Connect with us

Economics

Why not impeach everyone?

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

WILLIAM BELKNAP is the only cabinet official in American history to have suffered the indignity of a congressional impeachment. In the case of Belknap, the secretary of war to Ulysses S. Grant, it was richly deserved: to maintain his reputation for enormous, raucous parties and well-dressed wives, the war secretary awarded trade monopolies at a military fort to a friend who gave him generous kickbacks. For “basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain”, the House of Representatives voted to impeach him in 1876.

Nearly 150 years later, Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security, may become the second cabinet official to be impeached—if Republicans were to have their way, that is. Compare the two charge sheets, and the travesty of the latter becomes clear. Mr Mayorkas does not stand accused of grand corruption or treason but of a political crime: he has overseen immigration policy.

It should be noted that there is no chance of Mr Mayorkas actually being ousted from office. Articles of impeachment must first be passed with a majority of the House, which Republicans might even struggle to do because they retain control by the barest of margins. Passing those articles would trigger the spectacle of a trial to be held in the Senate. And the chances of securing a conviction there, which would require a two-thirds majority and so at least 18 Democratic voters, are lower than the odds that Mexico would ever pay for the construction of a border wall. So, why bother at all?

The southern border is indeed in a bad way, as Republicans point out. In December 2023 American immigration authorities reported more than 300,000 encounters with migrants—the most of any month on record. Those who arrive and claim asylum cannot be kept in custody because of a shortage of detention beds and immigration judges; many are released into the country with a court date years into the future, which is sometimes skipped. Even if the severity of the crisis is at its highest level, the problem of illegal migration over the US-Mexico border is decades old. Presidents like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan struggled with it.

But in their articles of impeachment, the Republicans lay all of the blame at the feet of Mr Mayorkas. “In large part because of his unlawful conduct, millions of aliens have illegally entered the United States on an annual basis with many unlawfully remaining,” they accuse in their first article. The second article says he breached the public trust by testifying to Congress that the border was secure, when, they argue, he should have known that it was not.

On closer inspection, the allegations are even more flimsy than they first appear. One complaint is that Mr Mayorkas overturned the Migration Policy Protocols, put into place by President Donald Trump, requiring asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while they waited for their cases to be considered. The complaint cites language from a federal appeals court that Mr Mayorkas appears to have ignored. That only looks damning because it omits the fact that the court ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, which sanctioned the policy change.

Rock and parole

Another gripe is over the administration’s use of “parole authority”, which allows it to grant reprieve from deportation on a case-by-case basis. Republican arguments that this has been applied over-generously (by allowing in 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans each month) are certainly plausible. But complaints about governmental inaction do not usually rely on empirical evidence showing increased action. The articles of impeachment, by contrast, argue that Mr Mayorkas has not done enough to curtail the smuggling of fentanyl by pointing to the increasing amounts impounded by the authorities; that he is not doing enough to stop migrants by pointing to increased apprehensions at the border; and that he is not deporting enough illegal migrants by pointing to record-breaking deportation-case backlogs. At their core, the Republican allegations are about competence in office and the appropriate use of executive powers, which are usually addressed through court cases, not impeachment.

The irony is that House Republicans are pursuing this course of action when, on the other side of the Capitol, more serious Senate Republicans are trying to negotiate with Democrats to craft a bill that would alleviate the pressure on the Mexican border. Among the mooted provisions are limits on the president’s parole authority, an increase in the number of border-patrol officers and immigration judges, and tougher criteria for judging whether those seeking asylum actually have credible cases.

The bill matters for more than just the border: Democrats hope that a border deal would placate Republicans enough for them to agree to send more aid to Ukraine as part of a combined spending package. If accomplished, it would be a rare triumph of pragmatism over partisanship. Unsurprisingly, Mr Trump has taken to whipping against any forthcoming border compromise, following the cynical logic that border chaos is better for his election prospects than improvement. Pursuing an impeachment trial to protest about the border, in lieu of the legislation that might actually fix it, would be to prefer empty spectacle over governing. Alas, that seems an apt summary of the House Republicans’ mission statement.

Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter, which examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

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