Connect with us

Economics

The Supreme Court puzzles over social-media regulations

Published

on

IN THE MIDDLE of a four-hour Supreme Court debate on February 26th over state laws regulating social-media sites, Justice Samuel Alito asked Paul Clement, the platforms’ lawyer, to imagine that “YouTube were a newspaper”. How much, Justice Alito asked, “would it weigh?” The snark was directed at Mr Clement’s suggestion that Facebook, YouTube and their ilk deserve editorial control over the content they host just as newspapers are free to decide which articles appear on their broadsheets.

If Justice Alito was sceptical of the regulators’ comparisons of platforms to telegraph companies (which must dispatch all messages, not just the ones they agree with), he was downright hostile to the newspaper analogy. But Mr Clement had a rejoinder: a paper version of YouTube “would weigh an enormous amount, which is why, in order to make it useful, there’s actually more editorial discretion going on in these cases” than in any of the others that have come before the court.

The laws at issue date from 2021, when Republican legislatures in Florida and Texas sought to rein in sites like Facebook and Twitter because they had sidelined anti-vaccine activists and insurrectionists (including a user named Donald Trump). Two industry groups—NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association—quickly sued. Governments cannot constitutionally wrest control of content-moderation from private companies, they argued. After the appellate courts asked to consider the cases split on the question, Moody v NetChoice and NetChoice v Paxton arrived at the Supreme Court.

Justice Alito’s sympathies seemed to lie with Florida and Texas, as did those of Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. The three mused that content moderation is a euphemism for “censorship”, prompting Mr Clement to insist that only the government can properly be said to “censor”. The three also accused the social-media sites of trying to have their cookies and eat them too. In last year’s cases involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the companies said they should be immune from liability for dangerous content on their sites; but now they claim to exercise editorial discretion. There’s no double standard, Mr Clement explained in response. An anthologist may decide which short stories to include in a collection but is not herself author of any of the stories.

Mr Clement and Elizabeth Prelogar, President Joe Biden’s solicitor-general, may not have persuaded the most conservative wing of the court to side with the social-media platforms, but five or six justices were worried that the treatment of the companies by Florida and Texas threatened their First Amendment freedoms. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted the “Orwellian” nature of a state that endeavours to “[take] over media”. The court’s precedents have clarified, he said, “that we have a different model here” and it is not one of “the state interfering with…private choices”.

John Roberts, the chief justice, echoed this sentiment, noting that the court’s “first concern” should be protecting the “modern public square” from state meddling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced concern over laws “that are so broad that they stifle speech”. And Justice Elena Kagan discussed the public utility of sites that quell “misinformation” about voting and public health and filter out hate speech.

If the Supreme Court lets the laws take effect, Mr Clement argued, those priorities would be thrown out of the window. Social-media sites will lose their charm—and worse. With no ability to take down posts based on their ‘”viewpoint”, platforms would have to open their servers to debates they will rue. If you have to be viewpoint-neutral, he said, permitting users to post about suicide-prevention would entail allowing advocacy of suicide-promotion, too. Or “pro-Semitic” posts would mean you’re equally open to antisemitic views. “This is a formula”, he concluded, “for making these websites very unpopular to both users and advertisers.”

Yet worries from a majority of the court about what Ms Prelogar called the laws’ “very clear defect” may not suffice to give what Justice Alito dubbed the “megaliths” of social media a clean win. That’s because Florida’s law, at least, seems sloppily drafted enough to apply not just to giant platforms such as Facebook and YouTube but to e-commerce sites such as Etsy, Uber and Venmo. And NetChoice was seeking to get the laws thrown out entirely rather than merely narrowing their focus.

But, as Justice Kagan pointed out, Florida’s law seems to have a “plainly legitimate sweep”—applications that do not violate the First Amendment because they regulate not speech but conduct (requiring an Uber driver to pick up Republicans as well as Democrats, say). Those constitutional (if not so salient) corners of the law may be enough to thwart the effort to ditch them. A messy consensus seemed to emerge: send the cases back to the lower courts to sort out all the facts. Which means a year or two down the road, the justices may find themselves clicking refresh.

Economics

Trump’s tariff gambit will raise the stakes for an economy already looking fragile

Published

on

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks alongside entertainer Kid Rock before signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House on March 31, 2025 in Washington, DC. 

Andrew Harnik | Getty Images

President Donald Trump is set Wednesday to begin the biggest gamble of his nascent second term, wagering that broad-based tariffs on imports will jumpstart a new era for the U.S. economy.

The stakes couldn’t be higher.

As the president prepares his “liberation day” announcement, household sentiment is at multi-year lows. Consumers worry that the duties will spark another round of painful inflation, and investors are fretting that higher prices will mean lower profits and a tougher slog for the battered stock market.

What Trump is promising is a new economy not dependent on deficit spending, where Canada, Mexico, China and Europe no longer take advantage of the U.S. consumer’s desire for ever-cheaper products.

The big problem right now is no one outside the administration knows quite how those goals will be achieved, and what will be the price to pay.

“People always want everything to be done immediately and have to know exactly what’s going on,” said Joseph LaVorgna, who served as a senior economic advisor during Trump’s first term in office. “Negotiations themselves don’t work that way. Good things take time.”

For his part, LaVorgna, who is now chief economist at SMBC Nikko Securities, is optimistic Trump can pull it off, but understands why markets are rattled by the uncertainty of it all.

“This is a negotiation, and it needs to be judged in the fullness of time,” he said. “Eventually we’re going to get some details and some clarity, and to me, everything will fit together. But right now, we’re at that point where it’s just too soon to know exactly what the implementation is likely to look like.”

Here’s what we do know: The White House intends to implement “reciprocal” tariffs against its trading partners. In other words, the U.S. is going to match what other countries charge to import American goods into their countries. Most recently, a figure of 20% blanket tariffs has been bandied around, though LaVorgna said he expects the number to be around 10%, but something like 60% for China.

What is likely to emerge, though, will be far more nuanced as Trump seeks to reduce a record $131.4 billion U.S. trade deficit. Trump professes his ability to make deals, and the saber-rattling of draconian levies on other countries is all part of the strategy to get the best arrangement possible where more goods are manufactured domestically, boosting American jobs and providing a fairer landscape for trade.

The consequences, though, could be rough in the near term.

Potential inflation impact

On their surface, tariffs are a tax on imports and, theoretically, are inflationary. In practice, though, it doesn’t always work that way.

During his first term, Trump imposed heavy tariffs with nary a sign of longer-term inflation outside of isolated price increases. That’s how Federal Reserve economists generally view tariffs — a one-time “transitory” blip but rarely a generator of fundamental inflation.

This time, though, could be different as Trump attempts something on a scale not seen since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930 that kicked off a global trade war and would be the worst-case scenario of the president’s ambitions.

“This could be a major rewiring of the domestic economy and of the global economy, a la Thatcher, a la Reagan, where you get a more enabled private sector, streamlined government, a fair trading system,” Mohamed El-Erian, the Allianz chief economic advisor, said Tuesday on CNBC. “Alternatively, if we get tit-for-tat tariffs, we slip into stagflation, and that stagflation becomes well anchored, and that becomes problematic.”

Tariffs could be a major rewiring of the domestic and global economy, says Mohamed El-Erian

The U.S. economy already is showing signs of a stagflationary impulse, perhaps not along the lines of the 1970s and early ’80s but nevertheless one where growth is slowing and inflation is proving stickier than expected.

Goldman Sachs has lowered its projection for economic growth this year to barely positive. The firm is citing the “the sharp recent deterioration in household and business confidence” and second-order impacts of tariffs as administration officials are willing to trade lower growth in the near term for their longer-term trade goals.

Federal Reserve officials last month indicated an expectation of 1.7% gross domestic product growth this year; using the same metric, Goldman projects GDP to rise at just a 1% rate.

In addition, Goldman raised its recession risk to 35% this year, though it sees growth holding positive in the most-likely scenario.

Broader economic questions

However, Luke Tilley, chief economist at Wilmington Trust, thinks the recession risk is even higher at 40%, and not just because of tariff impacts.

“We were already on the pessimistic side of the spectrum,” he said. “A lot of that is coming from the fact that we didn’t think the consumer was strong enough heading into the year, and we see growth slowing because of the tariffs.”

Tilley also sees the labor market weakening as companies hold off on hiring as well as other decisions such as capital expenditure-type investments in their businesses.

That view on business hesitation was backed up Tuesday in an Institute for Supply Management survey in which respondents cited the uncertain climate as an obstacle to growth.

“Customers are pausing on new orders as a result of uncertainty regarding tariffs,” said a manager in the transportation equipment industry. “There is no clear direction from the administration on how they will be implemented, so it’s harder to project how they will affect business.”

While Tilley thinks the concern over tariffs causing long-term inflation is misplaced — Smoot-Hawley, for instance, actually ended up being deflationary — he does see them as a danger to an already-fragile consumer and economy as they could tend to weaken activity further.

“We think of the tariffs as just being such a weight on growth. It would drive up prices in the initial couple [inflation] readings, but it would create so much economic weakness that they would end up being net deflationary,” he said. “They’re a tax hike, they’re contractionary, they’re going to weigh on the economy.”

Get Your Ticket to Pro LIVE

Join us at the New York Stock Exchange!
Uncertain markets? Gain an edge with 
CNBC Pro LIVE, an exclusive, inaugural event at the historic New York Stock Exchange.

In today’s dynamic financial landscape, access to expert insights is paramount. As a CNBC Pro subscriber, we invite you to join us for our first exclusive, in-person CNBC Pro LIVE event at the iconic NYSE on Thursday, June 12.

Join interactive Pro clinics led by our Pros Carter Worth, Dan Niles, and Dan Ives, with a special edition of Pro Talks with Tom Lee. You’ll also get the opportunity to network with CNBC experts, talent and other Pro subscribers during an exciting cocktail hour on the legendary trading floor. Tickets are limited!

Continue Reading

Economics

Euro zone inflation, March 2025

Published

on

A man pushes his shopping cart filled with food shopping and walks in front of an aisle of canned vegetables with “Down price” labels in an Auchan supermarket in Guilherand Granges, France, March 8, 2025.

Nicolas Guyonnet | Afp | Getty Images

Annual Euro zone inflation dipped as expected to 2.2% in March, according to flash data from statistics agency Eurostat published Tuesday.

The Tuesday print sits just below the 2.3% final reading of February.

So called core-inflation, which excludes more volatile food, energy, alcohol and tobacco prices, edged lower to 2.4% in March from 2.6% in February. The closely watched services inflation print, which had long been sticky around the 4% mark, also fell to 3.4% in March from 3.7% in the preceding month.

Recent preliminary data had showed that March inflation came in lower than forecast in several major euro zone economies. Last month’s inflation hit 2.3% in Germany and fell to 2.2% in Spain, while staying unchanged at 0.9% in France.

The figures, which are harmonized across the euro area for comparability, boosted expectations for a further 25-basis-point interest rate cut from the European Central Bank during its upcoming meeting on April 17. Markets were pricing in an around 76% chance of such a reduction ahead of the release of the euro zone inflation data on Tuesday, according to LSEG data.

The European Union is set to be slapped with tariffs due in effect later this week from the U.S. administration of Donald Trump — including a 25% levy on imported cars.

While the exact impact of the tariffs and retaliatory measures remains uncertain, many economists have warned for months that their effect could be inflationary.

This is a breaking news story, please check back for updates.

Continue Reading

Economics

Will Elon Musk’s cash splash pay off in Wisconsin?

Published

on

TO GET A sense of what the Republican Party thinks of the electoral value of Elon Musk, listen to what Brad Schimel, a conservative candidate for the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, has to say about the billionaire. At an event on March 29th at an airsoft range (a more serious version of paintball) just outside Kenosha, five speakers, including Mr Schimel, spoke for over an hour about the importance of the election to the Republican cause. Mr Musk’s political action committees (PACs) have poured over $20m into the race, far more than any other donor’s. But over the course of the event, his name came up precisely zero times.

Continue Reading

Trending