Economist Stephen Moore to Newsmax: 'Never Bet Against Donald J. Trump'
President Donald Trump's deal-making ability could lead to his tariffs being relatively short-lived, economist Stephen Moore told Newsmax.
Moore was asked on Monday night's "Rob Schmitt Tonight" whether Trump's leverage with tariffs could lead to better deals that put the U.S. in "a very positive place and feeling very good" in a week or so.
"Let me put it like this way: I would never, never bet against Donald J. Trump. He's an incredible negotiator," Moore told host Rob Schmitt in a joint appearance with publishing executive Steve Forbes. "I think he's playing the hand right now.
"I like the reciprocal tariffs. Don't like some of these, you know, tariffs on autos and things like that. I don't think they really work too well. But if we can force other countries to lower their tariffs, then I think we get we get more international trade. And that's a good thing for everybody."
Moore and Forbes appeared with Schmitt on a day major stock indexes were down but bounced off the day's lows in choppy trading as the White House denied a report Trump is considering a 90-day pause in tariffs for all countries except China. The U.S. dollar was higher.
Wall Street indexes started the day sharply lower but reversed course after a report that White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said in an interview that Trump was considering the 90-day tariff pause.
Moore and Forbes each gave their respective take on the day's events.
"What happened was it became clear the administration was willing to negotiate on these things. And so therefore, they weren't fixed in stone," Forbes said. "And so he [Trump] already authorized, during the day, Treasury Secretary [Scott] Bessent and the trade representative to start talking to negotiators with Japan. I think that was the signal, OK, this thing can be ameliorated.
"And when the markets see hope, they begin to respond positively. If nothing had been done, you would have seen a big crash. But the president indicated that what he did last Tuesday, well, maybe that can be changed, if you make a good deal with us."
Moore said markets also were aided by Trump's "declaration" that any revenues raised from the tariffs would be used to offset tax cuts.
"I think what happened was that in the morning, you know, we were down about 1,000 points. And then Trump made this declaration that any revenues raised from the tariffs would be used to offset other Steve Forbes type of tax cuts, like lower tax rates on income and maybe payroll tax cuts. And that, I think, had a had a very positive effect on the market," Moore said.
"I'm hearing from my source in the White House that there's something like 75 nations now that have been getting on that phone with Trump making the phone calls saying they want to make a deal. That's, I think, what we'd all love to see. Let's get this over with.
"I think in the end of the day, this could work out in a way that leads to freer and fair trade, which is I know what we'd all like to see."
Reuters contributed to this story.
SIGforum: For all your needs! Imagine our influence if every gun owner in America was an NRA member! Click the box>>>
April 08, 2025, 10:23 AM
12131
quote:
Originally posted by TigerDore:
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum: I'm curious what the result of this will be:
Since I am a layman, I cannot imagine why he would still have this hearing, except to publicly eat crow(formally dismiss the case), or affirm to the world that he is crazy by trying to move forward with the case anyway.
I would love to hear from our forum lawyers on this....
By Breanne Deppisch | Fox News Published April 8, 2025 10:14am EDT | Updated April 8, 2025 11:16am EDT
The federal judge who blocked the Trump administration's use of a 1798 wartime law to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals canceled a planned Tuesday court hearing to review the case after the Supreme Court handed a win to the president.
In a minute order published Tuesday morning, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg announced that the previously scheduled Tuesday afternoon hearing would be vacated in light of the high court's ruling, which determined, among other things, that the "appropriate venue for such proceedings is the Southern District of Texas," or wherever plaintiffs that are subject to potential removal are currently being held.
At issue in the case was Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, or 1798 wartime immigration law used to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
Plaintiffs filed for an emergency restraining order in D.C. District Court last month to temporarily block the administration’s use of the law — a request granted by Boasberg, who agreed that the deportations would likely cause imminent and "irreparable" harm to the affected migrants under the proposed timeline.
A federal appeals court also upheld that ruling, which put Boasberg squarely in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.
The lower court's restraining order remained in effect until Monday night, when the Supreme Court sided with Trump in an emergency order.
Since its passage in Congress 228 years ago, the Alien Enemies Act had been used just three times: during the War of 1812, World War I, and during World War II.
Boasberg had been tasked with reviewing the Trump administration's use of the law to deport Venezuelan nationals.
The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling established due process protections and the right to judicial review for migrants subject to deportation under the law.
Justices said in particular that migrants have the right to appear in court before they are deported, and must receive proper notice of any planned removal proceedings from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act.
Detainees "must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act," justices wrote in the majority. "The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs," they added.
Boasberg also ordered plaintiffs in the case to file a notice by April 16 indicating whether they believe that they still have a basis to proceed on their motion for preliminary injunction in the D.C. court, rather than the Southern District of Texas, where migrants are being held.
If so, he said, they must propose a briefing schedule, so the case can be reviewed in the D.C. court.
Q
April 08, 2025, 11:10 AM
HRK
Interesting take on the SCOTUS ruling, the poster is a former Federal Prosecutor..
Having been away from my computer all day -- how about this hot take on today's Supreme Court decision:
The Justices agreed 9-0 that Judge Boasberg is correct on the law with regard to the application and implementation of the Alien Enemies Act.
But 5 Justice said the case didn't below in his court.
Those of you saying this is some huge rebuke of Boasberg aren't understanding the the whole picture.
Yes -- as I have said from the start -- he went forward with the case without carefully considering whether he had jurisdiction. He did so in order to certify the class as requested in the Complaint, which was then used as a basis to extend his TRO from five named plaintiffs to every TdA member subject to the Proclamation.
Error -- case should have been filed in Texas.
BUT, in his various comment from the bench, and in his written rulings, he was consistent that individuals said by the Trump Admin. to be subject to the AEA Proclamation had to be given "due process" -- a chance to argue that they are not covered.
Today SCOTUS said Boasberg was correct on that issue.
So, the Administration is going to have to provide individual due process to each person it designates as TdA in order to deport them.
This is NOT a huge burden in my opinion. Most are not likely to deny it -- especially if it means going back to Venezuela rather than sitting in detention in the US.
April 08, 2025, 11:41 AM
83v45magna
It seems the ruling is saying that ordinary immigration law procedures are the only option.
So what was the point of having the AEA in the first place?
This ruling makes no sense.
April 08, 2025, 11:54 AM
stoic-one
quote:
Originally posted by 83v45magna: It seems the ruling is saying that ordinary immigration law procedures are the only option.
So what was the point of having the AEA in the first place?
This ruling makes no sense.
I'm pretty sure the AEA was applied to most of the people that went to CECOT but not to the ~8 (I think) defendants represented in this case, including the "Maryland father"...
That's all fine and dandy unless you're on a fixed income that doesn't go up...
The very worst thing for those on a fixed income is not a drop in the stock market. It's the inflation we saw under Biden, that would have continued had Harris been elected. The dip is a one time thing; inflation keeps you in a vise that keeps tightening.
_________________________ “Remember, remember the fifth of November!"
Supreme Court allows Trump to terminate 16,000 probationary federal workers
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Trump administration can move forward with the termination of 16,000 probationary federal workers across six agencies and departments, rescinding a lower court order that they be reinstated as litigation challenging the layoffs continues.
Thwarted Trump Assassin Tried to Buy Rocket Launcher from Ukraine: DOJ Published Apr 08, 2025 at 11:11 AM EDT Updated Apr 08, 2025 at 12:54 PM EDT
Ryan Wesley Routh attempted to acquire a rocket launcher from Ukraine just one month before his arrest for allegedly plotting to assassinate President Donald Trump, according to a Justice Department (DOJ) filing in the Southern District of Florida.
Prosecutors allege that Routh, 58, was communicating through an encrypted messaging app with someone he believed to be a Ukrainian contact with access to military-grade weapons.
In one exchange, Routh reportedly requested, "send me an RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or Stinger and I will see what we can do...[Trump] is not good for Ukraine."..
