November 26, 2024: Trump Proposes More Tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico; Here's What You Need to Know. Walmart Rolls Back DEI Policies, Biden Admin Spends $267M on Combatting Misinformation, and More.
26:16 Share

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with a name-year price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis.

Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Tuesday, November 26th, and this is your final news rundown of the week. In today's episode, we'll talk about Trump's proposed tariffs and what tariffs mean for our future economy, a new watchdog report which found the Biden administration has spent hundreds of millions on combating misinformation, the Supreme Court rejecting an appeal from Big Tobacco, Walmart rolling back its DEI policies, and more. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories.

In a post to Truth Social, Donald Trump wrote last night, quote,

On January 20th, as one of my many first executive orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States and its ridiculous open borders. This tariff will remain in effect until such time as drugs, in particular fentanyl and all illegal aliens,

stop this invasion of our country. Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price.

Trump also then posted about an additional tariff on China, writing, quote,

End quote. End quote.

Now, as we heard during Trump's presidential campaign, he was already proposing tariffs on Chinese goods. And I know tariffs can be pretty controversial when it comes to whether they hurt or help. And I also know a lot of you have questions about them. So I actually posted a question box to Instagram last night and had you submit your questions and I will answer those now.

The first question is, can you please explain tariffs and how they will affect the United States cost-wise? The most basic definition of a tariff is a tax imposed by one country on goods imported from another country. But it's the importing country that pays the tax. So as an example, the United States imposes, let's just say, a 25% across-the-board tariff on all imports coming from China.

The importing company here in the United States that is bringing in those Chinese goods will pay the 25%. That 25% then goes to the U.S. Treasury, so tariffs increase revenue for the government. Naturally, if the importing business has to pay more because of tariffs, the price of the good for the consumer will be higher as well. That is obviously a downside not only for U.S. consumers, but also U.S. importers.

The advantage that tariffs can bring is a boost to domestic production. So if imports become more expensive and therefore the cost of imported goods is higher, the consumer will turn to domestic goods. And at the same time, importing businesses will try to utilize domestic manufacturing and production because they want to keep their costs down as well. Boosting domestic manufacturing and production would ultimately lead to a reduced trade deficit.

In the United States, there are several politically sensitive industries that specifically benefit from tariffs. So sugar producers and the auto industry are two examples. But again, the benefit doesn't apply to all industries because oftentimes tariffs are industry specific and therefore you have some industries that still rely on foreign imports.

and therefore have to increase the cost of goods, and that higher cost of goods ultimately falls on the consumer. So there's different schools of thought here, but ultimately there is no incentive for the U.S. consumer. In analysis by the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics,

Estimates that if Trump were to impose a 20% across the board tariff and a 60% tariff on China, it would cost a typical U.S. household in the middle of the income distribution more than $2,600 per year. The lowest quintile of the income distribution chart would see an even greater loss, and the top 1% would actually see a net gain. And this is due to two things. One,

One, an increase in the cost of goods proportionally affects lower income households more than higher earners. And two, because of Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the taxes were cut for everyone, but mostly the upper class. So that's why when everything is analyzed together, we see the upper class actually seeing a net gain and the lower class taking the brunt of the hit.

Another analysis done by the Budget Lab at Yale estimates the tariffs could raise consumer prices anywhere from 1.4% to 5.1%, which is equivalent to anywhere from $1,900 to $7,600 per household. That's a pretty big range. And we would see much of these price increases at the grocery store since about 60% of fresh fruit and 38% of vegetables are imported. It would also extend, though, to other consumer goods like apparel, toys, and furniture.

Depending on what you what study you look at though, some economists will tell you that tariffs are bad that they're, you know, self-defeating and have a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare. But other economists will say that tariffs help reshore supply chains in strategic industries and create jobs, increase economic growth and decrease trade deficits.

So by no means do people agree on the combined effects of tariffs. But one thing that is for certain is that tariffs do lead to higher prices for consumers. And we will talk about how those higher prices can be offset in an answer to another question in a few minutes.

The second question is, are tariffs actually an effective bargaining tool for other countries? They can be. There's a reason that they've been in existence for so long. After listening to the answer to the previous question and hearing that importing businesses end up paying the tariffs, you're probably wondering how tariffs are even a threat to foreign countries. But if you think about the effect...

that tariffs can have, mainly importers turning to domestic production to avoid paying higher costs or just simply avoiding imports so as to not pay the tariffs, exporters will likely have to cut their prices to hold on to their market share. And cutting prices obviously leads to falling profits for those exporters and could potentially hurt the exporting country's economy.

Certain countries like China have an export-driven economy. China is the world's largest exporter. So if Chinese exporters were to lose customers and profits due to tariffs, their economy would suffer. But keep in mind also that these exporting countries can impose what are called retaliatory tariffs. So we saw this in 2018 when we were essentially in this, you know, tariff war with China.

And this could hurt the U.S. as well because the retaliatory tariffs tend to target the export-reliant industries in the United States, such as agriculture. Now, there are things we can do here in the U.S. to counteract retaliatory tariffs, but the effects still aren't great. For instance, when China imposed tariffs on our agriculture, Trump's administration countered those tariffs by giving farmers tens of billions of dollars in income.

aid to make up for the lost exports. However, some criticize that strategy as counterproductive and wasteful. But I digress. We still have other questions to get to. So let me just finish by saying, yes, tariffs can be an effective bargaining tool because they can, you know, mess with the exporting country's economy in a sense, but they can also lead to retaliatory tariffs as well.

The third question is in line with the question we just answered, and it is, how would tariffs stop drugs and invasion? So this question goes back to what Trump was saying about imposing tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, right? He said he would do so because of the illegal immigration and illegal drugs that are entering the United States.

The theory is that if the economies of Canada, Mexico, and China were negatively affected by the imposition of tariffs, then they would do more to help the United States. So Canada and Mexico may have stronger border enforcement and implement measures to not let people cross into the U.S. from these countries illegally at such a high rate. China may crack down on exports at the

to make sure there aren't as many drugs leaving the country and coming into the U.S. Maybe they impose that death penalty situation that Trump referred to. These are just examples, but the thought is that if we threaten these countries with tariffs or impose tariffs on these countries, then they'll take our best interests more seriously than they otherwise would if they had nothing to lose.

The next question is, how would Trump's tariff proposals affect inflation? The answer is a bit complex, but generally tariffs are inflationary, at least in the short term, because as we've talked about, they increase costs for consumers and businesses. Now, there are ways to offset the inflationary nature of tariffs, such as higher wages, tax cuts, and strengthening the U.S. dollar.

As we know, Trump wants to make his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 permanent, possibly even cut taxes further. But even so, tax cuts alone likely would not completely offset the additional household costs that tariffs would impose. Higher wages could help, but keep in mind that some industries wouldn't be able to increase wages if they're paying tariffs.

unless, of course, they increase the cost to the consumer and they generate more money that way. But again, that takes us back to this cycle of increasing costs, increasing the burden on U.S. consumers. And then finally, if the U.S. dollar were to strengthen and give U.S. consumers more buying power, then that could potentially offset the inflationary effects of tariffs as well.

It's also worth noting that the magnitude of the tariffs will also determine how much of an effect the tariffs have on inflation. For instance, if we look at Trump's 2018 tariffs, yes, there were tariffs, but inflation was low, obviously not taking into account the pandemic and all of the issues that

that caused the year-over-year inflation rate under Trump was 1.9%. That is below the Fed's target of 2% and considered very good and an indication that the tariffs didn't impact inflation. And that is actually often what Trump and his future administration officials like Scott Besant cite to when arguing against the inflationary nature of tariffs.

Now, Trump's new tariff proposals are even greater than his 2018 tariffs, so if the tariffs were implemented at the rates that he wants to, we could see more of an effect than we did before, and perhaps a rise in inflation. Inflation long-term is a slightly different story. By imposing tariffs and promoting production in industries here in the United States, it

it could generate self-sufficiency and lower reliance on imports and therefore benefit the economy here in the United States, but that would be a delayed effect.

So the short answer is that tariffs tend to be inflationary in the short term and less offset by things like higher wages, additional tax cuts, or strengthening the U.S. dollar. But in the long term, tariffs could help inflation. Let's take a break here. And when we come back, I still have one more question to answer related to tariffs. And then we'll get into quick hitters. And rumor has it.

It's the most wonderful time of the year. Holidays on the house at DraftKings Casino. With this season's offerings, you'll unwrap everything on your list. Exclusive games, huge jackpots, and exciting rewards. DraftKings is offering a warm welcome to new players with $100 instantly in casino credits with just a $10 wager. Plus...

Everyone can get in on the action with a holiday reward every week. So sign up with code UNBIASED because the holiday cheer is here. Only on DraftKings Casino. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. In Connecticut, help is available for problem gambling. Call 888-789-7777.

or visit ccpg.org. Please play responsibly. 21+, physically present in Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia only. Void in Ontario. Eligibility restrictions apply. New customers only. Opt-in required. Casino credits are non-withdrawable and expire in 168 hours. Terms at casino.draftkings.com slash promos.

See terms at walmartplus.com.

Welcome back. We will finish with the last question related to tariffs, and that is, can you dive into the previous Trump administration tariffs and the results? So Trump was sort of the first president in recent history to impose so many tariffs, and then Biden largely left those tariffs in place and also imposed some of his own. The Trump administration imposed tariffs on thousands of products valued at about $380 billion. And the Trump administration imposed tariffs on thousands of products valued at about $380 billion.

The Biden administration then announced tariff hikes on another $18 billion of Chinese goods, including semiconductors and electric vehicles. But the Tax Foundation has estimated that Trump's 2018 tariffs will actually reduce long-run GDP by 0.2%, reduce the capital stock by 0.1%, and reduce employment by about 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

The tariffs also resulted in an increased cost for the average American household of about $830 per year. However, that cost would likely go up this time around, as we discussed, because of the magnitude of the new proposals. Now, you may remember I said that some economists say tariffs hurt employment. Other economists say tariffs help employment.

This is because tariffs often benefit workers who produce the specific good covered by tariffs, but hurt workers in other industries that rely on those imports. For instance, the steel industry can be protected with tariffs, but higher steel prices are going to harm manufacturers that need steel here in the United States, which will harm those steel workers. So a government tariff can essentially trade jobs in one industry at the expense of jobs in another.

Along similar lines, a 2024 paper by a group of economists looked at Trump's 2018 tariffs and found that import tariffs on foreign goods neither raised nor lowered U.S. employment in newly protected sectors. However, retaliatory tariffs had clear negative impacts. So hopefully those answers gave you a better understanding of tariffs, and now we can get into some quick hitters.

According to a new report from Open the Books, a government transparency watchdog group, the Biden administration has spent more than $267 million on combating misinformation. To get to this number, Open the Books specifically looked at research grants that had the word misinformation in the proposal. The report said that the money went to universities, nonprofits, and private companies, with the largest chunk, about $126 million, being spent in 2021 to study and counter COVID-related speech disorders.

Specifically, the report also shows most of the funds were directed to universities. Nearly $4 million was awarded to the City University of New York to study how people with anxiety and depression were impacted by vaccine misinformation. That study is still ongoing and is set to conclude in August of 2025. And the University of Michigan received $14 million to look into the impact of misinformation on American politics and social polarization.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear an appeal from cigarette companies challenging a federal requirement that cigarette packages include graphic labels that warn of the health risks associated with smoking. Tobacco companies like R.J. Reynolds initially challenged the rule, arguing that the FDA's 2019 rule amounted to compelled speech,

violated the tobacco company's speech rights, and overstated the health risks associated with smoking. The appellate court ruled in favor of the FDA, finding that the FDA's rule was consistent with the First Amendment and did not overstate the health risks. So by declining the appeal, the Supreme Court effectively leaves in place that appellate court's ruling, which allows the FDA's rule to continue in effect.

Disney has agreed to hire a labor economist and pay $43 million to settle a lawsuit that alleged the company paid female employees less than their male counterparts in similar roles for more than a decade. The lawsuit was brought in 2019 by a woman who worked for Disney, who claimed that six men with the same job title earned substantially more than her. The $43 million will be dispersed to the roughly 9,000 women plaintiffs who alleged the

the same. And finally, Walmart is rolling back its DEI policies and opting out of renewing its $100 million philanthropic initiative. Walmart said it will not renew its Center for Racial Equity, which was launched in 2020 following the death of George Floyd. The company also said it would stop participating in the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index, which is an annual survey that assesses policies and benefits for LGBTQ employees.

In a statement, a Walmart representative said in part, quote, End quote.

And now it is time for Rumor Has It. For time purposes, we are going to stick to one rumor today, and that is rumor has it that Trump is refusing to sign transition ethics agreements. Let's talk about this. So we have a law here in the United States called the Presidential Transition Act.

And among other things, the law requires the president-elect to sign an ethics agreement that applies not only to the president-elect, but also everyone on the transition team. And it includes a pledge promising to avoid conflicts of interest once sworn into office.

It's only after that agreement has been signed and all non-federal monetary contributions that were received for the transition have been disclosed to the General Services Administration can the transition team receive access to federal agencies. The law was originally enacted by Kennedy in 1963, later revised to include those financial disclosures, and more recently in 2019, it was Trump himself that passed the 2019 Presidential Transition Enhancement Act,

which clarified the GSA's responsibilities during changes in presidential administrations, required presidential candidates to publicly release ethics plans for their transitions before elections, and gave the presidential transition team more obligations during the change in administrations. Now, in total, there are three agreements. So there's the GSA agreement, which is due by September 1st,

and outlines the terms on which a transition team can take up office space, IT services, and other equipment and facilities. There's the White House Agreement, which is due by October 1st, and grants the transition team with conditions of access to employees, facilities, and documents.

And then there's this third agreement, which governs the DOJ security clearance process for national security and transition officials. The first two are required by law. The third is not. But none of the three have been signed by Trump's transition team. Trump's transition team told Axios that they were still discussing the agreements needed to kickstart the transition, but did not specify their concerns.

Just to give you all sides as to what is possibly causing the delay, some think the reason Trump doesn't want to sign is because his team doesn't want to promise to avoid conflicts of interest once sworn in. Some have said they don't want to disclose their transition funding because their transition has been mostly privately funded. But a spokesperson for the Trump transition team said that their lawyers continue to

So that is that.

Now to close out this episode, I want to do something special and leave us all feeling a little lighter heading into Thanksgiving. I asked all of you on Instagram yesterday to share some things that you were thankful for, and I do want to share some of those responses here. This week is a time for all of us to reflect and feel grateful for what we have, and I know some people may be in a place where it may be hard to find that gratitude, so I hope this segment helps you find at least a little bit of light.

And I am just going to read directly off my phone. I screenshotted these. I'm not going to use anyone's full name, but if I know at least your first name, I'll use it. If I don't, I'll just say a user.

So a user is thankful for their students, the laughs that we share, and that they allow me to be part of their world. Another user is always grateful for my hubby. Three words when I think of him, comfort, safety, and peace. Megan is thankful for having the space, resources, and love to rescue a sweet pup from an overcrowded shelter. Billy is grateful to be in a position to help others this holiday season instead of in need.

Sarah is grateful for a break from the normal routine this week and being able to see family. Rudy is grateful for family and health and grateful for his new golden retriever puppy.

Another user is grateful for another holiday season with her grandma who is battling cancer. Another user is grateful for their friends. I believe this is a she. She says, I have such supportive and funny friends who are always there for me. Shailene is grateful that she gets to see her son for a whole week who deploys in January for the military.

Another user is grateful for forgiveness and second chances. Another user is grateful for getting a $500 bonus and she gets to see her grandmother again for the first time in two years. Someone else is grateful for the ability to be a working mom of three. Ryan is grateful to live in a free country where we all don't have to agree on everything.

Willie is grateful for his health. Diane is grateful that she just closed on a small business acquisition. Christina is grateful for family. She says it's cheesy, but we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum and have managed to stay civil. Someone else says that they are grateful for a healthy family and a job that they don't loathe.

Someone said that they are grateful for their daughter having a great pediatric cardiologist. And someone said that they are grateful for exceptional oncologists. She said, this time last year, my family had a lot of unknowns.

So here's what I'll say. I am grateful, of course, for my health, my family, the food that will be on my Thanksgiving table, my job, the air I get to breathe every day, the ability to move my body. I could go on and on, but what I really want to tell you is that I am so grateful for all of you.

I wouldn't be able to do what I do every day without your support. I wouldn't be able to continue trying to change the world for the better without your support. I really can't put into words how much I appreciate every single one of you. I get emotional thinking about it sometimes because my entire life, I always wondered where I would end up. In college, I always felt a little bit lost, as many of us do. I never really knew what my career path would be. In law school, I wasn't sure I was making the right decision by going to law school.

And then when I was practicing as an attorney, I always just knew that I was meant for something else. It was just this feeling that I had, but I never knew what that something else would be. And I can finally say I found it. But

I wouldn't, you know, this platform wouldn't be anything without you. And for that, I am just so grateful. So thank you each and every one of you for being here. I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving and whether or not you'll be with the ones that you love. I hope you do something that sparks some joy. Have a great week and I will talk to you on Monday.