Let’s Try to Sort This Out
Tariffs, Rescissions, Reconciliation, and Separation of Powers, Oh, my!
The Trump regime’s economic policies come at us in a bewildering array of dollars and percentages along with confusing information about what the judicial branch of the government and the U.S. Congress can and cannot do. If you feel confused to a point of wanting to just tune out, then you’re certainly not alone. What I hope to sort out here are the basics on the Trump tariffs, the DOGE cuts, and the One, Big, Bad Billionaire Bill (erroneously named the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill”) now working its way through the U.S. Senate. Each is its own thing with its own path and its own potential remedies.
What the tariffs, the Trump/DOGE cuts, and the Bill all have in common that they all transfer money to the already wealthy at the expense of middle and lower income households and individuals.
Trump Tariffs
Trump’s imposition of tariffs started with his announcement on so-called “Liberation Day”, April 2, 2025 (apart from a few he announced earlier). Tariffs are ordinarily, historically, and constitutionally debated by and voted on by the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and, if passed by both houses, then sent to the President for approval. Trump, who has been touting tariffs for at least a decade and a half, issued Executive Order 14257 (really a decree) (click to see the text) on April 2, 2025. To claim presidential authority to unilaterally levy wide-ranging tariffs he had to claim a “National Emergency.” The “National Emergency,” according to his decree, is “large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits.” Calling a trade deficit, particularly one that, in his own words, is “annual” and “persistent” an “emergency” is so obviously outside the meaning of the word “emergency” as to be laughable—if the results of Trump’s executive power grab weren’t so serious.
This last Wednesday, May 28, as covered by Reuters “A U.S. trade court blocked most of President Donald Trump's tariffs in a sweeping ruling…that found the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from U.S. trading partners.” Of course, everyone expects the Trump regime to seek a stay as he tries to run out the clock as far as possible while appealing the lower court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Why? Well, because that’s how Trump has paid lawyers to do for him with court judgements all his life.
At the same time, remember that Trump extensively peddled the nonsense that the country exporting the goods to the U.S. will pay the tariffs when, in fact, tariffs are ultimately paid for by consumer in the form of higher prices. This amounts to a hidden, regressive tax. The consumer sees no paperwork to draw attention to the tax and the least wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income in order to buy any product subject to a tariff.
Estimates of how much these regressive tariff taxes on U.S. consumers will bring in over the next 10 years (the conventional interval for such projects) are, of course, all over the map. It is nearly impossible to predict, first of all, the final settled tariff rate and, second, whether or not the tariffs will put the U.S. (and the world’s) economy into a recession. In any case, whatever the revenues realized from tariffs, they are a hidden tax that will come out of the pockets of consumers. Insofar as tariff revenues in Trump world are meant to offset revenue lost in income tax cuts that primarily benefit the already wealthy, these tariffs will effectively replace revenues from progressive federal tax with a hidden regressive tax, thus drawing more money upward.
At least theoretically, Congress, while still under Republican (Trumpian) control, could make Trump’s tariffs legal by debating and passing a bill or bills—but no one should hold their breath. Congressional Republicans would rather duck the responsibility.
The DOGE/Trump impoundments
Like the Trump regime’s tariff rollercoaster, many or most of the actions of Elon Musk’s so-called “Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)” and Trump’s rescissions of funds are similarly illegal under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Until 1974 the President technically possessed the power to impound (withhold) Congressionally-approved funding, but it was rarely used. Richard Nixon grossly abused his power by withholding funds from programs he personally did not like. The Impoundment Control (Title X of the Act) was voted in by Congress and signed by President Ford in the aftermath of Nixon’s abuse of the power. The Trump regime’s (mostly through DOGE) withholding of Congressionally-approved funds from USAID, NIH, CPB, NPR, and a host of other targets, openly violates the 1974 Act. (Aside: Violation of 1974 Act was also entwined with and contested in Trump’s threatened withholding of Congressionally appropriated funds from Ukraine in his first administration in 2019, the subject of Trump’s first impeachment.)
Let’s focus on just one instance, one that is near and dear to me both as a listener and contributor to both public radio and public television. On May 1, 2025, Trump signed a unilateral decree (aka “Executive Order” or EO) ordering an end to funding for both the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and National Public Radio (NPR). Trump has made it abundantly clear that he issued the decree based on his personal autocratic judgement that these entities are run by “THE RADICAL LEFT ‘MONSTERS’ THAT SO BADLY HURT OUR COUNTRY!” Defunding Sesame Street based on sick Trumpian ideology is, I hope, a step too far even for Republicans. There are two lines of fighting back, one judicial and the other legislative.
For the judicial line of pushback I highly recommend reading Joyce Vance’s Substack post “Big Bird Fights Back.” It is long, but well worth the time to fully understand the issues.
The first stirring of the legislative line of pushback grows out of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 mentioned above. That Act specifies a process in which the President asks Congress for approval to “claw back” (i.e. rescind=cancel) distribution of funds that were previously approved (appropriated) by Congress. The process is via a “rescission bill”, a special bill, which, like reconciliation bills (i.e. the Big, Bad Billionaire Bill) bypass the Senate filibuster. The President proposes a rescission bill to Congress. Congress can ignore the request (and in the past has often done precisely that) for forty-five days, thereby failing to authorize the President to withhold the funds. Or the House and Senate can pass the bill, thereby authorizing the President’s team to take back or not disburse the funds in question. In the current scenario where Trump/DOGE has tried (illegally) to impound a wide array of funds the upcoming rescission bill(s) are an attempt to give legitimacy to illegal impoundments already made or currently stayed by the courts.
According to an article in the Spokesman that appeared May 29 early next week the first “rescissions request, which would claw back over $9 billion in previously appropriated funds for foreign assistance and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.” If it flies through both the House and Senate, then expect a flurry of similar rescission bills.
If you take nothing else away from this post, pay attention to this: This first rescission bill by the Trump regime asks House and Senate Republicans to go on record casting a vote to cut funds that support Big Bird and Sesame Street and funds that USAID uses to prevent maternal transmission of AIDS to newborns. We need to make Republican Congresspeople aware that we will hold them accountable for the cruelty of this vote. And for what? Take note that 9 billion dollars rescinded (“spending cut”) with this bill is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the estimated cost of extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 tax giveaway to the wealthy of 5 trillion dollars, yes, that is trillion with a “t”, a cost that Republicans really, really don’t want to talk about. They are going to vote on a rescission bill that kills children and defunds Sesame street because they want to shovel more money to the already wealthy. Nine billion is just 0.0018 of 5 trillion, 0.18 percent. A tiny uptick of the top tax bracket would easily pay for it. So let’s suction away this 9 billion on the excuse that it is contributing to the national debt while ignoring the cost of extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Really? [sarcasm alert].
The One, Big, Bad Billionaire Bill (aka Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill)
I’m going to save most of this for another post. There are several things worth emphasizing before that, however. Reconciliation bills (of which the BBBB is one) are restricted to dealing with “mandatory spending,” spending on certain programs like Medicare, Medicaid, etc. that are required by law. Therefore, discretionary spending, which covers most of the Trump/DOGE impoundments discussed in the last section have to be dealt with elsewhere, hence, the “rescission bill” process. This is a “reconciliation bill”, a special method established under the same Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Reconciliation bills, like rescission bills, bypass the Senate filibuster, but reconciliation bills are limited by the Byrd Rule, including that provisions in the bill must produce a change in outlays or revenues that is more than merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision. (Under the Byrd Rule the Senate will probably knock out several such provisions in the bill the House passed.)
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. Apparently in the spirit of its being more effective to ask forgiveness than permission (and recognizing the judicial branch is much slower to react) Trump and DOGE went on a rampage of impoundment during the first months of the current administration. (See “2025 United States federal government grant pause” for the detail on the first salvo in this onslaught.)