Trump has determined that Iran "has gone through what will be a very productive Regime Change."

Trump, at Truth Social, about an hour ago:

The United States will work closely with Iran, which we have determined has gone through what will be a very productive Regime Change! There will be no enrichment of Uranium, and the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried (B-2 Bombers) Nuclear “Dust.” It is now, and has been, under very exacting Satellite Surveillance (Space Force!). Nothing has been touched from the date of attack. We are, and will be, talking Tariff and Sanctions relief with Iran. Many of the 15 points have already been been agreed to. Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

So the regime change has already happened —  or the declaration that it has happened has been made — past tense. But there's a switch to the future tense, declaring something to be true in the future: great productiveness. I presume Trump's adversaries will call this wishful thinking... at best. But who knows? They'll embrace good results if they become obvious or if they perceive that the people are repelled by their pessimism.

Trump also posted this a few minutes ago:

A Country supplying Military Weapons to Iran will be immediately tariffed, on any and all goods sold to the United States of America, 50%, effective immediately. There will be no exclusions or exemptions! President DJT

Trump would like to get back to managing everyone with the device of tariffs. 

With 4 Supreme Court Justices in attendance at the SOTU, Trump called the tariff opinion "unfortunate" and "disappointing."

He didn't condemn the Court or even say it got the law wrong. Here's the transcript (NYT). You can see that he accepts the Court's role in saying what the law is, and he's processed the loss and has moved on to finding new ways to win:

Things I'm not talking about.

1. Susan Rice.

2. Mamdani's snow shovelers and the 2-ID requirement. 

3. Trump's re-tariffing gimmick.

4. Our war with Iran.

5. Photograph of Prince Andrew.

I'm not judging these stories to be inconsequential. I just have nothing to add, nothing that fits my approach to blogging anyway. I like them as items to list. The list signifies that I feel some pressure. They're nagging at me. But I'm resisting. Feel free to talk about them in the comments. They're actually all good topics. I'm just not feeling the value of my own yammering on them. Maybe you think I've already said too much, what with that one word.

"Gimmick" is "Originally U.S. slang," according to the OED, which defines it like this: "A gadget; spec. a contrivance for dishonestly regulating a gambling game, or an article used in a conjuring trick; now usually a tricky or ingenious device, gadget, idea, etc., esp. one adopted for the purpose of attracting attention or publicity."

The oldest appearance of the word is an entry in the 1926 "Wise-crack Dictionary": "Gimmick, device used for making a fair game crooked." 

Trump loses the tariff case.

"The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every U.S. trading partner, a major setback for his administration’s second-term agenda. The court’s 6-3 decision has significant implications for the U.S. economy, consumers and the president’s trade policy. The Trump administration had said that a loss at the Supreme Court could force the government to unwind trade deals with other countries and potentially pay hefty refunds to importers...."

NYT link.

Here's the opinion, Learning Resources v. Trump. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh are the 3 dissenters. The Chief Justice writes the opinion of the Court for Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B. His opinion for Parts II–A–2 and III is joined by Gorsuch and Barrett, who also file concurring opinions. Kagan has a concurring opinion joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, and Jackson has a concurring opinion. 

So there is a lot of complicated reading to do.

ADDED: From the Opinion of the Court:

"U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday that it would be 'completely wrong' for President Donald Trump to slap tariffs on European nations opposing his plan to take over Greenland...."

"In remarks to reporters, Starmer denounced economic coercion against allies as the wrong approach to resolving disagreements. He described tariffs as harmful to British workers and businesses — even as he praised and sought to preserve the relationship with the United States, which has underpinned Europe’s security and economic interests for more than eight decades...."

From "Europeans see alliance at risk as Trump stokes trade war over Greenland/U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said it was 'completely wrong' for President Donald Trump to threaten tariffs on allies who oppose his push to seize or buy Greenland" (WaPo).

"Trump has insisted that controlling Greenland is necessary for national security reasons — a point disputed by allies and some senior members of Congress who have rebutted the president’s claim that the Arctic territory faces imminent security risks from Russia and China. Trump’s unwillingness, so far, to back down risks driving a deeper wedge in the Western alliance or, some fear, causing an irreparable break."

Is the dispute about what counts as "imminent"... or rather how early we need to act in advance of a security risk becoming imminent? I go back to what Scott Bessent said yesterday: "The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency."

Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?

ADDED: Trump wrote this letter to the prime minister of Norway: "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a 'right of ownership' anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT"

"Is President Trump serious about annexing Greenland?"/"President Trump strongly believes that we cannot outsource our security."

 

BESSENT: It might not be next year. Might not be in 4 years. But down the road this fight for the Arctic is real. We would keep our NATO guarantees. And if there were an attack on Greenland from Russia, from some other area, we would get dragged in. So better now, peace through strength, make it part of the United States.... The Europeans project weakness. The U.S. projects strength....

Trump embraces the title "King." Either he's laughing in the face of the "No Kings" crowd or he's forgotten about them altogether.

That's at Truth Social.

What's the context? I had to look it up. I found "Trump threatens tariffs to force support for US control of Greenland/Trump's threat marked another escalation of his campaign to control the island, which is a territory of US ally Denmark" (USA Today), which reports on a health policy event at the White House yesterday, where Trump "trumpeted how the threat of tariffs forced other developed countries to accept higher drug prices so U.S. prices could come down."

Trump then added that he might use tariffs to get what he wants about Greenland. He said:  "I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland because we need Greenland for national security."

And then he praised himself more generally, declaring: "I’m the tariff king and the tariff king has done a great job."

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by USA TODAY (@usatoday)

UPDATE: "Trump Announces 10 Percent Tariff on European Countries in Standoff Over Greenland/The president escalated his drive to take charge of the Danish territory, targeting Denmark and seven other nations aligned with it" (NYT):

Denmark, which oversees Greenland, will be hit with a 10 percent tariff on all goods sent to the United States beginning on Feb. 1, he wrote in a social media post, along with Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Britain, the Netherlands and Finland. If they don’t relent, he added, the tariff rate will increase to 25 percent on June 1, “until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”

Yikes. 

"What did you think of that Supreme Court oral argument?"/"I'm enjoying learning about the parts of speech."

That's a snippet of phone conversation between Meade and me — my question, his answer — as we'd been listening separately, through headphones, as we were walking toward our meeting spot in the lakeshore woods. 

From the concordance to the transcript of the argument in Learning Center v. Trump:

noun [5] 16:19 52:3,25 53:

20 85:22 ...

verb [9] 11:25 16:10 40:8 

52:3,11 53:20 100:13 135:

4 176:21

verbs [29]11:25 12:2,7 16:

19 28:16 29:3,16,22 30:2

Context: 

GENERAL SAUER: Dames & Moore... said, this particular provision, where Congress has given these broad verbs, I mean, "regulate" is a capacious verb, admittedly, so are "nullify," so are "void," so are, frankly, all the other verbs there in the -- the language in IEEPA. 

"Annie Hall" reference in the Supreme Court oral argument yesterday.

Link.

Listen to the live Supreme Court argument in the tariffs case.

 Here, now.

I'm surprised at the NYT headline "U.S. and Chinese Officials Reach Framework of a Trade Deal."

The front page teaser under the headline on the home page is "Negotiators announced they had preliminarily agreed on several issues ahead of an expected meeting between President Trump and Xi Jinping this week."

So they say they've done something. Have they? And it's only "preliminary" and "on several issues." Is the headline supported? It got me excited, but then I felt a little conned. 

Anyway... I hope things go well.

"... you can wrap healthcare and tariffs and authoritarianism into a single argument...."

I'm listening to Ezra Klein, at 00:15:32, in the new episode of his podcast, "Jon Favreau on Where the Democrats Went Right":

"I've been talking to members of the House and Senate, and both politically and morally, I've been going back to my big shutdown piece a month ago on the side that says you can wrap healthcare and tariffs and authoritarianism into a single argument, and it is worth doing that if only to set up the argument you're actually making — if only to make American politics about what it is really about. Partly if you believe this is an attentional event. I was talking with my staff and we were looking at coverage on the front pages and it's interesting how few front pages every day are running the shutdown.... And the shutdown has, instead of becoming the focusing event that ties together what is happening in American politics, it is one hermetically sealed event in American politics. And then there are these other events happening simultaneously and coverage is splitting between them."

Listen to the whole dialogue if you can. It's interesting, if disturbing, because Klein and Favreau openly talk about using the shutdown to leverage the Democratic Party back into power. Why aren't they more circumspect? I have to assume they are cocksure that their listeners share their primary goal — the success of the Democratic Party. 

Let's talk about the home page of The New York Times.

As it looks right now:

1. I had thought the Jeffrey Epstein story was running out of energy, but here it is back on the front page and in the top spot. But it's a real estate story: "A Look Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan Lair." As if we're into his mystique!

2. Sharing the top of the page is "How to Break Free From Your Phone" — a generic self-help topic, not news at all. The pretty blue of the sky in the illustration lines up with the blue sky in Jeffrey Epstein's stairwell. The legs of the phoneless woman in the grass chime with the legs of the stairwell woman. Both women grip something tubular — one, a flower stem and the other, a rope. We are reminded that Jeffrey hanged himself — reminded whether he did it or not. 

3. 2 things to angst over: declining school enrollment and a nuclear reactor on the moon.

4. Something that isn't even vaguely surprising — an old bookshelf contained a particular old book. It might be worth $20,000. Who cares!? This is like the news that somebody won the lottery. The winning ticket is rare, but you know it's in the great mass of tickets, and somebody found it.

5. Suddenly, it's time to talk about your intestines. That seems to scream: slow news day.

6. At last, the name Trump appears. Tariff business. The ongoing story. The photo is of immigrants — caption (outside of my screen shot): "Trump’s New Tactic to Separate Immigrant Families."

7. And then, there's Thomas Friedman, supplying the overarching and very high-level-abstract theme: "The America We Knew Is Rapidly Slipping Away." It begins: "Of all the terrible things Donald Trump has said and done as president, the most dangerous one just happened...."

***

Strangely low-level anxiety wafts up from the usual jumble of well-worn topics.

"Formidable economies like the European Union and Japan have abruptly made peace with higher tariffs on their exports, acquiescing to President Trump’s demands...."

"As major economies fall in line to sign agreements that include the highest tariffs in modern history, the president’s vision for global trade is rapidly being realized. That new normal uses America’s economy as leverage, with other countries accepting tariffs of 15 to 20 percent to do business with the United States.... The outcome has seemingly proved Mr. Trump right that his tariff threats are a powerful bargaining tool...."

Writes Ana Swanson, in "Trump Is Winning His Trade War. What Will That Mean for the Economy?/The president’s vision for reshaping global trade is falling into place, but he is embarking on an experiment that economists say could still produce damaging results" (NYT)(free-access link).

They're even submissively adopting his hairstyle:

Once mocked, now emulated.

That's Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, enduring the announcement of Trump's victory in the trade war.

"It took just 75 minutes for President Trump to get what he wanted out of the European Union."

"That’s how long he and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen were away from the cameras. When they returned, Trump was triumphant. Europe agreed to buy $750 billion in American energy products, invest $600 billion in new money in the US and purchase additional US military equipment, according to the terms of the preliminary agreement. Tariffs on many American exports will drop to zero. Duties on most European goods coming into the US rise to 15%. 'I think it’s the biggest deal ever made,' Trump proclaimed."

The New York Post reports.

"Remember, Japan is, for the first time ever, OPENING ITS MA[R]KET TO THE USA, even to cars, SUV’s, Trucks, -and everything else, even agriculture and RICE..."

"... which was always a complete NO, NO. The Open Market Japan may be as big a profit factor as the Tariffs themselves, but was only gotten because of the Tariff Power. They also agreed to buy BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF MILITARY AND OTHER EQUIPMENT, and give us 90% of 550 BILLION DOLLARS - AND MORE!!! MAGA!!!"/"Indonesia has also agreed, for the first time ever, to COMPLETELY OPEN ITS MARKET TO THE USA. That’s BIG!!! Our businesses will make a fortune. Likewise Japan!"/"I will always give up Tariff points if I can get major countries to OPEN THEIR MARKETS TO THE USA. Another great power of Tariffs. Without them, it would be impossible to get countries to OPEN UP!!! ALWAYS, ZERO TARIFFS TO AMERICA!!!"/"I WILL ONLY LOWER TARIFFS IF A COUNTRY AGREES TO OPEN ITS MARKET. IF NOT, MUCH HIGHER TARIFFS! Japan’s Markets are now OPEN (for first time ever!). USA BUSINESSES WILL BOOM!"

Writes Trump on Truth Social this morning, here, here, here, and here.

"The U.S. government posted a surplus in June as tariffs gave an extra bump to a sharp increase in receipts, the Treasury Department said Friday."

"With government red ink swelling throughout the year, last month saw a surplus of just over $27 billion, following a $316 billion deficit in May...."

CNBC reports.

Meanwhile, WaPo explains "Why Wall Street is brushing off Trump’s escalating tariff threats/President Donald Trump’s escalating tariff threats have not deterred Wall Street, with the stock market continuing to rise despite trade policy uncertainty" (free access link): "Investors feel free to continue bidding up stock prices because they assume Trump will always back down from his most costly tariff plans, market analysts said. But the president views stocks’ steady rise as a license to intensify his trade threats, acting out the economic policy equivalent of his 2016 quip that he could 'stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody' without paying a price."

"With Taxes and Tariffs in Place, Trump Takes Reins of U.S. Economy President/Trump has achieved much of his agenda, leaving the fate of the economy squarely in his hands."

A surprisingly pro-Trump headline in the NYT, so I guess he really deserves it.

His expensive tax cuts have been signed into law. His steep global tariffs are taking clearer shape. And his twin campaigns to deregulate government and deport immigrants are well underway. With the major components of his agenda now coming into focus, President Trump has already left an indelible mark on the U.S. economy. The triumphs and turbulence that may soon arise will squarely belong to him.

To give him credit is to set him up for blame. 

Not even six months into his second term, Mr. Trump has forged ahead with the grand and potentially disruptive economic experiment that he first previewed during the 2024 campaign. His actions in recent weeks have staked the future of the nation’s finances — and its centuries-old trading relationships — on a belief that many economists’ most dire warnings are wrong.... 

So far, the U.S. economy has remained resilient in the face of these seismic changes....

"But the big picture remains one of surprising resilience — strong job growth, low unemployment and little sign that tariffs and uncertainty have so far derailed the labor market."

That feels like a grudging admission, in "Live Updates: U.S. Hiring Remains Solid, Sign of a Resilient Economy/Employers added 147,000 jobs in June, and the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.1 percent, suggesting that tariffs, interest rates and other headwinds are not yet causing employers to pull back significantly" (NYT).

Did Trump drop those papers out on purpose to make Starmer bend over?

Headline at The Guardian: "Starmer says he picked up Trump’s dropped papers to avoid security scare/UK prime minister says it ‘would not have been good’ for anyone else such as member of media to try to help" ("I mean, look, there weren’t many choices with the documents and picking it up, because... as you probably know there were quite strict rules about who can get close to the president.I mean, seriously, I think if any of you [the media] had stepped forward other than me – I was just deeply conscious that in a situation like it would not have been good for anybody else to have stepped forward, not that any of you rushed to. There’s a very tightly guarded security zone around the president, as you would expect").

Trump is such a master of showmanship... no? Or do you think the paper-dropping was mere happenstance and Starmer was the only one in the Very Tightly Guarded Security Zone who could pick up the papers? The press could have photographed those papers. And no one could expect the President of the United States to pick up what he dropped. He was holding the Very Firmly Bound Leather Folder, and Starmer was the one with his hands free and ready to serve.