Thought of the Week:
Earlier this week, my thought was to write about turning 60, what that means in Japanese culture, relate my celebration of Kanreki to French historian Fernand Braudel’s three cycles of history (day-to-day events; paradigm shifts; and longue durée), and finally link those cycles to current political and public policy trends. However, the aftershocks ripping across political Washington of Turning Point USA founder and conservative star Charlie Kirk’s assassination are just too big to ignore. Played out over multiple social media platforms, Mr. Kirk’s murder was disturbing, horrific, and the latest episode in the U.S.’s rapidly deteriorating political discourse. During the last 15 years, there’s been a series of incidents involving lawmakers, political leaders, and their families, the pace of which only seems to be accelerating—Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords, House Majority Leader Scalise, Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro, Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh to name just a few. While the failed assassination attempts against President Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign were deeply unnerving, Speaker of the House Johnson said last week that the U.S. Capitol Police have tracked 14,000 instances of threats made toward members of Congress this year alone, a 55% increase over last year. Perhaps the scariest part of all is that no matter how much security there is, no matter how thorough the precautions are, more American political figures will be threatened, hurt, or killed in politically motivated violence. This is our reality. Unfortunately, today, many, if not most, members and senators see the other party as mortal enemies out to destroy the country, not just good-hearted yet wrong-thinking political rivals, a mindset that makes each day an existential struggle between good and evil rather than a contest between competing political visions. Fundraising emails are filled with violent rhetoric and angry outbursts on the House floor have become commonplace, all in the pursuit of the next political dollar or viral moment. The rise of social media has fed growing extremism on both sides of the aisle to the point where passing legislation or making bipartisan deals is seen as less valuable than someone who can troll their opponents on TikTok or X. In fact, bipartisanship is now seen as a sign one’s been compromised and fallen prey to the other side’s malevolent machinations. The media plays a major role too. Years ago, my sister, a CNN executive at the time, told me these are TV shows, not news outlets. She was right. Cable TV makes stars of those who engage in conflict and confrontation. If it bleeds, it leads, 24/7, 365 days a year across every channel. Thus far, the reaction to the assassination in text threads and personal conversations is reminiscent of previous incidents that worked to unify the American right against the left, including the protests against the confirmation of now-Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and the 2020 George Floyd protests, both of which underscored a belief on the right that they are under siege by the media and elite forces of the left. While Charlie Kirk’s murder and other incidents, such as the killing of a Minnesota state lawmaker earlier this year and the assassination attempts last year on President Trump, are the results of isolated actions, they will make elected officials more skeptical about in-person involvement with constituents, likely pushing them toward more of an online presence. And considering the murder of a health care executive late last year, this most recent political violence is likely to accelerate the trend toward increased corporate spending on executive security, given the risk faced by high-profile individuals in American public life. Over the years I’ve written this blog, one of the best compliments I ever received was that it was difficult to tell if I was a Democrat or a Republican. That’s good news. The aim of this blog is not to push a political narrative, but to offer nonpartisan analysis of public policy positions and inform on the inner workings of Washington. It is certainly past time for a bipartisan reckoning on the reality of political violence.
Thought Leadership from our Consultants, Think Tanks, and Trade Associations
AEI Predicts President Trump’s Governance by Executive Order will be Continued by Future Presidents. In the six months since his inauguration, President Trump has implemented many substantial executive orders, transforming American foreign and domestic policy. Just last month, he nationalized the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department and ordered the Justice Department to consider burning the American flag a crime when it incites violence. The president also redesigned American foreign policy through unilateral tariff action, dismantled the USAID, and furloughed swaths of bureaucrats. As with most things about this president, his actions provoked strongly opposite reactions. While liberals saw this as creeping authoritarianism, conservatives applauded it for bringing democratic accountability to an unwieldly federal bureaucracy. However, the reality is more commonplace than either side would admit. Like his predecessors over the past 100 years, President Trump has used the inherent power of the presidency to expand executive power to accomplish policy goals in the face of legislative gridlock; he may be unique in degree, but not in kind. As objectionable or laudable as any specific actions may be, they are part of a broader trend—one that has come to unbalance the original constitutional system of separated powers. While “executive orders” have only been catalogued since the 1930s, they are part of a tradition of unilateral presidential action that goes back to the Washington administration, which famously declared American neutrality in 1793 in the face of British and French hostilities. At the same time, Congress has given presidents statutory authority and presidents have also claimed an “inherent” power to act unilaterally, such as Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. As federal power has increased, so has the portion that belongs to the executive branch. Since the Great Depression, the dramatic proliferation of laws regulating all aspects of American life has served to increase executive power, and successful expansions of presidential authority by one president are institutionalized for their successors to adapt to their own purposes. These small steps have all added up to a dramatic degradation of a core constitutional principle: the separation of executive and legislative power. Thus, President Trump’s rewriting of international trade law with a single executive order, dramatic as it is, should not be taken out of context. The reality is that President Trump is merely expanding executive power from an already vast foundation of presidential prerogative. And if past is prologue, the most likely consequence of Trump’s view of executive authority will be its ultimate institutionalization.
Capstone Believes the Supreme Court is Likely to Revoke Trump’s IEEPA Tariffs by July 2026. Capstone analysts believe that by the end of July 2026 there is a 65% probability that the Supreme Court will strike down President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs, although it is unclear whether the court will order the U.S. to refund tariff payments. In fact, refunds may be subject to a separate court process, their issuance may be delayed, and/or they may be smaller than expected. Last month, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade (CIT) and held that five tariffs issued under IEEPA were unlawful. The Federal Circuit paused the ruling from taking effect until at least October 14th, expecting the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which it was. While the case is before the Supreme Court, expect current U.S. tariff policy to remain in effect. What’s more, the legal challenges facing the IEEPA tariffs are unlikely to materially impact deals reached with major trading partners, as many of the largest trading partners are more concerned with Section 232 tariffs that are unaffected by this case. The Supreme Court is likely to find the government’s case that IEEPA gives the White House near-unlimited tariff authority under IEEPA unlawful, though it may find some tariff use under IEEPA legal. If the administration loses, companies subject to the tariff could be given refunds. However, these refunds are not assured, and the court could opt not to grant them or to make them subject to a separate court process, leaving companies to wait years before receiving payments.
Eurasia Group Says the Bessent-Pulte Spat Points to Increasingly Deep Divisions on Economic Policy. Treasury Secretary Bessent and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) head Pulte nearly came to blows at a private dinner of Trump administration officials, although the subject of the expletive-laden exchange is still unclear. Although Secretary Bessent remains the most empowered of the president’s economic advisers, the episode suggests that the divides between policymakers are becoming increasingly entrenched, and Treasury will have to actively defend its position going forward. Secretary Bessent’s reign over Treasury is by no means inviolable—Deputy Secretary Faulkender was pushed to resign last month after the White House became frustrated with him—and the president is likely to continue to use his sway over agency subordinates. What’s more, Faulkender’s exit will make Bessent’s task more difficult, as he will no longer be able to rely on Faulkender for day-to-day management of Treasury. The prospect of ending government conservatorship for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the FHFA oversees, is also a point of friction between Bessent and Pulte, with the latter interested in forging ahead with an IPO and the former more skeptical of administrative release, especially in a high-interest rate environment.
“Inside Baseball”
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Democrats notched another special election win with Fairfax County Supervisor Walkinshaw’s (D) 50-point thumping of conservative think tank executive Stewart Whitson (R) in the VA-11 special election. The victory represented a 16-point improvement over former Vice President Harris’ performance in the district. This year, Democrats have outperformed the top of the ticket by an average of 15.7 points in 39 special elections, an encouraging sign for the party as they look ahead to the off-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia and further down the line to next year’s midterms. Similar overperformances in 2017 presaged a blue wave in President Trump’s first midterms. But just as Democrats began stirring in the glow of another strong showing, former Vice President Harris decided it was time to fight the last war. In the first excerpts from her upcoming memoir, the former vice president said it was “recklessness” that allowed her boss to stay in the race and accused former President Biden’s team of setting her up for failure. In the book she lashes out at the White House for not defending her from conservative media attacks, shouldering her with impossible tasks like tackling the border crisis, and “adding fuel to negative narratives” that surrounded her office. Although far from a gossipy tell-all that some Democrats wanted, there’s enough tea spilled in her memoir to keep the 2024 recrimination discourse going for weeks until the book publishes at the end of the month. Even with encouraging signs for the future, Democrats still can’t help fighting the last war.
In Other Words
“‘It’s Joe and Jill’s decision.’ We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized. Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness,” Former Vice President Harris in her new memoir.
Did You Know
Former Sen. Sununu (R-NH) is expected to decide by the end of next month if he’ll run next year to return to the chamber he left after the 2008 election. If the New Hampshire Republican seeks an open Senate seat and wins, the 18-year gap in his non-consecutive Senate terms would be the longest in the 112-year history of the 17th Amendment, which requires the direct election of senators by voters. Ohio Republican Theodore E. Burton left the Senate in March 1915 and returned in December 1928, an almost 14-year intermission that’s currently the longest on record.
Graphs of the Week
Four States Lining Up to Join the Redistricting Fight. The fight, which kicked off when Texas said yes to President Trump and California did its best to counter, now includes Republican-led Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and Indiana, which are all moving toward new House maps to boost the GOP. In addition, Democratic-led Maryland has threatened retaliation, and a court has opened the door for Democrats in largely conservative Utah. Democrats need to add three seats in 2026 to win the House; the average gain for the minority party in midterm elections since World War II has been 25.
BLS Subtracts 911,000 Jobs. U.S. job growth was half as robust as the government first said it was for the 12 months ending in March, with a preliminary revision of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showing a record 911,000 fewer workers on payrolls. Before the report, which will be updated next year, payroll data indicated employers had added nearly 1.8 million jobs. Figures were marked down in nearly every industry, led by wholesale and retail establishments, and most states. The adjustments indicate a labor market slowdown that was preceded by an extended period of moderate job growth. The data may lay the groundwork for a series of interest-rate cuts beginning next week. Fed Chair Powell recently acknowledged that risks to the job market have increased.
