LyrArc Article Gist
Walter Mead of WSJ offers this view- expect more action from DJT in 2026 not less, than 2025. The president took the US Supreme Court's decision in stride, noting that it lets him do the same thing on tariffs- charge tariffs on countries doing unfair trade with the US- with other tools in trade legislation, just not IIEP rules. On the practical side every country wants to keep its trade agreement with the US said the president- Britain, Japan, South Korea, Germany, China, India. China and India have increased exports in 2025 even with tariffs rules that allow some exemptions. Large trading nations do not want the uncertainty that comes with renegotiating agreements arrived at with much difficulty with the US. This is not mentioned much in the media such as WSJ and NYT which instead  focus on the tariff revenue already collected of $130 billion and its use or refunding. What is relevant is that the purpose of splitting powers beteen the executive branch and the Supreme Court and Congress is preceded to a great extent by the public's ideas about what is fair, of rights of the US to fair trade, and preventing the deindustrialization of US and Europe. Which is why the Supreme Court has tried to tread warily on issue of illegal migrants by millions entering the country, and is trying to tread warily on issue of rebuilding American industry and infrastructure using tariffs to reduce concentration in China and act to restore a fair trading system for the US and the world. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US Supreme Court hears arguments from D. John Sauer Solicitor General of the US on DJT Tariffs Wednesday, November 5, 2025. The Supreme Court will hear about a case brought by a small wine importing company with 19 employees. The US president used the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that allows the president to impose tariffs. The IEEPA was introduced by president Jimmy Carter in 1977. It was used during the Iran hostage crisis. It has been used for the Venezuelan regime after elections were rigged with human rights violations, on Belarus as early as 2006, and on Mexico for drug cartels. This increases the responsibilities of the Justices of the Court as these sanctions have broad support of the American people. Tariffs were imposed on China for illicit fentanyl flows and a 25% tariff was imposed on Canada and Mexico under Executive Orders 14193, 14194, and 20% on China under Executive Order 14195 in 2025 for illicit drug traffic flows across their borders into the US. Illicit flows that has taken the lives in the case of fentanyl of more young people than were killed in the Vietnam, Korean and First World Wars combined.  For the reason that the economic aspect of tariffs now overlaps with trading partners abuse of basic rights of their largest trading partner the US in the case of Canada, Mexico and China not stopping such flows, the issue before the Supreme Court is basic to the US as a Nation to protect its citizens under these Executive Orders and IEEPA- not the kind of interpretation of the law the USC does for most or almost all of its cases. In 2025 a lot of the discourse is distorted and does not reflect the way citizens of the Nation should show concern for the welfare and safety of their fellow citizens in communities around them severely hurt by the scourge of fentanyl and other opioids making their way from other countries conducted by drug trafficking gangs outside the US.  Also relevant is that the tariffs are correcting trade deficits of $1 trillion of the world with China that threaten the economic security of the US, EU, India and other countries. Larger companies are moving their supply chains out of China to reduce concentration in China, impact on inflation is slight with 3.0 % inflation in September 2025. Smaller companies such as the wine company in this lawsuit are unable to do so. Most of the smaller businesses affected can be compensated with a fund from the tariffs revenue of $500 billion in 2025-2026. In this way the goals of the US as a Nation can be achieved of reducing the supply channels concentration in China, cutting supply chain concentration in China, for fair trade with trading partners EU/Japan, and for action on fentanyl and drug trafficking. Justice Roberts and his team have a lot to think about in this effort by the Nation to correct abuses that should never been allowed to happen. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In the days when cross border technology flows were limited and the investment in India was small, India's technological capabilities at an early stage H1-B visa program acted as an exchange program where Indian engineers could gain experience and skills, learn new technologies in the US, that would benefit both India and the US taking a long term view. In 2025 when cross border technology flows to India from the US are large and significant, when Indian investment is large India's economy fastest growing and from a much larger base, with ability to absorb talented engineers in expanding Indian business, the H1-B program is one that drains both the US and India. India as a huge brain drain of 60,000 of its best engineers every year to 2030 or 300,000 of its best engineers and the 3 million engineers they would have trained locally through their creative talents. For the US it means the loss of 300,000 engineering jobs to 2030 for locals in 51 states in the Nation. Both make no sense. Business practices once set do not change. This is why an executive order by DJT was signed by the president to impose a $100,000 fee that Tata, Meta, Google, Microsoft, Apple can choose to pay every year for 6 years if they want to hire someone on H1-B Visas. To call this group of Indian H1-B of 60,000 engineers "dreamers" also makes no sense because 3.3 million engineers knowledge base and skills to India's growth capabilities and modernization could increase economic growth, modernization of Indian infrastructure, to make India a Dream State to live in. And the same number of American born engineers would make each of the America's 51 states Dream States through repowering America's new modernization of infrastructure and power economic growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
District court Judges are the first tier of the three tiered system of judiciary power. A series of US District Judge rulings stop the federal payments system, birthright citizenship, federal employees offered buyout plan, and other executive orders issued by DJT in first 72 hours in office. They were all designed to cut the federal bureuacracy in the US and gut agencies with overspending such as USAID $40 billion when rural America's needs are unmet, and tackle birthright citizenship which allows mothers to fly into the US and depart just to get citizenship for children. The White House plans to appeal these rulings to the next level the appellate courts in the US, all the way to the US Supreme Court. Some of the arguments against USAID $40 billion budget was that it funded bureaucrats pet projects, something that Senators such as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky have fought against for 25 years. Coming after trillions of dollars in spending under the infrastructure Investment Act oversight over such spending is in the American tradition. No less than Harry Truman as Senator from Missouri made his mark by tracking down overspending and waste, during the Second World War. Another problem not discussed enough is that in today's world more can be done with good governance and leadership, avoiding unneeded wars, and investment from India, China, EU and US than can be done with $40 billion spread thinly over the whole world. Sri Lanka is just one example where its undoing is waging ethnic war, corruption, and India is leading its recovery in ways that USAID could never do. ...