The Official "Damned Trump" Thread: Phase II

[Fake Messiah]

Make Canada Healthy Again

American doctors look to relocate to Canada to avoid the Trump administration

In the months since Trump was reelected and returned to the White House, American doctors have shown skyrocketing interest in becoming licensed in Canada, where dozens more than normal have already been cleared to practice, according to Canadian licensing officials and recruiting businesses.

The Medical Council of Canada said in an email statement that the number of American doctors creating accounts on physiciansapply.ca, which is "typically the first step" to being licensed in Canada, has increased more than 750% over the past seven months compared with the same time period last year — from 71 applicants to 615. Separately, medical licensing organizations in Canada's most populous provinces reported a rise in Americans either applying for or receiving Canadian licenses, with at least some doctors disclosing they were moving specifically because of Trump.

"The doctors that we are talking to are embarrassed to say they're Americans," said John Philpott, CEO of CanAm Physician Recruiting, which recruits doctors into Canada. "They state that right out of the gate: 'I have to leave this country. It is not what it used to be.'"

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-healt...nistration

[Angrboda]

I'll bet dollars to donuts that SCOTUS will flip what they ruled in Loper Bright concerning the Chevron deference on its head and rule that congress can be vague in its delegation of powers.

[Jackalope]

I'll bet dollars to donuts that SCOTUS will flip what they ruled in Loper Bright concerning the Chevron deference on its head and rule that congress can be vague in its delegation of powers.

i.e. the "but that's different" doctrine.

I would not bet against it.

[Alan V]

Good news.  Most of Trump's tariffs are blocked in court: https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/28/business/...ps-tariffs

It's also been appealed and will possibly be decided by his pets in the SCOTUS. We'll have to wait and see.

I can't see SCOTUS deciding against the Constitution, but who knows?

According to Lawrence O'Donnell, Trump's lawyers had to promise the court that the government would give tariff refunds to everyone if he lost his appeals.

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vyjddkGHMc ]

They also admitted that the fact that the tariffs were blocked in court will undermine trade negotiations based on the threats of those tariffs.  Well yes, of course.  You can't illegally extort other countries, if that's the final decision.

Meanwhile, Trump and others in his administration who are not under oath, like his lawyers, are spouting all sorts of nonsense.

“The Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country,” said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, who opened her Thursday briefing by attacking judges for having “brazenly abused their judicial power.” (Per The New York Times)

Trump blasted the lower court ruling on Thursday in a social media post, writing: "Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY." (Per the BBC)

“This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America,” Trump wrote on social media late Thursday. “If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same!” he added, before calling the ruling, “the harshest financial ruling ever leveled on us as a Sovereign Nation.” (Per CNBC)

Trump is so ignorant of the Constitution and the laws that he doesn't know that the President of the United States never had the power to set tariffs, with limited exceptions.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I can't see SCOTUS deciding against the Constitution, but who knows?

Really? I can. Justices who are bought and paid for will have no problem using novel interpretations of your Constitution to rule however Trump wants them to.

Boru

[Alan V]

I can't see SCOTUS deciding against the Constitution, but who knows?

Really? I can. Justices who are bought and paid for will have no problem using novel interpretations of your Constitution to rule however Trump wants them to.

Boru

I realize that exceptions to the Constitution's delegation of tariffs to Congress have been written into law, but Trump is pressing the boundaries of any reasonable interpretations of those laws to make them do what he wants them to.  That's what the judges' pushback on his interpretation of the IEEPA was about.  And yes, Trump can resort to other laws to try to impose the same tariffs.  But he is certainly testing the limits of presidential powers, and is undermining essential checks and balances in the process.

If Congress was in the hands of Democrats, Trump would already be constrained by their pushback against his abuse of the tariff laws.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Really? I can. Justices who are bought and paid for will have no problem using novel interpretations of your Constitution to rule however Trump wants them to.

Boru

I realize that exceptions to the Constitution's delegation of tariffs to Congress have been written into law, but Trump is pressing the boundaries of any reasonable interpretations of those laws to make them do what he wants them to.  That's what the judges' pushback on his interpretation of the IEEPA was about.  And yes, Trump can resort to other laws to try to impose the same tariffs.  But he is certainly testing the limits of presidential powers, and is undermining essential checks and balances in the process.

If Congress was in the hands of Democrats, Trump would already be constrained by their pushback against his abuse of the tariff laws.

None of which has anything to do with whether the Supremes will subvert the Constitution to give Trump what he wants. You can’t imagine that they will, I can’t imagine that they won’t.

Boru

[Alan V]

I realize that exceptions to the Constitution's delegation of tariffs to Congress have been written into law, but Trump is pressing the boundaries of any reasonable interpretations of those laws to make them do what he wants them to.  That's what the judges' pushback on his interpretation of the IEEPA was about.  And yes, Trump can resort to other laws to try to impose the same tariffs.  But he is certainly testing the limits of presidential powers, and is undermining essential checks and balances in the process.

If Congress was in the hands of Democrats, Trump would already be constrained by their pushback against his abuse of the tariff laws.

None of which has anything to do with whether the Supremes will subvert the Constitution to give Trump what he wants. You can’t imagine that they will, I can’t imagine that they won’t.

Boru

My point that a Congress in the hands of Democrats would already have pushed back was meant to underscore the fact that Congress still has the power of tariffs, that the president only has certain powers given to him by Congress, which can also be taken away.  So what I said does in fact bear on the issues in question.

Yes, SCOTUS can hand the president the powers of Congress, but they will be violating the Constitution if they do.  They effectively will be passing new laws instead of interpreting them.

As an aside, I think that the United States has already crossed the line into a plutocracy, or perhaps even into fascism, by electing a pathological lying authoritarian president twice.  The only important question is whether the courts can or will hold the line throughout the next several years before our system of government is completely undermined.

[Angrboda]

President Donald Trump has announced the US will double its current tariff rate on steel and aluminium imports from 25% to 50%, starting on Wednesday.

Speaking at a rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Trump said the move would help boost the local steel industry and the national output, while decreasing reliance on China.

Trump also said that $14bn would be invested into the area's steel production through a partnership between US Steel and Japan's Nippon Steel. Details on the partnership are still unclear and both companies have yet to confirm a deal.

The announcement is the latest turn in Trump's rollercoaster approach to tariffs since re-entering office in January.

"There will be no layoffs and no outsourcing whatsoever, and every US steel worker will soon receive a well deserved $5,000 bonus," Trump told the crowd, filled with steelworkers, to raucous applause.

One of the major concerns from steelworkers about the US-Japan trade deal was how Japan would honour workers' union contract which regulates pay and hiring.

Trump began his remarks by reflecting on how he "saved" US Steel, America's biggest steel manufacturer, located in Pittsburgh, with the 25% steel tariffs he implemented during his first term as president, in 2018.

He touted the increase to 50% as a way to ensure US Steel's survival.

"At 50%, they can no longer get over the fence," he said. "We are once again going to put Pennsylvania steel into the backbone of America, like never before."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0k5x21y35o


He better hurry. If memory serves, the appeals court set a deadline of June 9 for the government's response. AFAIK, tariff mechanisms outside the IEEPA require at least 30 days.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Trump Administration Lies About Immigrant Crimes (Shocking)

The Trump administration knew that the vast majority of the 238 Venezuelan immigrants it sent to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador in mid-March had not been convicted of crimes in the United States before it labeled them as terrorists and deported them, according to U.S. Department of Homeland Security data that has not been previously reported.

President Donald Trump and his aides have branded the Venezuelans as “rapists,” “savages,” “monsters” and “the worst of the worst.” When multiple news organizations disputed those assertions with reporting that showed many of the deportees , the administration doubled down. It said that its assessment of the deportees was based on a thorough vetting process that included looking at crimes committed both inside and outside the United States. But the government’s own data, which was obtained by ProPublica, The Texas Tribune and a team of journalists from Venezuela, showed that officials knew that only 32 of the deportees had been convicted of U.S. crimes and that most were nonviolent offenses, such as retail theft or traffic violations.

Boru