New York Times makes big admission about Trump's tariffs



President Donald Trump began in April to radically transform how trade is conducted internationally, announcing tariffs on friendly and adversarial nations alike in an effort to settle scores and to exact concessions favorable to the United States, such as those made by Japan and the European Union last month.

"Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years, but it is not going to happen anymore. It's not going to happen," Trump said at the "Liberation Day" ceremony where he announced a sweeping list of tariffs. "This will be, indeed, the golden age of America. It's coming back. And we're going to come back very strongly."

This tariff-driven upheaval has rankled establishmentarians at home and abroad — some of whom have launched legal challenges, issued condemnations, and threatened retaliation. Of course, the media has also worked feverishly to paint the tariffs as reckless and as more grease down the slope to economic ruin.

'Revenue and reciprocity are the twin benefits of the Trump tariffs.'

Nearly four months after the New York Times characterized Trump's approach as a "burn-it-down-first, figure-out-the-consequences-later recklessness," the paper admitted on Sunday that the tariffs are already netting a great deal of money for the government.

The Times' Washington, D.C., tax policy reporter Andrew Duehren confirmed on Sunday that Trump's recent assertion that "Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!" was correct.

RELATED: Main Street's silent plea: Exempt us from the next tariffs

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

"Even before the latest tariffs kick in, revenue from taxes collected on imported goods has grown dramatically so far this year," Duehren wrote. "Customs duties, along with some excise taxes, generated $152 billion through July, roughly double the $78 billion netted over the same time period last fiscal year, according to Treasury data."

Citing data from the U.S. Treasury Department, the Times indicated that tariffs brought in over $29 billion in the month of July alone.

Analysts reportedly estimated that the tariffs could be worth well over $2 trillion in additional revenue if left untouched over the next 10 years.

"Tariffs are not going to be a huge source of revenue, couple trillion over a decade, but not trivial at all," Christopher Whalen, chairman of Whalen Global Advisors, told Blaze News in a statement. "But the tariffs are appropriate and are a way to get the world to give at least equal treatment to American goods. Revenue and reciprocity are the twin benefits of the Trump tariffs."

'I do not think this is a true source of revenue, only a substitution and reordering of taxes.'

While the tariffs are bringing in boatloads of cash, some critics have noted that Americans are the ones ultimately paying the price — something that might be more tolerable if Trump's idea to scrap American income tax and lean instead on tariffs as the main source of federal revenue were implemented.

Economic expert and Blaze Media contributor Carol Roth said in a statement to Blaze News, "When you think of the word 'revenue' when it comes to the federal government, you should think taxes because that's the primary source of government revenue. When it comes to revenue from tariffs, it is no different."

"The majority of the tariff burden is coming not from foreign exporters, but rather from U.S. consumers and U.S. businesses," Roth said, alluding to a Goldman Sachs analysis that estimated foreign exporters were only absorbing 20% of the higher costs from tariffs.

RELATED: Tariffs vs. free trade: Which is BETTER for the American auto industry?

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Goldman Sachs economists reportedly indicated that eventually, 70% of the direct cost of tariffs would be kicked to consumers through higher prices.

"This means tariffs are mostly revenue that is moving from one pocket to the other, so to speak, as businesses and consumers that pay tariffs then have less money to contribute otherwise to the economy, impacting other tax or government 'revenue' collection," Roth continued. "Unless we fundamentally reorder how taxes are paid (as well as spending) to something that is focused on a consumption tax (which I personally do not think is a good idea given how our economy functions today), I do not think this is a true source of revenue, only a substitution and reordering of taxes."

'I think this is addictive.'

"We all know that making the [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017] tax cuts permanent through the [One Big Beautiful Bill Act] was important to the economy, so why would anyone think that adding in the equivalent of more taxes through tariffs is a good idea?" Roth added. "Also, given that cost of living remains a top issue for Americans, adding costs — even if it is only in certain areas of the economy — is in conflict with the administration's agenda."

Regardless of where the money is coming from, there are concerns that the U.S. government might become overly reliant on tariffs as a revenue stream.

"I think this is addictive," Joao Gomes, a finance and economics professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, told the Times. "I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are."

The national deficit is presently $1.33 trillion, and the national debt is $36.91 trillion.

Despite Democratic complaints over the tariffs, Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab, suggested that there may be hesitance among both Republicans and Democrats to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a greater federal debt load.

"Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place," Tedeschi told the Times.

Rather than scrap the tariffs, Democrats are apparently thinking about ways in which they can blow the money.

Democratic strategist Tyson Brody noted, "The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'"

Some Republicans also have a mind to redistribute the funds.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced legislation last week that would send tariff rebate checks to Americans. The amount of the rebate would be at least $600 per adult and dependent child, or more if tariff revenue exceeds current projections for 2025.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Redistribution comes for Harvard — and it’s glorious



If you’ve endured a university humanities class in the past decade, you’ve probably encountered something closer to a revival for secular dogma than a center of learning. The professors preach cultural Marxism in cap and gown. Saints include Che Guevara. Sinners: white, heteronormative males. Sacred rites: pronoun rituals and land acknowledgments.

At the heart of this faith lies one central mantra: “The rich must pay their fair share.” The chant rings through classrooms and protests alike, uttered with all the subtlety of a Gregorian monk — though with far less harmony and far more self-righteousness.

Let the endowment taxes roll. Let the lawsuits fly. And may the gates of our so-called higher learning institutions be broken open to the higher truths they’ve long tried to suppress.

Let’s be fair. If everyone pays the same tax rate, the rich still pay more in absolute dollars. But that kind of equality doesn’t satisfy the high priests of redistribution. They demand “equity,” which in this context means punishing the successful with steeper percentages. Anything less is deemed injustice. Anything less is oppression. Anything less confirms you didn’t graduate with a gender studies degree and an enduring grudge.

I don’t bring this up just to trigger memories of a feminist philosophy professor scolding you for your privilege. I mention it because, at long last, I agree with them. Yes, the rich should pay a higher rate. And I know exactly where to start: with the universities themselves.

Here’s the irony — a brand of justice so rich even a tenured literature professor could see it. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act delivers on the universities’ own demands. The new graduated endowment tax will slap elite schools like Harvard and Yale with a levy of up to 8% on their investment income.

That’s not chump change. That’s enough to make a development officer cry into his ethically sourced, carbon-neutral latte.

These institutions — which idolize Alfred Kinsey, stack 95% of their faculties with leftists, and teach students to hate America — are finally getting a taste of the redistributionist medicine they’ve long prescribed to others. After decades of turning our culture into a grievance-riddled mess, they’re now paying the price. Literally.

RELATED: Trump and Linda McMahon are crushing DEI in law and medical schools with a brilliant approach

The Washington Post/Getty Images

Call it poetic justice. Better yet, call it providential irony. Let these institutions finance the repair of the very foundations they’ve spent years undermining.

But don’t stop there.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon should give students a clear legal path to demand refunds for failed educations. If a business promises a product and fails to deliver, customers deserve their money back. Why not apply the same principle to overpriced degrees in grievance studies?

And Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should open the floodgates to lawsuits against professors who, without any medical training, diagnosed gender dysphoria and pushed irreversible surgeries as cures for teenage angst. These people couldn’t diagnose a flat tire, but they felt confident calling your daughter a boy and your son a pansexual moon sprite.

Only when faced with real consequences — financial and legal — might these institutions begin to take their responsibilities seriously again. Only then might they stop operating as what John Calvin once called “idol factories” — churning out false gods and vain imaginations at record speed.

Let the endowment taxes roll. Let the lawsuits fly. And may the gates of our so-called higher learning institutions be broken open to the higher truths they’ve long tried to suppress.

Denaturalize And Deport Zohran Mamdani For Immigration Fraud

Any serious nation with an interest in self-preservation would immediately denaturalize and deport Mamdani.

Trump IRS realizes the president's years-old promise to churches



Church leaders have long been limited in what they can say to their congregations about political candidates and political matters as a result of an amendment introduced in 1954 by then-Democratic Senator Lyndon Johnson, who was supposedly keen on hamstringing his political opponents.

President Donald Trump, making good on a 2016 campaign promise, took action against the so-called Johnson Amendment in his first term, signing an executive order directing his Treasury Department to effectively halt its enforcement.

"Faith is deeply embedded into the history of our country, the spirit of our founding, and the soul of our nation," Trump said at the time. "We will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied, or silenced anymore."

Despite numerous attempts, Republicans have been unable in the years since to go the distance and pass legislation repealing the amendment, leaving its enforcement up in the air.

This proved to be an issue for organizations such as Grace Church in St. Louis, Missouri, and New Way Church in Palm Coast, Florida, which were investigated by the IRS during the Biden years for alleged violations of the Johnson Amendment.

The Internal Revenue Service agreed in federal court Monday, however, that church leaders are now free not only to speak to their congregations about electoral politics but to endorse political candidates without worrying about losing their tax-exempt statuses.

The ban

The Internal Revenue Code prohibits churches and other tax-exempt nonprofit organizations "from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."

RELATED: Wake-up call: This is what happens when Christians are afraid to offend

Blaze Media Illustration

According to a 2007 IRS publication clarifying how churches could avoid violating the ban and possibly losing tax-exempt status, church leaders can speak for themselves, as individuals, freely on political matters as well as address issues of public policy.

They cannot, however, "make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization."

'First Amendment rights don't end when a pastor, church member, or even a political candidate steps on the platform of a church.'

Progressives have long championed this ban. After all, it serves to attenuate the influence of religious leaders in American politics.

Conservatives, alternatively, have argued that the so-called Johnson Amendment stifles free speech; limits the ability of religious leaders, acting in their official capacities, to become more fully involved in the political process; and creates a legal environment ripe for abuse and biased enforcement.

The win

The National Religious Broadcasters and a pair of Texas-based churches sued the IRS in August, claiming that "churches are placed in a unique and discriminatory status by the IRC" and that the agency "operates in a manner that disfavors conservative organizations and conservative, religious organizations in its enforcement of § 501(c)(3)."

The religious coalition's complaint — which alleged that the Johnson Amendment violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — stressed that churches should have the same freedom of speech as the hundreds of newspapers organized under § 501(c)(3) that are permitted to openly endorse political candidates.

In a joint court filing intended to settle the lawsuit on Monday, the IRS confirmed that endorsing candidates does not qualify as taking part or intervening in a political campaign.

"When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither 'participate[s]' nor 'intervene[s]' in a 'political campaign,' within the ordinary meaning of those words," the filing says.

"Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates," the filing continues. "Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted."

The agency indicated that this interpretation of the Johnson Amendment is "in keeping with the IRS's treatment of the Johnson Amendment in practice," citing Trump's 2017 executive order.

Blaze News reached out to the White House and to the IRS for comment but did not immediately receive responses.

"First Amendment rights don't end when a pastor, church member, or even a political candidate steps on the platform of a church," First Liberty Institute, the legal outfit that represented Grace Church and New Way Church in their battles with the IRS, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News. "The IRS weaponized the Johnson Amendment to silence churches and pastors for decades. This is great news for religious organizations, churches, and religious liberty."

Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, told the New York Times that this outcome "basically tells churches of all denominations and sects that you’re free to support candidates from the pulpit."

"It also says to all candidates and parties, 'Hey, time to recruit some churches,'" added Mayer.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

All 45 Senate Dems Just Voted For A $4 Trillion Tax Increase

Democrats are forever working against Trump instead of for voters. They would rather win a political battle than let Americans keep tax breaks.

'51st state': Trump teases annexation again after Canada quickly caves on major tax



President Donald Trump threatened U.S.-Canada trade talks on Friday over the northern nation's digital services tax, which required foreign and domestic large businesses such as Netflix, Amazon.com's Prime Video, and Spotify to pay a levy of 3% on revenue earned from offering online services to users in Canada.

"We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country," Trump noted in a Truth Social post.

"They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also," continued the president. "Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately."

'Canada is a very tough country to deal with.'

Canada — the top buyer of American goods, importing $349.4 billion last year, and 75.9% of whose total exports went to the U.S. — made abundantly clear that it wasn't too attached to the tax, which the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated would increase federal government revenues by over $5.2 billion over five years.

Within hours of Trump's post, the Department of Finance Canada announced that it was rescinding the digital services tax to advance broader trade negotiations with the United States.

Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne noted that "rescinding the DST will allow the negotiations to make vital progress and reinforce our work to create jobs and build prosperity for all Canadians."

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick thanked Canada on Monday for removing the tax, noting that it was "intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America."

RELATED: Canada's solution to reliance on US? Increasing commitments in Europe

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

"In our negotiations on a new economic and security relationship between Canada and the United States, Canada's new government will always be guided by the overall contribution of any possible agreement to the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses," said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. "Today’s announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month’s G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis."

The Canadian Liberal Party under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first promised the tax ahead of the 2019 federal election, saying it would "make sure that multinational tech giants pay corporate tax on the revenue they generate in Canada," even though critics indicated that Canadian consumers would end up paying the taxes.

The Digital Services Tax Act went into force on June 28, 2024, prompting condemnation stateside as well as an official complaint under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement from former U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai.

John Dickerman, vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based Business Council of Canada, suggested to Canadian state media days after Trump's re-election that the tax was likely doomed.

"The first Trump administration ... was very clear on digital services taxes. They believed that digital services taxes were a very clear indication that a country was specifically targeting the U.S. and targeting U.S. companies. It will be a 'with us and against us' scenario," said Dickerman. "I think there will be very little room for negotiation on DST."

Trump leaned on Canada to axe the tax just in the nick of time. The first payments were due on Monday and retroactive to 2022, meaning a number of American corporations were on the hook for billions of dollars.

The Canadian government indicated that Carney and Trump have agreed to resume negotiations "with a view towards agreeing on a deal by July 21, 2025."

"Canada is a very tough country to deal with, I will say that," Trump told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures." "Hopefully we'll be fine with Canada. I love Canada. Frankly, Canada should be the 51st state."

Blaze News has reached out to the White House for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Budget Office Estimates Biden Border Bedlam Cost States Billions

The Biden-era chaos posed ramifications far beyond our southern border, and Washington must take every effort to ensure that it never recurs.

Trump sends mixed signals on possible tax hike



President Donald Trump allegedly urged House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) during a phone call Wednesday to raise the top tax rate, albeit at a much higher income level, and close the carried interest loophole amid Republican lawmakers' efforts to finalize their Trump agenda bill.

The president indicated a change of mind Friday morning, however, suggesting on Truth Social that "Republicans should probably not do it."

Last month, Trump and Johnson shot down the idea of a tax hike on the wealthiest Americans.

The president said in his April 22 interview with Time magazine, "I certainly don't mind having a tax increase."

'Our party is the group that stands against that traditionally.'

"I actually love the concept," continued Trump, "but I don't want it to be used against me politically, because I've seen people lose elections for less, especially with the fake news."

The following day, Trump came out against the idea more forcefully, telling reporters in the Oval Office that the idea of a tax hike was "very disruptive," as it might prompt wealthy individuals to flee the country, reported Politico.

"You know, the old days, they left states. They go from one state to the other. Now with transportation so quick and so easy, they leave countries. You lose a lot of money if you do that," said Trump.

Johnson similarly came out swinging against a tax hike on April 23, telling "The Will Cain Show" last month, "We have been working against that idea. I'm not in favor of raising the tax rates because our party is the group that stands against that traditionally."

A number of provisions enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 are set to expire in December. Unless lawmakers extend the cuts, tax brackets will revert back to pre-TCJA levels. Accordingly the top individual, estate, and income tax bracket would return to 39.6% from the current rate of 37%.

One unnamed Republican source said to be familiar with Trump's Wednesday call with Johnson told NBC News that the president was considering allowing the rate to revert to 39.6% "to protect Medicaid and help pay for middle- and working-class tax cuts."

Multiple sources suggested to The Hill that while the White House advocated for allowing the top marginal income tax rate cut to expire, the administration wanted to see the 2017 cuts extended for Americans in the lower tax brackets. While the top income bracket starts this year at $626,350 per individual, the New York Times indicated the proposed restoration of the previous top rate would apply to individuals earning over $2.5 million annually.

The Hill noted that a spokesman for the House Ways and Means Committee declined to comment on any policy specifics under consideration, and the White House did not return the outlet's request for comment.

'I'm OK if they do!'

When asked about the proposed tax income increase on the upper brackets, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told "The Hugh Hewitt Show" Thursday that he was "not excited about the proposal but I have to say there are a number of people in both the House and the Senate who are."

Crapo added, "If the president weighs in in favor of it, then that's going to be a big factor that we have to take into consideration."

Trump noted in a social media post on Friday, "The problem with even a 'TINY' tax increase for the RICH, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, is that the Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, 'Read my lips,' the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election."

"NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election!" continued Trump. "In any event, Republicans should probably not do it, but I'm OK if they do!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump calls on 'wacky crook' Letitia James to resign after troubling fraud allegation surfaces



The tides may have turned for President Donald Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who once went after him for fraud, after some documents connected with a house in Virginia revealed James may now be the one in hot water.

Late Sunday night, Trump posted an ominous message to Truth Social: "Letitia James, a totally corrupt politician, should resign from her position as New York State Attorney General, IMMEDIATELY. Everyone is trying to MAKE NEW YORK GREAT AGAIN, and it can never be done with this wacky crook in office."

'I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.'

Trump's social media post also included a link to a report about a house in Norfolk, Virginia, that James and Shamice Thompson-Hairston, described as a relative of James, apparently purchased together in August 2023.

The house is a rather unremarkable three-bedroom, one-bathroom residence built in 1947. The women apparently purchased it for $240,000, securing a mortgage for just under $220,000.

The Virginia land records about the purchase include a "specific power of attorney" document authorizing Thompson-Hairston to act as James' attorney-in-fact. In this document, James states: "I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence."

Screenshot of land record

The "specific power of attorney" document was signed and notarized on August 17, 2023. Except for the inclusion of her middle initial, the signature that appears on it seems to match the signature James regularly stamps on New York documents.

Screenshot of land record

Screenshot of New York state website

On August 31, 2023, Thompson-Hairston signed a statement claiming that she would serve as James' attorney-in-fact. Another document included in the land record obligates both women to "occupy, establish, and use" the Norfolk home as their "principal residence" within 60 days and to keep it their "principal residence" for at least one year.

If these Virginia documents are authentic, then James appears to be in a double bind.

At the time they were signed, James had already been the attorney general of New York for four years. Funded in part by billionaire financier George Soros, James campaigned in 2018 on a promise of "getting" Trump and later publicly fantasized about "suing" him.

Since she elevated to executive statewide office, she is required to reside in New York. According to New York law, once a state executive "ceas[es] to be an inhabitant of the state," the office is considered vacant.

'Can she document continued New York residency during this period sufficient to maintain her legal authority as Attorney General?'

In October 2023, just two months after the documents were signed, James filed a civil lawsuit against Trump, accusing him and others affiliated with the Trump Organization of overvaluing properties to negotiate better deals with banks and insurance companies. A jury agreed and slapped the organization with a staggering $455 million judgment.

The judgment is currently under appeal, and members of a New York appeals court already signaled support for overturning or at least reducing it.

If James' primary residence in 2023 and 2024 was actually in Virginia, her standing as attorney general — and in the Trump case as well as others — is dubious.

Moreover, a possible motive for declaring a property to be an owner's primary residence would be to secure a lower interest rate on a mortgage. If James misrepresented the Virginia property as her "principal residence," she could have committed the same type of fraud she accused the Trump organization of perpetrating.

In fact, reports have speculated that such false statements could even be considered federal wire fraud, a charge that carries decades in prison and fines of up to $1 million. The Department of Justice, now under Trump's purview, would be in a position to file such charges, if leaders are so inclined.

For now, the most significant drawback to the allegations against James is the fact that they were first raised in the blog White Collar Fraud by convicted fraudster Sam Antar. In the late 1980s, Antar was the CFO of Crazy Eddie, a Brooklyn-based electronics chain that went under after serious financial corruption was exposed.

Antar managed to escape prison time by copping a plea deal. He then made a "Catch Me If You Can" turnaround of sorts and became an investigator of white-collar financial crime.

In addition to publishing the Virginia land documents and explaining their relevance, Antar posed four important questions regarding James and her political future:

Why did James explicitly declare her intent to make Virginia her principal residence while serving as New York’s Attorney General?

Did she fulfill the 60-day occupancy requirement in her mortgage while simultaneously appearing in New York courts?

Can she document continued New York residency during this period sufficient to maintain her legal authority as Attorney General?

Will this affect her eligibility to run for re-election, which requires uninterrupted New York residency?
James' office and Thompson-Hairston did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats Who Ignored Biden’s ‘Aggressive’ Tax Avoidance Act Outraged Dr. Oz May Have Underpaid

After spending four years ignoring Biden’s tax maneuvers, Democrats decided one of Trump’s nominees deserved defeat for allegedly using similar tactics.