Author: Dani Tietz

President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, that significantly alters the power dynamics within the executive branch. The order, titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” includes a controversial provision that centralizes the authority to interpret laws for the executive branch solely in the hands of the President and the Attorney General.

Specifically, Section 7 of the order states:

“The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties.”

Key aspects of this provision include:

1. The President and Attorney General will provide “authoritative interpretations of law” for the entire executive branch.
2. Their legal opinions are deemed “controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties”.
3. Executive branch employees are prohibited from advancing legal interpretations that contradict those of the President or Attorney General, unless explicitly authorized.

The order explicitly targets what the administration views as a lack of accountability within “independent regulatory agencies,” arguing that these bodies have operated with insufficient Presidential oversight, leading to regulations promulgated without proper review.

Key Provisions of the Executive Order:

• OIRA Review: Mandates that all executive departments and agencies, including independent agencies, submit proposed and final “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President for review before publication in the Federal Register. This expands the power of OIRA, which already reviews regulations from many executive branch agencies.
• Performance Standards: Directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish performance standards and management objectives for independent agency heads and to report periodically to the President on their performance.
• Budgetary Control: Empowers the Director of OMB to review independent regulatory agencies’ obligations for consistency with the President’s policies and priorities. It also allows OMB to adjust these agencies’ apportionments, potentially restricting spending on activities that do not align with the President’s agenda, so long as such restrictions are consistent with law.
• White House Liaison: Requires heads of independent regulatory agencies to establish a “White House Liaison” position within their agencies, a role designed to facilitate coordination with the Executive Office of the President.
• Legal Interpretation: Affirms that the President and the Attorney General’s interpretations of the law are controlling on all employees in the executive branch, preventing employees from advancing interpretations that contradict those of the President or Attorney General unless explicitly authorized.

Potential Implications and Reactions

This Executive Order represents a potentially significant shift in the balance of power between the President and other branches of the government.

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant the President or Attorney General exclusive authority to interpret laws for the executive branch. Instead, it establishes a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government:

1. Article II, Section 1 vests “executive power” in the President.
2. Article II, Section 3 requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
3. The executive power primarily consists of enforcing laws and appointing officials to carry out this duty.
4. Article III grants the judicial branch the power to interpret laws and determine their constitutionality.

The Constitution’s framers designed this separation of powers to prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful. While the President has significant authority in executing laws and conducting foreign affairs, the Constitution does not explicitly grant the power to be the sole interpreter of laws for the executive branch.

Making Laws:

The legislative branch, specifically Congress, is responsible for making laws. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”. The process of lawmaking involves both houses of Congress drafting, debating, and voting on bills before they are sent to the President for approval.

Interpreting Laws:

The judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court, is primarily responsible for interpreting laws. The Supreme Court is considered “the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States”. However, it’s important to note that there is ongoing debate about the extent of this power, with some arguing that other branches and even citizens should have a role in constitutional interpretation.

The Supreme Court has recognized that the President has certain implied authorities, including supervising executive officials and recognizing foreign governments. However, the Court has also stated that the Constitution “refutes the idea that the President was intended to be a lawmaker”.

In cases of conflict between presidential and congressional powers, courts have used frameworks like Justice Jackson’s three-part test from Youngstown to determine the extent of presidential authority.

Justice Jackson’s three-part test from Youngstown, also known as the “tripartite framework,” is a method for evaluating the extent of presidential power in relation to Congress. This framework, introduced in Justice Robert Jackson’s concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), outlines three categories of presidential action: 

1. Maximum Power: When the President acts with express or implied authorization from Congress, his authority is at its strongest. In this category, the President’s actions are supported by both his inherent powers and those delegated by Congress.
2. Zone of Twilight: When Congress has neither granted nor denied authority to the President, there exists a “twilight zone” where the distribution of powers between the executive and legislative branches is uncertain. In this category, presidential power can depend on the context, including congressional acquiescence or inaction.
3. Lowest Ebb: When the President acts in contradiction to the express or implied will of Congress, his power is at its weakest. In this category, the President relies solely on his own constitutional powers, which must be carefully scrutinized to avoid upsetting the balance of power within the federal government.

This framework has become a cornerstone for assessing executive power in subsequent Supreme Court cases and continues to be used when evaluating assertions of presidential authority.

Senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren are demanding answers from the IRS regarding a potential agreement that would grant Elon Musk’s DOGE broad access to sensitive taxpayer data. The senators expressed concerns that this access could lead to the weaponization of private financial information for political purposes.

The letter to Acting Commissioner Douglas O’Donnell cites reports that the White House is pressuring the IRS to agree to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOGE. This MOU would reportedly provide DOGE software engineers extensive access to IRS systems, including the Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS).

According to the IRS website, the IDRS is a system that enables employees in the Campuses and the AreaOffices to have instantaneous visual access to certain taxpayer accounts.

Some capabilities of the system include:

■ Researching account information and requesting returns.

■ Entering transactions such as adjustments, entity changes, etc.

■ Entering collection information for storage and processing in the system.

■ Automatically generating notices, collection documents, and other outputs.

“It appears the MOU proposes giving DOGE team members access to the IRS Integrated Data Retrieval System (“IDRS”), raising serious concerns that Elon Musk and his associates are seeking to weaponize government databases containing private bank records and other confidential information to target American citizens and businesses as part of a political agenda,” the Senators wrote. “The IRS must immediately disclose to the Senate Committee on Finance the full extent of the potential access to IRS systems and data granted to DOGE team members so that the Committee can address any efforts by DOGE personnel to gain access to taxpayer records at the IRS, which may constitute criminal violations of federal privacy laws.

“Statutory protections under section 6103 and related statutes prohibit improper inspection, disclosure, and misuse of taxpayer information. Section 6103 was modernized nearly 50 years ago, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress, as part of a suite of reforms enacted to prevent misuse of taxpayer information by the executive branch in response to abuses by President Nixon. The potential consequences for breaching the protections of section 6103 include criminal penalties such as imprisonment and fines, as well as money damages through civil litigation.”

The Nixon’s administration used the IRS to harass and intimidate political opponents, a practice that led to significant reforms aimed at preventing future abuses. 

Section 7217 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes strict limitations on high-ranking Executive Branch officials, including the President. This law prohibits these officials from:

1. Requesting an audit or investigation of a specific taxpayer
2. Interfering with an ongoing audit or investigation

The purpose of this section is to prevent the misuse of the IRS for political purposes or personal vendettas. Any violation of Section 7217 is considered a serious offense and is classified as a criminal act. Those found guilty of violating this law may face severe consequences, including:

• Monetary fines
• Imprisonment

The senators are demanding a swift response from the IRS, with a deadline of February 21, 2025, for answers to a detailed list of questions. These questions include:

• Providing copies of all MOUs being considered with DOGE.
• Identifying all non-IRS employees involved in proposing or negotiating the MOUs.
• Clarifying the terms of employment for DOGE team member Gavin Kliger at the IRS, including his access to tax return information.
• Detailing any restrictions on DOGE team members’ access to the IDRS system.
• Listing all DOGE team members currently employed at the IRS.
• Investigating a reported meeting between Gavin Kliger and senior IRS officials.
• Determining whether any taxpayer data accessed by DOGE team members has been copied or sent to non-governmental servers.
• Clarifying whether DOGE team members have been granted access to tax returns related to criminal investigations.

“Even if individuals affiliated with DOGE are employed by Treasury, their access to tax information may not be legal. For inspection of taxpayer information to be lawful, it must be made to or by an authorized person for an authorized purpose,” the Senators wrote. “While Treasury employees, such as IRS personnel, can access tax return information for their official duties involving tax administration, such as conducting audits or processing tax returns, they generally may not access them for reasons unrelated to those purposes. In addition, there are significant restrictions on access to tax return information for others in the employ of the federal government. There are serious statutory and regulatory restrictions on when employees outside the Treasury Department may gain access to tax return information. To date, no information on DOGE employees or any others executing orders on Musk’s behalf have revealed any clear, stated purpose as to why they need access to return information, whether they have followed all required laws to gain access to IRS systems, and what steps the IRS has taken to ensure that inspection of tax return is contained to authorized personnel and not disclosed to any unauthorized parties.

“No executive order requiring agency heads to provide DOGE personnel access to IRS records or information technology systems supersedes the federal tax code. Software engineers working for Musk seeking to gain access to tax return information have no right to hoover up taxpayer data and send that data back to any other part of the federal government and may be breaking the law if they are doing so. DOGE engineers also have no legal right to snoop around and inspect the tax returns of millions of American citizens unless expressly permitted under Section 6103.”

Warren and Wyden also raised the alarm that DOGE personnel meddling with IRS systems during tax filing season could cause breakdowns and delay tax refunds, potentially harming millions of Americans who rely on timely refunds.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is set to terminate thousands of probationary workers during the ongoing tax season, with layoffs potentially beginning as early as this week. While the exact number of affected employees remains unconfirmed, the cuts are expected to target staff members who have been with the agency for less than one or two years and have not yet secured full civil service protections.

These layoffs are part of the Trump administration’s broader initiative to reduce the federal workforce, which includes directives to dismiss nearly all probationary employees lacking civil service protections. The cuts come at a critical time, as the 2025 tax season officially began on January 27, with the IRS anticipating over 140 million tax returns to be filed by the April 15 deadline.

In a strongly worded letter addressed to the Bishops of the United States, Pope Francis voiced his concern over mass deportations and the treatment of migrants, urging the Church to uphold the “infinite and transcendent dignity” of every human person. The letter, dated February 10, 2025, comes amidst ongoing debates and policy changes regarding immigration in the United States.

The Pope draws on biblical and historical references, highlighting the journey from slavery to freedom in the Book of Exodus and the Holy Family’s own experience as refugees in Egypt. 

“Even a cursory examination of the Church’s social doctrine emphatically shows that Jesus Christ is the true Emmanuel (cf. Mt 1:23); he did not live apart from the difficult experience of being expelled from his own land because of an imminent risk to his life, and from the experience of having to take refuge in a society and a culture foreign to his own. The Son of God, in becoming man, also chose to live the drama of immigration.”

He continued to write, “The family of Nazareth in exile, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, emigrants in Egypt and refugees there to escape the wrath of an ungodly king, are the model, the example and the consolation of emigrants and pilgrims of every age and country, of all refugees of every condition who, beset by persecution or necessity, are forced to leave their homeland, beloved family and dear friends for foreign lands.”

Key Points from the Letter:

• Dignity Above All Else: Pope Francis asserts that the dignity of the human person surpasses all juridical considerations. He calls on the faithful to evaluate laws and policies based on whether they uphold fundamental human rights.
• Concern Over Deportations: The Pope directly addresses the “major crisis” of mass deportations in the U.S. He states that a “rightly formed conscience” cannot agree with measures that equate illegal status with criminality.
• Responsibility to Protect: While acknowledging a nation’s right to defend itself against violent criminals, Pope Francis insists that deporting those fleeing poverty, insecurity, and persecution damages human dignity and creates vulnerability.
• Rule of Law and Common Good: The letter emphasizes that a true rule of law is demonstrated by dignified treatment of all, especially the marginalized. The Pope reiterates his call for societies to welcome, protect, promote, and integrate vulnerable populations, while also regulating orderly migration. He cautions against building policies on force rather than the equal dignity of every human being.
• Christian Love and Identity: Pope Francis explains that Christian identity matures through relationships with others, especially the poor. He references the parable of the Good Samaritan as a model for building a fraternity open to all, warning against ideological criteria that distort social life.
• Gratitude and Exhortation: The Pope expresses gratitude for the work of the U.S. Bishops in supporting migrants and refugees, and he urges all Catholics and people of good will to resist narratives that discriminate against migrants. He calls for solidarity, bridge-building, and a willingness to give of oneself for the sake of others.
• Invocation of Our Lady of Guadalupe: The letter concludes with a prayer to Our Lady of Guadalupe, asking for her protection of migrants and families and for the ability to meet as brothers and sisters in a more fraternal and inclusive society.

“Jesus Christ, loving everyone with a universal love, educates us in the permanent recognition of the dignity of every human being, without exception. In fact, when we speak of ‘infinite and transcendent dignity,’ we wish to emphasize that the most decisive value possessed by the human person surpasses and sustains every other juridical consideration that can be made to regulate life in society. Thus, all the Christian faithful and people of good will are called upon to consider the legitimacy of norms and public policies in the light of the dignity of the person and his or her fundamental rights, not vice versa.”

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan issued a temporary block on President Donald Trump’s directive to freeze federal aid spending, just minutes before it was set to take effect on Tuesday, January 28, 2025.

The judge’s decision comes as a response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of nonprofit organizations challenging the administration’s move. The National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, and SAGE were named as the plaintiffs. 

Key points of the legal challenge include:

1. The plaintiffs argue that the OMB’s memo violates the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding the agency’s statutory authority.
2. They claim the directive is arbitrary and capricious, failing to provide adequate justification for such a sweeping action.
3. The lawsuit alleges that the freeze infringes upon First Amendment rights, potentially targeting specific programs based on their content or viewpoint.
4. The plaintiffs are seeking not only to block the implementation of the freeze but also to require the OMB to file regular status reports confirming the continued disbursement of federal funds.

Judge AliKhan, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, granted an administrative stay that will remain in effect until Monday, February 3, at 5 p.m. This ruling prevents the Trump administration from suspending the disbursement of congressionally appropriated funds during this period.

In her decision, AliKhan cited concerns about potentially irreparable harm, stating, “I think there is the specter of irreparable harm”. The judge’s action maintains the status quo while allowing for further litigation to play out.

The temporary block is seen as a victory for nonprofit and public health groups who argued that even a brief implementation of Trump’s freeze could have devastating consequences for people relying on federal funds for essential services. These organizations also contended that the Office of Management and Budget’s order infringes on First Amendment rights by targeting funding for certain programs.

The Federal Aid Pause Memo

The Trump administration’s directive caused widespread confusion and concern among federal agencies, state governments, and organizations dependent on federal funding. The White House justified the freeze as necessary to ensure alignment with the president’s priorities and executive orders.

The Trump administration’s federal funding freeze has sparked confusion and controversy, particularly regarding its impact on Medicaid. While the White House insisted that critical benefit programs would not be affected, reports from across the country suggest otherwise.

Illinois Governor Pritzker’s office reported that they were initially unable to access the portal used for processing Medicaid claims. Medicaid, a government healthcare program for 70 million low-income individuals and families, is jointly managed and funded by federal and state governments. However, by late afternoon, Pritzker confirmed that access to the portal had been restored.

“The intent here is to disrupt,” Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said Tuesday. “The intention here is to make cuts. And it will affect people all across our state.”

“Don’t let them fool you that there was some kind of website outage,” Pritzker said. “What Donald Trump tried to do in the last 24 hours is illegal. This is a demonstration of cruelty against people who depend on us. Working families who rely on federal assistance to pay their rent, people who need help paying their utility bills, parents who need critical programs like Head Start for quality, affordable child care and 3.5 million Illinoisans who get their health insurance through Medicaid.”

In response to the growing concern, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the issue on social media platform X. She acknowledged the Medicaid website portal outage but assured that no payments had been affected. 

Leavitt stated, “We have confirmed no payments have been affected — they are still being processed and sent. We expect the portal will be back online shortly”.

The discrepancy between the administration’s assurances and the reported nationwide outages has heightened tensions and raised questions about the implementation and scope of the federal funding freeze. 

Within the memo sent in the middle of the night on Jan. 27, federal agencies were directed to pause the issuance of new awards, disbursement of federal funds under open awards, activities associated with open Notice of Funding Opportunities and other relevant agency actions implicated by executive orders. The pause appeared to apply to a broad range of federal financial assistance, including grants, loans, loan guarantees, cooperative agreements, non-cash contributions, donations of property, direct appropriations, interest subsidies, insurance, and food commodities, but did not affect Social Security, Medicare. 

Additional guidance provided later stated assistance provided directly to individuals would not be affected. 

“In addition to Social Security and Medicare, already explicitly excluded in the guidance, mandatory programs like Medicaid and SNAP will continue without pause,” the updated guidance said. 

The memo adds that funds for small businesses, farmers, Pell grants, Head Start, rental assistance and other similar programs are also exempt. 

While it appears that SNAP, which serves roughly 41 million low-income Americans, would not be affected by this, programs like Meals on Wheels, could be affected by the proposed funding pause.

Meals on Wheels expressed grave concerns about the potential impact of the federal aid freeze. The organization stated that if the order affects the Older Americans Act, it would disrupt meal services for millions of vulnerable seniors who rely on their program. 

“The uncertainty is causing confusion among Meals on Wheels providers, who are unsure whether they should continue serving meals today,” the organization told CBS MoneyWatch.”

The stated purpose of the federal aid pause is to allow the Trump Administration to conduct a political review to assess whether federal financial assistance aligns with its priorities, according to the memo. Federal agencies are required to submit a detailed report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by February 10, 2025, outlining all obligations or disbursements of federal financial assistance.The memo specifically mentions reviewing programs related to foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI initiatives, gender ideology, and the Green New Deal.

But even if federal funding would be paused for a day, programs that Americans rely on could be affected.

Federal dollars go towards:

• Education
• Housing
• Health and Social Services
• Nutrition
• Infrastructure and Transportation
• Research and Science
• Disaster Relief
• Veterans Services
• Environmental Programs
• Foreign Aid
• Law Enforcement
• Small Business
• Seniors
• Safety

The vague language of the memo has led to worries that the federal aid pause will not only affect individuals who rely on food, grant or healthcare help, but also local and state governments that rely heavily on federal funding.

Potential disruptions: The freeze could disrupt a wide range of state and local initiatives, including:

• Law enforcement support
• School funding
• Small business assistance
• Firefighting resources
• Veterans’ services
• Infrastructure projects

Nearly 30% of state revenues come from federal funding.

Previous attempts to cut appropriated spending

Federal aid dollars have already been appropriated by Congress. President Trump’s directive to withhold those dollars may be unconstitutional.

The current federal aid freeze ordered by President Trump echoes a similar controversy from the 1970s involving President Richard Nixon. This historical precedent provides important context for understanding the legal implications of executive attempts to control congressionally appropriated funds:

In the 1970s, President Nixon ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to withhold funding for various programs, including water treatment initiatives. This action led to a significant legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled on this issue in the case of Train v. City of New York. The Court’s decision was clear: the president does not have the power to overrule Congress by impounding funding that has been allocated by the legislative branch.

As a direct result of this controversy, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act in 1974. This legislation was designed to close loopholes and make it more difficult for presidents to unilaterally stop the spending of money that lawmakers had allocated.

The legal history of executive impoundment challenges extends beyond the Nixon era, with several significant cases reinforcing the limits of presidential power over congressionally appropriated funds:

In 1998, the Supreme Court decided Clinton v. City of New York, a landmark case that further restricted executive control over federal spending. This case challenged President Bill Clinton’s use of the line-item veto, which allowed him to selectively cancel specific budget items without vetoing entire bills.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which had granted the president this power, was unconstitutional. The Court held that the act violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, which outlines the specific process for how bills become law.

President Donald Trump announced on Sunday, January 26, 2025, that he would impose immediate “emergency” tariffs on all goods imported from Colombia. The move comes in response to Colombia’s refusal to accept two U.S. military flights carrying deported migrants.

Trump declared an “emergency” 25% tariff on all Colombian imports, with plans to increase it to 50% within a week. The move included visa cancellations for Colombian government officials, “along with all Allies and Supporters,” as well as intensified inspections of all Colombian nationals and cargo entering the US on what he termed “national security grounds.”

The catalyst for this action was Colombia’s denial of entry to two U.S. military aircraft carrying about 80 detained Colombian migrants. 

Two U.S. military C-17 planes carrying approximately 80 Colombian migrants each were scheduled to land in Colombia on Sunday, January 26, 2025. However, Colombian President Gustavo Petro abruptly rescinded all diplomatic permissions for U.S. military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) aircraft.

As a result, the flights were redirected overnight. A defense official speaking to NBC News confirmed that although the flights had initially received approval to land, they were halted when President Petro revoked the permissions.

The migrants could not gain entry into Colombia, resulting in the aircraft being sent back to the United States. The Mirror US reports that each flight carrying 80 immigrants incurs a cost of up to $852,000 for US taxpayers. By contrast, a flight directly chartered by the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement costs approximately $8,577, based on agency estimates.

“A migrant is not a criminal and must be treated with the dignity that every human being deserves,” Petro wrote on Twitter/X.

“I cannot allow migrants to remain in a country that does not want them; however, if that country sends them back, it must do so with dignity and respect—for them and for our country. We will receive our compatriots in civilian planes, without treating them like criminals. Colombia demands respect,” he emphasized. He added, “Colombia and Latin America’s dignity comes first. Migrants are human beings and bearers of rights, and they must be treated accordingly.”

In response to Trump’s tariffs, Petro announced on Twitter/X that he instructed the foreign trade minister to increase import tariffs on U.S. goods by 25%.

While Colombia is not among the largest U.S. trading partners, the tariffs could affect billions of dollars in trade. In 2022, the total trade volume between the U.S. and Colombia reached $53.5 billion annually, with the U.S. enjoying a trade surplus of $3.9 billion. 

Key Affected Products from Columbia to the United States

Coffee Prices

Coffee drinkers in the U.S. are likely to see an increase in prices. Colombia is the second-largest source of coffee imports for the U.S., supplying about 20% of the coffee consumed in the country. With the new 25% tariff, which could potentially rise to 50%, Americans may face higher costs for their daily cup of coffee. This comes at a time when coffee prices have already been rising, with a 3.5% increase in 2024, outpacing the overall inflation rate.

Gasoline and Energy Costs

Petroleum is Colombia’s primary export to the U.S., valued at approximately $6 billion in 2022. The tariffs on crude oil imports could lead to increased gasoline prices at the pump for American consumers. This may result in higher transportation and energy costs across various sectors of the economy.

Fresh-Cut Flowers

The timing of these tariffs could significantly impact the floral industry, especially with Valentine’s Day approaching. Colombia is a major supplier of fresh-cut flowers to the U.S., with imports totaling $1.6 billion. Consumers may see higher prices for bouquets and floral arrangements, potentially affecting Valentine’s Day purchases.

Other Affected Products

Gold and aluminum products from Colombia may also see price increases.

Key Affected Products from the United States Columbia

Petroleum Products

• Refined petroleum is consistently the top export from the United States to Colombia, with a value of $5.31 billion in 2022.

Agricultural Products

The U.S. is a major supplier of agricultural goods to Colombia, including:

• Corn ($1.04 billion in 2022)
• Soybean meal ($766 million in 2022)
• Wheat, barley, and other grains
• Cotton
• Animal feeds

Industrial and Manufacturing Goods

• Machinery and computers
• Electrical machinery and equipment
• Aircraft and parts
• Auto parts
• Construction equipment

Chemicals and Related Products

• Fertilizers and agrochemicals
• Plastics
• Organic chemicals

Other Significant Exports

• Information technology equipment
• Medical and scientific equipment
• Pharmaceuticals

Trade Agreement Impact

The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, which went into effect in 2012, has significantly boosted trade by eliminating duties on many U.S. exports. This agreement immediately removed tariffs on about 80% of U.S. consumer and industrial product exports to Colombia, with the remaining tariffs being phased out over a 10-year period.

What is a Tariff and How Do They Work?

Despite Trump’s misunderstanding of how tariffs work, the country that exports the goods does not pay the tariff tax. Tariffs are taxes imposed on imported goods entering the United States. They function as a form of trade barrier, affecting the cost and availability of foreign products in the domestic market. Here’s how tariffs work in the U.S.:

Implementation and Collection

Tariffs are typically charged as a percentage of an item’s value, though some may be fixed amounts per item. When goods arrive at U.S. ports of entry, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) administers the collection of tariffs. Importers are responsible for self-classifying their goods and declaring their value or quantity. CBP then reviews the paperwork, performs occasional audits, and collects the applicable tariffs.

Payment and Economic Impact

Contrary to common misconceptions, it’s not the exporting country that pays the tariff, but rather the importing company. For example, if a U.S. company imports goods from abroad, it’s responsible for paying the tariff to the U.S. government. However, the economic impact of tariffs often extends beyond the initial payer:

• Price Increases: Companies frequently pass on the increased costs to consumers through higher prices. 
• Demand Shifts: As prices rise, demand for imported goods may decrease, potentially benefiting domestic producers.
• Supply Chain Effects: Many businesses have supply chains that cross multiple borders, and each crossing could result in higher costs due to tariffs.

Tariffs on Exports During the First Trump Administration

The tariffs imposed on the United States by China, Canada, the EU, Mexico and India during the first Trump administration had significant negative impacts on U.S. farmers, particularly those exporting agricultural products. These retaliatory tariffs were implemented in response to various tariff actions by the Trump administration, including tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, as well as specific tariffs targeting Chinese goods. 

U.S. farmers experienced substantial economic losses due to retaliatory tariffs imposed by other countries in response to Trump’s trade policies:

• A U.S. Department of Agriculture study found that retaliatory tariffs reduced U.S. agricultural exports by $27 billion from mid-2018 to the end of 2019.
• Soybeans accounted for 71% of the decline, followed by sorghum and pork at 7% and 5% respectively.
• States like Iowa, Illinois, and Kansas were hit hardest, with GDP losses totaling $3.8 billion through 2019.

Financial Strain

The trade war put significant financial pressure on farmers:

• Farm bankruptcies soared as farmers lost market access abroad.
• Net farm income dropped sharply, with 42% of farmers reporting a 10-20% decrease and 29% reporting over a 20% decrease.

Government Subsidies

To mitigate losses, the Trump administration provided substantial subsidies:

• The Market Facilitation Program distributed $23 billion to farmers.
• In 2020 alone, an estimated $45 billion was paid to the agricultural sector.
• These payments accounted for about 40% of the sector’s income in 2020.

President Donald Trump has carried out a significant purge of inspectors general across multiple federal agencies. On Friday, January 24, 2025, Trump fired independent inspector generals in the Department of State, Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Department of Labor, Department of Defense, Small Business Administration, U.S. Energy Corp. (likely referring to the Department of Energy), Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce and the Social Security Administration. The dismissals began on Friday night and were effective immediately.

The Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Personnel Management, Federal Communications Commission, and Export-Import Bank were not affected by this purge.

Inspectors General serve as critical watchdogs within the federal government, helping to ensure that agencies operate efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with laws and regulations. They have broad authority to:

• Access agency records and information directly
• Request assistance from other government agencies
• Issue subpoenas for information and documents
• Administer oaths when conducting interviews
• Hire and manage their own staff and resources

A key function of IGs is to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse within federal programs and operations. They achieve this by:

• Conducting performance audits of agency programs and operations
• Overseeing audits of agency expenditures
• Investigating allegations of employee misconduct
• Evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of agency activities

IGs are responsible for promoting economy, effectiveness, and efficiency in agency programs and operations. This involves:

• Recommending policies to improve agency performance
• Identifying ways to increase federal efficiency
• Evaluating pending legislation and regulations that may affect the agency

Inspector generals report to both the agency head and Congress through Audit, investigative, and inspection reports. They also report suspected criminal violations to the Attorney General. 

What is the importance of Inspector General independence?

The independence of Inspectors General (IGs) is crucial for their effectiveness in promoting government accountability and transparency. This importance has been recognized since the inception of the modern IG system, but it has been reinforced and strengthened over time.

The concept of IG independence has been a cornerstone of the modern IG system since its establishment, but it has evolved and been strengthened over time:

1. Inspector General Act of 1978: This landmark legislation established the foundation for IG independence by creating statutorily independent IG offices within federal agencies.
2. 1988 Amendments: The IG Act was amended to expand the number of statutory IGs and further reinforce their independence.
3. Inspector General Reform Act of 2008: This act strengthened IG independence by increasing their resources and holding them more accountable for their performance.
4. Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016: This legislation further bolstered IG independence by clarifying their authority to access all agency records.
5. Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022: This recent act expanded protections for IGs being removed, transferred, or placed on non-duty status, further safeguarding their independence.

Presidential Authority to Remove and Appoint an Inspector General

The President has the authority to remove an Inspector General from office. However, this power is subject to certain procedural requirements. The President must communicate in writing to both Houses of Congress the intent to remove an IG. This notification must be provided at least 30 days before the removal or transfer of the IG. The written communication to Congress must include a substantive rationale for the removal and detailed and case-specific reasons for the action.

The Jan. 24 dismissals appear to violate federal law requiring a 30-day notice to Congress before removing Inspectors General.

The President also has the authority to appoint an Inspector General with the approval of the Senate. Appointments should be made strictly based on the candidates’ integrity and their proven competence in fields relevant to the agency’s focus, without consideration of their political affiliations.

The White House has not provided immediate comments on the firings or replacement plans. During Trump’s transition back to the White House, there were conversations about ousting these government watchdogs. 

During his first term, President Trump dismissed five inspectors general from various cabinet departments over a six-week period in April and May 2020. Trump did not give notice to the Senate when he dismissed those IGs, either.