We should put Elon Musk into every state” and Wisconsin Democratic Party chief Ben Wikler urging Musk to stay in the Trump administration and keep talking.

“When Elon Musk comes to town, Republicans should flee in panic,” Wikler added.

On Thursday morning, Vice President JD Vance told Fox News that “DOGE has got a lot of work to do, and yeah, that work is going to continue after Elon leaves, but fundamentally, Elon is going to remain a friend and an adviser of both me and the president,” referring to Musk’s efforts to overhaul the federal government.

Musk’s time in the federal government doesn’t appear to be ending, at least in the short term, but whether he’ll continue to get involved in elections remains to be seen. Democrats are hoping he does, much as he did in Wisconsin, while the GOP fears that the world’s richest man is now more of a liability than an asset.

Judge James Boasberg thinks Stephen Miller, Tom Homan, and the rest of the Trump administration “acted in bad faith” when they invoked the Alien Enemies Act to extrajudicially deport 200 Venezuelan men to a megaprison in El Salvador on March 15.

Judge Boasberg—whose restraining order to halt the deportation plans was defied by the administration—noted that he is considering contempt for the administration’s actions. And if he does, he wants to know who to blame.

“If I don’t agree, I don’t find your legal arguments convincing, and I believe there is probable cause to find contempt, what I’m asking is how—how should I determine who [is at fault]?” Judge Boasberg raised, wanting to know who exactly decided to disobey his order to turn planes carrying deportees around. The Trump administration insists that it somehow complied with the order.

“It seems to me, there is a fair likelihood that that is not correct,” Judge Boasberg responded. “In fact, the government acted in bad faith throughout that day. You really believed everything you did that day was legal and could survive a court challenge? I can’t believe you ever would have operated in the way you did.

“Why wouldn’t the prudent thing be to say, ‘Let’s slow down here. Let’s see what the judge says. He’s already enjoined the removal of five people; certainly in the realm of possibility that he would enjoin further removal. Let’s see what he says, and if he doesn’t enjoin it, we can go ahead. But surely better to be safe than risk violating the order,’” Boasberg asked the Justice Department lawyers.

The Justice Department also invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid having to give Judge Boasberg any more information about the deportation flights, which Boasberg called “pretty sketchy-looking.” The Justice Department insisted that revealing the information could have “diplomatic consequences.”

“Like what?” Judge Boasberg replied, noting that he has discussed confidential matters in closed sessions before.

The Trump administration insists that all 200 of these men are dangerous, hardened members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, hence the wartime Alien Enemies Act. This is completely false. Now innocent people are sitting in one of the most brutal prisons in the world.

Judge Boasberg plans to issue a ruling this week.

Donald Trump thinks everything is going just fine with his insane tariffs.

In his lone statement about the tariffs Thursday, Trump didn’t seem bothered when a reporter asked him, “The markets today are way down. The worst day in years. Because of the tariffs. So, how’s it going?”

“I think it’s going very well. It was an operation like when a patient gets operated on, and it’s a big thing. I said this would be exactly the way it is. We have six or seven trillion dollars coming into our country, and we’ve never seen anything like it,” Trump said, repeating what he said in a Truth Social post hours earlier. “The markets are going to boom, the stock is going to boom, the country is going to boom, and the rest of the world wants to see, is there any way they can make a deal?”

“They’ve taken advantage of us for many, many years. For many years, we’ve been at the wrong side of the ball, and I tell you what, I think it’s going to be unbelievable,” Trump added.

Right now, international markets aren’t agreeing with Trump’s ideas, with stock indexes plummeting everywhere. Criticism has come from fellow Republicans and former Trump administration officials, and some companies, such as automaker Stellantis, are laying off employees. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are even working together on a bill to rein the president in, although it is unlikely to pass.

And the rest of the world isn’t lining up to make deals: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney strongly rebuked the tariffs Thursday, saying that America’s economic dominance is over. France’s Emmanuel Macron has called for European companies to stop investing in America. Right now, this “medical operation” is crippling Americans.

President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs have already resulted in even more GOP infighting, according to Punchbowl News.

“There’s a massive disconnect between the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans on tariffs right now,” Jake Sherman wrote on X. “Here on the Hill, Republicans keep saying “well, this is the beginning of a negotiation. The administration says that this is not a negotiation.”

These tariffs—placed on friend and foe alike—are certain to drive up costs for both manufacturers and consumers, especially in red, rural states that rely on foreign goods in both imports and exports. This feeble attempt to spin these tariffs into a “negotiation” falls flat in the face of an administration that is touting them as law. Trump has been very clear that he believes the tariffs will be so successful that they will replace the income tax and make the country wealthier than it has been at any point in its history—not that he is levying them in order to make marginally better trading deals.

Senior Senate Republican Chuck Grassley has already moved to take action against Trump with his Trade Review Act of 2025, a bill that—while almost certainly dead on arrival—demonstrates the uncomfortable decisions that many Republicans will soon be forced to make as their president’s wanton tariffs make everything more expensive for constituents already struggling.

This is the second sign of internal disunity in 24 hours. On Thursday, it was reported that far-right crank Laura Loomer had an Oval Office meeting in which she convinced the president to fire multiple members of the National Security Council on the grounds that they were “neocons.” Loomer denies this report.

Canada has brutally dumped the United States over its tariffs … again.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a strong rebuke Thursday of Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on nearly every country in the world. 

“The global economy is fundamentally different today than it was yesterday,” Carney said. “The system of global trade anchored on the United States, that Canada has relied on since the end of the second World War—a system that, while not perfect, has helped to deliver prosperity to our country for decades—is over.

“Our old relationship of steadily deepening integration with the United States is over. The 80-year period when the United States embraced the mantle of global economic leadership, when it forged alliances rooted in trust and mutual respect, and championed the free and open exchange of goods and services is over,” Carney continued. “While this is a tragedy, it is also the new reality.

“We must respond with both purpose and force. We are a free, sovereign, and ambitious country. We are masters in our own home,” he added.  

Trump’s announcement does mark the end of U.S. leadership in global trade, favoring the kind of protectionist economic policy that drove the U.S. into the Great Depression nearly 100 years ago. And Carney, who is a former central banker and a former deputy minister for Canada’s Finance Department, likely understands exactly how destructive Trump’s tariff policy would be. 

Canada was spared from Trump’s newest tariff announcement, because the president had already levied steep 25 percent tariffs on all imports to the U.S. More than 100 U.S. trading partners were hit with a baseline tariff of 10 percent or more Wednesday. 

Last week, Carney slammed Trump’s “permanent” 25 percent tariff on all imported vehicles and autoparts as a “direct attack” on Canadian autoworkers, and in a stunning break with its longtime ally, Carney announced that Canada’s relationship with the U.S. was “over.” Carney had warned that Canada, which is currently one of the top importers of U.S. goods, totaling $412.7 billion in 2024, would need to reshape its economy to wean itself off its southern neighbor.

Carney doubled down on this threat Thursday, saying that Canada would begin “looking elsewhere to expand” its trade partnerships. Earlier Thursday, he posted on X that he had already spoken to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz about expanding trade relations between the two countries.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced plans to cut $580 million in “wasteful spending” at the Pentagon, but the major slashes to grants and contracts will spare Elon Musk’s SpaceX, The Intercept reported Thursday.

Over the past 25 years, the Pentagon’s contracts with SpaceX have only grown, totaling almost $8 billion. Musk and his businesses have received a whopping $38 billion in total government contracts. On March 21, the day after Hegseth announced the sweeping cuts, he had a private meeting with Musk. In a post on X, Hegseth said the two had discussed “innovation, efficiencies & smarter production.”

Despite Hegseth’s cuts, Musk, who heads the government’s cost-cutting efforts, is poised to make a killing from upcoming defense contracts to work on new rocket launchpads and rocket-booster landing zones, as well as Donald Trump’s fantasies of creating a “Golden Dome” missile defense system that is projected to cost up to $2.5 trillion—more than double the Pentagon’s currently enormous budget.

Stephen Semler, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, told The Intercept that since the election, SpaceX has become the Pentagon’s “most valued” contractor. Musk’s financial support of the Trump administration had boosted investor confidence that there would be kickbacks, he explained.

“Musk and DOGE are ignoring the one place where you would actually find savings within the government,” Semler said. “Musk realizes that although he is already getting tons of money from NASA contracts, the untapped potential for his businesses from the Pentagon budget is truly massive.”

Rather than make cuts to SpaceX contracts, Hegseth opted to eliminate programs such as the Defense Civilian Human Resources Management System, which Hegseth claimed had ballooned to 780 percent over budget. Hegseth said that in addition to cuts announced in February, the Defense Department was now prepared to cut a total of around $800 million from its budget—a comparatively small slice of the Pentagon’s nearly $1 trillion budget.

William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told The Intercept that proposed cuts were still “extremely modest” when compared to other agencies. “And unlike these other agencies, savings found in one part of the Pentagon will simply be invested in other Pentagon programs, with no net reduction in the department’s bottom line,” he added.