First, a few tariff cartoons that I collected for everyone to enjoy:
How bullies always react when someone tells them to cut it out:
(On a side note, it always amuses me when reporters get so prissy about somebody swearing. Of course, if I had a job where I could be fired for dropping an f-bomb, I guess I'd be pretty careful about it too.)View on Threads
View on Threads
Gorsuch tries to send Trump and MAGA a message - not that they'll bother reading it:
View on Threads
Q - Why can’t you just work with Congress on tariffs. Trump - “Because I don’t have to.”
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) February 20, 2026 at 12:52 PM
Paul Krugman writes IEEPA! IEEPA! IEEPA! Why the tariff ruling really matters:
...And even if Trump finds ways to keep tariffing, this is a huge defeat. Why? Because Trump’s invocation of IEEPA [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] wasn’t about average tariff rates, or revenue. It wasn’t even about the trade deficit, which, by the way, hasn’t declined at all since he went on his tariff spree.And can you believe this about the US commerce secretary Lutnick and his sons (who now run Cantor Fitzgerald)?
No, it was all about arbitrary power. Trump has reveled in being able to slap tariffs on Brazil for daring to put Jair Bolsonaro on trial for a failed insurrection, being able to threaten France and Germany with tariffs for getting in the way of his attempt to seize Greenland, and of course giving tariff waivers to businesses that help him build his ballroom.
The desire for that arbitrary power is why he went for IEEPA despite warnings that it might well be ruled unconstitutional.
And alternatives to IEEPA don’t give him that much arbitrary power.
No wonder, then, that he’s throwing a huge temper tantrum.
Here are some Canadian reactions: In The Globe and Mail, Carlo Dade from the University of Calgary School of Public Policy writes Does striking down Trump’s ‘emergency’ tariffs make it better or worse for Canada?
...what has been a shared, unifying, national problem for Canada will now become more of a fragmented, regional one.Justin Ling's column is interesting too:
This change in the effect of U.S. tariffs will require new policy approaches by Canada, including different provincial responses to address different needs at home and in the United States.
...The presidential power behind the emergency tariffs looms like a pall over this country and the impending trade talks with the U.S. It is good that the Supreme Court has ruled against those tariffs.
But if the Trump administration loses its ability to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs to achieve economic, political and revenue objectives, it will turn to other powers. Of those powers, the most likely to be used more frequently is one already used increasingly: Section 232 of the 1971 Trade Act, known colloquially as “national security” tariffs, and, in Canada, as steel and aluminum, auto and lumber tariffs.
Over two administrations, Mr. Trump has launched 21 Section 232 investigations, found cause to impose tariffs in all but one case and imposed tariffs in the majority of other cases.
Section 232 tariffs take time to impose, are limited and are not a threat effectively communicated by a social-media post. The Commerce Department must define goods to be investigated, and they must be related; no blanket “everything is a threat” investigations here. The investigations take months, and there is public comment.
This difference is hugely important. Businesses and provincial governments have time to prepare for a limited threat.
But who will have to prepare is a more interesting story. With the use of Section 232 tariffs so far, the uneven distribution of their impact has already been felt. It will get worse.
For all completed and pending Section 232 investigations from the Trump administration, the burden falls most heavily on various industries in five provinces.
As a share of the province’s total exports to the U.S., Nova Scotia (39 per cent), Quebec (33 per cent), Manitoba (29 per cent), British Columbia (27 per cent) and Ontario (24 per cent) see the biggest potential hit from Section 232 tariffs. For the rest, it’s less t10 per cent.
Sectors affected include pharmaceuticals, lumber, trucks and jet engines, which all have uneven regional distributions. Canada’s tariff response will thus shift accordingly.
Provinces that face a smaller Section 232 hit will have more resources and capacity to help the fewer number of companies needing assistance. The opposite will be the case in provinces facing a larger hit.
Also, provincial trade policy toward the U.S. will diverge. Provinces with products subject to 232 tariffs will focus efforts on having products removed from the list or exemptions granted. Other provinces will devote resources to keeping products off of future 232 lists. This is not a united “Team Canada” approach.
Clearly, what has been a unifying national threat – tariffs on every product from every province that Canada sends to the U.S. – is poised to change.
Justin Ling writes Canada just got some good news on U.S. tariffs. Donald Trump won’t let us enjoy it for long (gift link)I updated my column with some new details — Trump's rambling press conference, the inflationary pressures of his previous tariffs, and how his Commerce Secretary may stand to get rich off today's SCOTUS decision. www.thestar.com/opinion/star...
— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) February 20, 2026 at 3:08 PM
[image or embed]
....Revel in this rare bit of good news, Canada — but not for too long. This, for Trump, is a minor setback. For some time now, MAGA thinkers and doers have been preparing for it, and they’ve already come up with new ways Trump can prosecute his trade war.Poilievre Doom-scrolling
Indeed, the president himself announced a 10 per cent across-the-board tariff on America’s trade partners within hours of the ruling. “Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic,” Trump seethed. “They’re so happy, and they’re dancing in the streets — but they won’t be dancing for long.”...
...He’ll soon sign an executive order, likely to take effect in the coming week, that will impose a new 10 per cent tariff and launch investigations into how the White House might impose still more. “Canada said, ‘I hope you win this decision, because if you don’t, you’ll actually be allowed to charge us — with a little additional work — higher tariffs,’” Trump said, referring to a conversation that almost certainly didn’t occur.
...Of course, none of this is allowed under CUSMA — but then neither were the original tariffs. That’s why Trump has tried to persuade Canada and Mexico to bake them in to their free-trade deals. And when the president inevitably imposes new trade restrictions on Canada, it ought to chasten those who’ve persisted in hectoring Ottawa to get a deal, any deal.
...Yes, Canadians should enjoy this (relatively) tariff-free weekend. Just remember: in Donald Trump’s world, tariffs are never very far away.
The idea that the leadership vote in Calgary would put an end to Conservative discomfort with Poilievre's leadership is proving more misguided by the day. Here are some great Chantal Hebert lines from the last two days:
And Andrew Coyne chimes in too:
View on Threads
View on Threads
And Andrew Coyne chimes in too:
Anybody got a head of lettuce?View on Threads
Epstein Scalp-Watch
Because just about every day now we are seeing the rich and powerful taken down by their involvement with the Epstein files.
NEW: Jeffrey Epstein cultivated relationships with CBP officers at the airports he frequented. Epstein emailed and texted with six CBP officers, invited them to his island, visited with them at the airport, and frequently sought to determine who was going to be on duty when he was traveling
— Julia Carrie Wong (@joolia.bsky.social) February 19, 2026 at 5:00 PM
[image or embed]
"We Brooklyn Boys stick together," one CBP supervisor texted Epstein. "Atta boy", Epstein responded. In November 2016, Epstein texted the supervisor that another CBP officer had been “nasty”. “I will speak to him!” the supervisor responded. “I will handle it, formally.”
— Julia Carrie Wong (@joolia.bsky.social) February 19, 2026 at 5:18 PM
[image or embed]
Private correspondence between global banking heavyweight Ariane de Rothschild and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein has surfaced, unexpectedly pulling South African billionaire Johann Rupert into the fallout. www.capetownetc.com/news/rupert-... www.detroitnews.com/story/news/p...
— JMay (@bubbles9333.bsky.social) February 20, 2026 at 11:34 PM
[image or embed]
Hoax my ass🤔 #Epstein #EpsteinFiles #TrumpEpsteinFiles
— WomenRiseUp2026 (@womenriseup2026.bsky.social) February 18, 2026 at 12:39 PM
[image or embed]
New Mexico's attorney general has reopened an investigation into allegations of illegal activity at Jeffrey Epstein's former Zorro Ranch.
— The Associated Press (@apnews.com) February 19, 2026 at 11:30 PM
[image or embed]
The Epstein files must be *really* bad.
— P.B. - Arcade/Arcane Vampire Vtuber (@pbu.bsky.social) February 20, 2026 at 9:15 AM
[image or embed]
Canada's Day 14 results here. For what is coming up on Day 15, click here - cheer for Homan on Saturday and plan to get up early for the hockey game on Sunday.
View on Threads
Medals and events on Friday:
Bronze!
Bronze!!
The Nathan MacKinnon goal that won the semi-final for Canada!!!
And everybody gets curling now:
I had to share this amazing skate that won a gold medal for American Alysa Liu. She is having such a great time:
Bronze!!
The Nathan MacKinnon goal that won the semi-final for Canada!!!
View on Threads
And everybody gets curling now:
View on Threads
I had to share this amazing skate that won a gold medal for American Alysa Liu. She is having such a great time:
View on Threads
four years ago, figure skating looked like a sport where the way to win was by driving literal children to the point of mental breakdown with Alysa Liu's win, it looks like a sport where the way to win is giving your talented skaters agency, the freedom to be themselves, and letting them find joy
— Rodger Sherman (@rodger.bsky.social) February 20, 2026 at 9:01 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment