Trump says ‘it’s going very well’ after tariffs roil markets
(via White House Flickr)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump reacted for the first time on Thursday to the fallout from his tariff announcement, which included markets nosediving and foreign leaders threatening retaliation.
Trump had no public events on his schedule a day after his dramatic unveiling of severe tariffs against virtually all U.S. trading partners, but he did take a single question as he left the White House Thursday afternoon for a trip to a golf event in Miami.
“Markets today are way down … How’s it going?” a reporter asked the president.
“I think it’s going very well,” Trump responded. “It was an operation. I like when a patient gets operated on and it’s a big thing. I said this would exactly be the way it is.”
Trump continued to project confidence and said nations to be affected are now trying to see if they can “make a deal.”
“The markets are going to boom, the stock is going to boom, the country is going to boom, and the rest of the world wants to see is there any way they can make a deal.” Trump said. “They’ve taken advantage of us for many, many years. For many years we’ve been at the wrong side of the ball. And I’ll tell you what, I think it’s going to be unbelievable.”
Later, speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump again said he’s willing to make a deal despite White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and others earlier in the day appearing to say the tariffs would not be changed
“The tariffs give us great power to negotiate,” Trump said. “Always have, I’ve used them very well in the first administration, as you saw, but now we’re taking it to a whole new level, because it’s a worldwide situation, and it’s very exciting to see.”
Asked if he were open to deal with these countries calling him, he answered, “Well, it depends. If somebody said that we’re going to give you something that’s so phenomenal, as long as they’re giving us something, that’s good.”
Earlier Thursday, Trump administration officials were deployed to deal with the fallout on the morning news shows.
“The president made it clear yesterday, this is not a negotiation. This is a national emergency,” Leavitt said on CNN.
He’s always willing to pick up the phone to answer calls, but he laid out the case yesterday for why we are doing it this and these countries around the world have had 70 years to do the right thing by the American people, and they have chosen not to,” Leavitt added.
“I don’t think there’s any chance that President Trump is gonna back off his tariffs,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on the network.
World leaders are weighing their response to Trump’s historic levies, some of which go into effect on April 5 and others on April 9.
China, which is going to be hit with a whopping 54% tariff rate, urged the U.S. to “immediately cancel its unilateral tariff measures and properly resolve differences with its trading partners through equal dialogue.”
Domestically, stocks plunged in early trading on Thursday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted 3.75%, the tech-heavy Nasdaq declined 5.75% and the S&P 500 tumbled 4.4%.
Vice President JD Vance, before the market selloff, acknowledged that Trump’s massive new tariffs will mean a “big change” for Americans. Trump, ahead of Wednesday’s announcement, had admitted there could be some short-term pain.
“President Trump is taking this economy in a different direction. He ran on that. He promised it. And now he’s delivering. And yes, this is a big change. I’m not going to shy away from it, but we needed a big change,” Vance told “Fox & Friends.”
Leavitt, too, defended the policy as Trump “delivering on his promise to implement reciprocal tariffs” during an appearance on CNN.
“To anyone on Wall Street this morning, I would say trust in President Trump. This is a president who is doubling down on his proven economic formula from his first term,” she said.
Neither Vance nor Leavitt directly addressed the increased costs economists say U.S. consumers are all but certain to face or how they would help Americans.
“What I’d ask folks to appreciate here is that we’re not going to fix things overnight,” Vance said. “We’re fighting as quickly as we can to fix what was left to us, but it’s not going to happen immediately.”
Asked about negative business reaction, Lutnick told CNN, “they’re not counting the factories” that he claimed would be built in the U.S. as a result.
“Let Donald Trump run the global economy. He knows what he’s doing,” Lutnick said.
Trump on Wednesday said jobs will come “roaring back.”
But asked on Air Force One on Thursday how long it would take to get American manufacturing to where he’d like to see it, Trump said, “Well, let’s say it’s a two-year process. You know, they start a plant, and they’re big plants.”
He continued. “We’re giving them approval to also, in many cases, to build the electric facility with it. So, you have electric generation and the plant, and they’re big plants. Now, the good news is a lot of money for them, and they can build them fast, but they’re still very big plants. I’d always say it would take a year-and-a-half to two years.
(WASHINGTON) — With a committee vote scheduled Tuesday for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, Senate Democrats are demanding more details on the nominee’s connections to vaccine lawsuits and are saying Kennedy should promise to recuse himself from any vaccine-related decisions if confirmed health secretary.
The demands came in letter released Monday by Sens. Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren, after Kennedy told the lawmakers that he planned to divest his financial stake in one ongoing vaccine lawsuit to his adult son who practices law in California.
The description matches that of his son, Connor Kennedy, who is an attorney at Wisner Baum, a California-based law firm that is representing plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit against Gardasil, a vaccine intended to protect against HPV and deemed safe by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Warren and Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, called the arrangement of allowing his son to collect future referral fees in the lawsuit “troubling” and “plainly inadequate.”
“The arrangement outlined in your Ethics Agreement Amendment is plainly inadequate, as it would appear to allow an immediate family member to benefit financially from your position as Secretary,” wrote Wyden, D-Ore., and Warren, D-Mass.
It’s not clear whether the letter released Monday by the Democrats would impact Kennedy’s confirmation as health secretary, which could still be pushed through by the Republican majority. It is possible, however, that Republican senators with concerns about Kennedy’s nomination — including Sen. Bill Cassidy — could use the Democrats’ request to slow the confirmation process.
“Your past of undermining confidence in vaccines with unfounded or misleading arguments concerns me,” Cassidy, R.-La., a medical doctor, said in his opening remarks during a hearing last week on Kennedy’s nomination.
He added, “Can I trust that that is now in the past? Can data and information change your opinion? Or will you only look for data supporting a predetermined conclusion? This is imperative.”
The Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Cassidy, is scheduled to vote Tuesday on Kennedy’s nomination.
Warren and Wyden said they couldn’t trust Kennedy’s financial disclosures were “accurate and complete” because they don’t lay out how many cases Kennedy referred to Wisner Baum and whether vaccines were involved.
Wisner Baum has said it has not paid the nominee for any vaccine-related cases, as the current Gardasil case is ongoing.
Wyden and Warren said any involvement is a direct conflict of interest if he were to become health secretary because of his oversight of vaccines.
“By using your authority and bully pulpit as Secretary to sway the outcome of the litigation and secure a big judgment or settlement, you would increase the chances of a large payout for yourself,” they wrote.
(WASHINGTON) — Federal judges have been blunt in their rulings from the bench as the Trump administration has been hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its policies, layoffs and firings and other orders.
While many of the cases are still working their way through the system, several federal judges have been swift in issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, questioning the legality and constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s actions.
The president and his allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency has been at the center of some of the suits, have dismissed many of the orders in interviews and on social media. Musk has called for the impeachment of multiple judges, and Trump has also called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Boasberg has called on the administration to stop deporting Venezuelans as part of Trump’s executive order that invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little to no due process, as a lawsuit plays out.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Justice Department on behalf of five Venezuelans contending the deportees were not criminals. The judge argued that the accused deportees could face real harm and granted the TRO.
Several of the judges have faced increased harassment and threats, according to the U.S. Marshals Service and sources with knowledge of the situation.
Here are some of the major rulings issued by judges against the administration.
March 21
Boasberg said during a court hearing over the AEA deportations of Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvadorian prison that the administration’s use of the law was “incredibly troublesome and problematic.”
“I agree it’s an unprecedented and expanded use of an act that has been used … in the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, when there was no question there was a declaration of war and who the enemy was,” Boasberg said.
The judge noted that the Trump administration’s arguments about the extent of the president’s power are “awfully frightening” and a “long way from” the intent of the law.
The Trump administration argued that members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and the gang’s national security risk warranted the use of the 18th century act.
Boasberg vowed to hold the Trump administration accountable, if necessary, if it violated his court order from March 15.
“The government’s not being terribly cooperative at this point, but I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my word and who ordered this and what’s the consequence,” he said.
Boasberg also grilled Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign over his compliance with the court order to turn back the flights already in the air and questioned how the deportation flights were put together.
“Why is this proclamation essentially signed in the dark on Friday night, early Saturday morning, when people [were] rushed on the plane?” Boasberg asked. “To me, the only reason to do that is if you know the problem and you want to get them out of the country before a suit is filed.”
“I don’t have knowledge of those operational details,” Ensign said.
Boasberg also raised concerns that the rapid nature of the deportations prevented the men from being able to challenge the allegations that they belonged to Tren de Aragua.
“[What] they’re simply saying is don’t remove me, particularly to a country that’s going to torture me,” Boasberg said.
An attorney for the ACLU argued that those targeted by the AEA should be able to contest whether they fall within the act.
“Otherwise, anybody could be taken off the street and removed,” said Lee Gelernt, the attorney for the ACLU. “This is a very dangerous road we’re going down.”
As Ensign appeared to undermine arguments made earlier in the week about the timing of the order and struggled to answer Boasberg’s questions, the judge suggested the Department of Justice might be risking its reputation and credibility.
“I often tell my clerks before they go out into the world to practice law, the most valuable treasure they possess is their reputation and their credibility,” Boasberg said. “I just ask you make sure your team [understands] that lesson.”
Boasberg decided on March 24 that the men who were deported were entitled to due process in court.
“Federal courts are equipped to adjudicate that question when individuals threatened with detention and removal challenge their designation as such. Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge,” he wrote.
Later that evening, the Trump administration invoked the “state secrets privilege” in a court filing to attempt to stop the federal judge from learning more information about the flights.
“Removal flight plans-including locations from which flights depart, the planes utilized, the paths they travel, where they land, and how long they take to accomplish any of those things–reflect critical means and methods of law enforcement operations,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in the filing.
March 20
U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander slammed DOGE in a 137-page ruling that blocked the group’s unlimited access to Social Security information.
“The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion. It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack,” she wrote.
“The government has not even attempted to explain why a more tailored, measured, titrated approach is not suitable to the task,” Hollander added. “Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud. Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.”
The White House has not commented on the case as of March 25.
Reyes said the policy continued an unfortunate history of the armed services excluding marginalized people from the “privilege of serving.”
“The President has the power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving,” Reyes wrote.
“[Fill in the blank] is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; [fill in the blank] will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness; allowing [fill in the blank] to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order,” she added.
“First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve,” she said.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has slammed the judge on X and vowed to appeal.
Lawyers for the administration argued in court papers that the court “has broadly construed the scope of the DoD Policy to encompass all trans-identifying servicemembers or applicants” and claimed the Department of Defense’s new guidance “underscores Defendants’ consistent position that the DoD Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition — one that every prior Administration has, to some degree, kept out of the military.”
March 13
U.S. District Judge William Alsup scolded a DOJ attorney during a hearing for a lawsuit against the mass firing of federal workers.
Alsup slammed the attorney for refusing to make acting Office of Personnel Management Director Charles Ezell available for cross-examination and withdrawing his sworn declaration, which Alsup called a “sham.”
“The government, I believe, has tried to frustrate the judge’s ability to get at the truth of what happened here and then set forth sham declarations,” Alsup said. “That’s not the way it works in the U.S. District Court.”
“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross-examination would reveal the truth. This is the U.S. District Court,” Alsup said. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth.”
Alsup bashed the government for submitting a declaration from Ezell he believed to be false but then withdrawing it and making Ezell unavailable for testimony.
“You withdrew his declaration rather than do that. Come on, that’s a sham. It upsets me,” Alsup said. “I want you to know that I’ve been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years and I know how that we get at the truth, and you’re not helping me get to add to the truth. You’re giving me press releases, sham documents.”
Alsup later ruled that thousands of federal workers needed to be rehired.
The judge determined the Trump administration attempted to circumvent the procedures in place for issuing reductions in force by asserting that the employees were terminated for performance reasons without providing evidence.
“I just want to say it is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said. “That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”
If the Trump administration wants to reduce the size of the federal government, it needs to follow the process established in federal law, he said.
“The words that I give you today should not be taken as some kind of wild and crazy judge in San Francisco has said that the administration cannot engage in a reduction in force,” he said.
His ruling is being appealed by the administration, which asked the Supreme Court on March 24 for an emergency stay.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued in her filing that the labor unions and nonprofit groups that challenged the mass firings lack standing, saying they have “hijacked the employment relationship between the federal government and its workforce.”
“This Court should not allow a single district court to erase Congress’s handiwork and seize control over reviewing federal personnel decisions — much less do so by vastly exceeding the limits on the scope of its equitable authority and ordering reinstatements en masse,” she wrote.
Jan. 23
Just days into Trump’s second presidency, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship and expressed shock in the order from the president.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades,” said Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” the judge told the DOJ’s attorney during the hearing. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
The Trump administration has appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Harris, the acting solicitor general, argued in a filing to the Supreme Court that the nationwide injunctions “transgress constitutional limits on courts’ powers” and “compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions.”
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” she wrote.
ABC News’ Emily Chang and Laura Romero contributed to this report.
John McDonnell/For The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has often mused, even joked, about seeking a third term, but over the weekend he made his strongest and most serious comments yet on a move that constitutional scholars ABC News spoke with call virtually impossible.
“I’m not joking,” he told NBC News “Meet the Press” moderator Kirsten Welker in a phone interview on Sunday, before adding it was “far too early to think about it.”
“There are methods which you could do it,” Trump said, including a scenario in which Vice President JD Vance ran at the top of the 2028 ticket with Trump as his running mate, only for Trump to assume the Oval Office after the election.
Legal and election experts told ABC News any attempt to win another four years as president would be an unprecedented breach of the Constitution.
“Trump may not want to rule out a third term but the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution does,” said David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University and an expert in constitutional law.
The amendment states, in part: “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.”
It was ratified in 1951, years after President Franklin D. Roosevelt broke with the two-term tradition set by George Washington and secured a third term as World War II was breaking out.
“It would be completely unprecedented for a president to openly defy the dictates of the 22nd Amendment and, even more so, to attempt to run or serve again as president,” said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional expert at the University of North Carolina.
“The threats and insinuations no doubt thrill his base, but there is no constitutional basis for the current president to try to serve as president after two elected terms,” Gerhardt said.
The only way legal way for Trump to be able to run for a third term, experts said, would be to amend the Constitution — an incredibly unlikely outcome as it would take two-thirds of both the House and Senate, or two-thirds of the states agreeing to call a constitutional convention. Then, any change would require three-fourths of the states to sign on for ratification.
“This statement by Trump was brilliant in terms of capturing and diverting attention,” said Schultz. “His supporters love it and his detractors will rage over it. In the process, no one will talk about the price of eggs, tariffs and a shaky stock market.”
Experts break down ‘methods’ floated by Trump and his allies
As for Trump’s claim that one of the “methods” could be to run as Vance’s vice president and then be passed the baton, experts point to the 12th Amendment from 1804 as a barrier.
“The 12th Amendment states that anyone who is ineligible to be president is also deemed to be illegible to serve as vice president,” said Barry Burden, the director of the Elections Research Center at University of Wisconsin-Madison. “This means that Trump could not serve as vice president, which is the post he would need for the Vance scheme to be executed.”
Steve Bannon, a fierce Trump ally, has also floated what he’s called alternatives to allow Trump to run in 2028.
Bannon, in remarks at the New York Young Republican Club gala in December, has argued that he could run again as Trump’s two terms in office were not consecutive.
“Since it doesn’t actually say consecutive, I don’t know, maybe we do it again in ’28? Are you guys down for that? Trump ’28?” Bannon said.
Schultz said that argument doesn’t have a sound legal basis.
“The overall limit of serving as president for ten years is both textual proof on the bar to run for a third term and an indication of the intent of the congressional drafters that they did not want anyone serving for more than two terms,” Schultz said.
He added that measure “was put into place to allow for a situation where a president dies more than halfway into a term and the vice president succeeds that person. The Constitution thereby allows for the vice president to serve out the remaining term and then serve two more terms, for a total of ten years.”
What happens if Trump tries anyway?
Trump has already tested the bounds of the Constitution governing presidential power several times in the first months of his second term.
Several Democrats viewed his comments on Sunday as another escalation against the rule of law. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin wrote on X: “This is what dictators do.”
In the past, Republicans have largely played off Trump’s musings about a third term as a joke intended to rile his opposition. But just days after his inauguration, Republican hardliner Rep. Andy Ogles introduced a resolution calling for the extension of presidential term limits to allow Trump to seek another four years in the White House.
“A crisis could arise if Trump runs for president or vice president in 2028,” Burden said. “The Constitution prohibits serving in office but not running for office. If Republicans nominated him, they would be betting that they can violate the Constitution and somehow allow him to serve if he wins.”
If Trump attempted to run, it would be up to election officials and then ultimately the courts to decide. This played out in the 2024 campaign, when several states challenged his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The legal battle went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Trump’s favor.
“If an ineligible person such as Trump is permitted to run knowing that he is not eligible to serve, it is a dangerous collision course in which the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law would be seriously tested,” Burden said.
James Sample, a constitutional law expert at Hofstra University, said Trump would lose in court should he attempt to run again.
“Most of the Constitution is written in broad, textured, difficult to define terms. What is a speedy trial? What is cruel and unusual punishment? What is equal protection? How much process is due process? The 22nd Amendment, however, is black and white,” Sample said.
“But if you can succeed in turning questions that are that clear-cut into debates, then the overall goal of undermining the Constitution and undermining the rule of law and maximizing executive power is served even if you lose the particular battle,” he continued. “This particular battle is not a winnable battle. He is not going to serve a third term, but merely by framing this as a debate, he will succeed in further eroding respect for the Constitution.”
