Today in Politics, Bulletin 180. 7/28/25

… Trump announced a “trade deal” with the EU, and the pattern continues with lots of goals, targets, and promises with few specifics - except that American consumers will ultimately pay more for imported products. I read tons of articles and commentary from solid sources in Europe and US, so I begin this Bulletin with a breakdown of the various takes.

… NYT: “The EU and the US agreed on Sunday to a broad-brush trade deal that sets a 15% tariff on most EU goods, including cars and pharmaceuticals, averting what could have become a painful trade war with a bloc that is the US’ single biggest source of imports. Trump said that the EU had agreed to purchase $750 billion of American energy, which Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU’s executive branch, told reporters would be spread out over 3 years.”

… “Not all higher tariffs were eliminated. A senior US official said the 50% tariff the Trump admin had imposed on steel and aluminum globally was not part of the deal. Like many preliminary agreements Trump has announced, this one had few details. For some of the ‘deals’ that Trump reached, other govts have seemed to lack clarity on what exactly they agreed to, and it remains unclear which tariff rates will apply to which products as of Aug. 1.”

… Patrick Anderson, CEO of Anderson Economic Group, said the deal for autos could lead to “a cost penalty of thousands of dollars per vehicle for numerous models assembled in the US that use foreign parts. How can the admin square a 15% tariff on cars from Europe and Japan, while manufacturers in the US, Canada and Mexico are laboring under 25% tariffs?”

… Fox Business Analyst Charles Gasparino had Trump fans upset with his take on Fox & Friends: “The stuff they are buying from us they probably would have bought anyway. They’re cutting back on natural gas from Russia. They’re building out their military because of Russian expansionism. So they were going to do that anyway. And when you say we get 15%, true. But that means US consumers are paying 15% more too so it's kind of like a tax increase on US consumers.”

… Irritated Fox host Brian Kilmeade: “What about the 50% tariff on EU steel and aluminum. How is that going to affect all of us? Gasparino: If we need to buy steel from them. It's going to cost us more. Again, put this in context. Every penny we get from them is being passed to the US consumer. Kilmeade: Not necessarily. Gasparino: Yes necessarily. Companies don't report to president. They report to shareholders and they have a fiduciary responsibility for profit margins and at some point and that point is coming. You can see it. There are price increases on certain goods. Let’s be real clear here. Tariffs cost, they’re a tax. That tax often gets passed on to consumers.”

… Gasparino: “You do have to ask yourself why the rush to get a deal like this done? They didn’t agree to that much for us. Why did they go from DEFCON 1 to this? One reason is that there is a federal appeals court that is ruling on Trump’s use of the emergency power to impose tariffs and that court could rule against him. If it rules against him, the whole tariff scheme is up in the air.”

… Former Trump economic advisor Stephen Moore: ”We’re a little queasy about the Trump argument that tariffs don’t filter down like sand in an hourglass to consumer prices. Sure, some of the cost will be borne by the importers. But businesses with thin profit margins can’t eat the whole extra cost of taxes imposed on them.”

… Denmark MP Rasmus Jarlov: “There is nothing to celebrate. Moving from average tariffs of less than 2% on trade between the US and Europe to 15% under today’s deal will inevitably lead to inflation. Almost everything will become more expensive in both Europe and the US, and we will all be worse off. The economic illiteracy in the White House is doing serious damage to the West.”

… Trump held a press conference today with UK PM Keir Starmer and said the only reason he hasn’t made 200 trade deals yet is because he doesn’t have time to talk to every country: “You have 200 countries—more. People don't know that. You have a lot of countries. I don't want to sit down with 200 people. So we’re going to be setting a tariff for the rest of the world. You can’t make 200 separate deals.”

… Q - You said you were going to set a tariff for the world. What percent will that be? Trump: “I would say it will in the 15-20% range.”

… Trump then unveiled to the world his idiotic energy policy: “Wind is a disaster. You can take 1,000 times more than energy out of a hole in the ground this big. It’s called oil and gas. This big that nobody would even see. You can take 1,000 times more power because the wind is intermittent, it doesn't work. We won’t allow it.”

… Starmer interjected to make it clear the UK wanted to operate in the 21st century: “We believe in a mix. Oil and gas will be with us for a very long time. And that will be part of the mix but also wind, solar, increasingly nuclear as we go forward.”

… Clyde Russell, Reuters Asia Commodities and Energy Analyst: “Putting together the value of EU imports of US crude oil, LNG and metallurgical coal gives a 2024 total of around $64 billion. This is about 26% of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on US energy a year under the framework agreement. The scale of the delusion probably exceeds what Trump and China agreed in their trade deal in 2019, where China was supposed to buy $200 billion of additional US energy by the end of 2021.” (Which never happened).

… Russell: “It's clear that the commitment to buy $250 billion in US energy is completely unrealistic and unachievable. This is a delusional level of imports that the EU has virtually no chance of meeting, and one that US producers would also struggle to supply.”

… Analysts speculate that von der Leyen agreed to the deal knowing that it could never work in practice and that the EU will not be obliged to meet the $250 billion target. In the meantime, Brussels will prolong the talks, try and avoid penalties, and wait for the midterm elections next year when the Republics, and Trump, could lose their majority in Congress.

…. Russell: “Run down the clock, talk nice, and hope the next US president is easier to deal with.”

… Janis Kluge, German Institute for Intl and Security Affairs: “By the way, you can forget about the $750 billion and the $600 billion. That's just window-dressing for Trump and will not change anything in practice. This type of trickery (pioneered by the Saudis and Japan) works.”

… Francois Valentin, conservative analyst on European politics: “A few random thoughts on the deal: After a ‘happy globalization’ phase, the EU risks entering ‘happy vassalisation’ phase. The US went from being a ‘benign’ liege lord to a much more aggressive one. And yet for the political embarrassment it remains to be seen if this all too bad economically for Europe. 15% is bad but I suspect a large part will be paid by US consumers due to inelasticity. Alternative global producers are also tariffed anyways.”

… Valentin: “Trump loves his ‘old’ US industries. What is he excited for? For EU consumers to buy pickups and SUVs. Really not the industries of the 21st century. I highly doubt there's a massive market for these oversized and costly monstertrucks. Speaking of which, the industries of the 21st century have a lot of carve outs, like semiconductors, chips. The devil is in the details. This is only a political agreement, the multi-billion stuff on energy and weapons I'm curious to see in practice because the EU can't impose member-states to buy US energy or guns.”

… Aslak Berg, Center for European Reform: “US domestic manufacturing has little capacity to replace EU exports. And if they did, they face disadvantages: US auto producers have to pay 25% for parts from Mexico and Canada, and face higher steel and aluminum prices due to 50% tariffs. They'll be at a disadvantage. As for the commitments on investment, energy and weapons purchases they'll have little effect (and the EU has little power to direct these things in any case). As for weapons and energy purchases, these are in line with current policies of rearmament and a shift away from Russian gas.”

… Berg: “The amounts are substantial, but we shouldn't go in the mercantilist trap and say that purchasing things we need from the US is a defeat. Ultimately, the real test of this deal is whether it sticks or if Trump will come back to the trough with new demands, e.g. on tech regulation or other issues. The details aren't clear either, as we know from the Japan and UK 'deals' so we might see issues there as well things are ironed out.”

… Trump was asked about his previous announcement that he’s going to sanction Russia with secondary tariffs in 50 days: “I'm disappointed in President Putin. I'm going to reduce that 50 days I gave him to a lesser number because I think I already know the answer what's going to happen. I'm not so interested in talking anymore. He talks, we have such respectful and nice conversations and people die the following night with a missile going into a town. I’m going to make a new deadline of 10 or 12 days from today. We don’t see any progress being made.”

… So he’s saying pretty much two weeks.

… Former Russian president and Putin crony Dmitry Medvedev: “Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10. He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country.”

… Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): “The more we learn about the US-Japan ‘trade deal’, the more we learn there is no deal. Trump rushed out an ‘announcement’ after a 70 minute conversation with Japan's trade negotiator and the press dutifully reported a deal. There was no text and there is a widening disagreement on what the terms are. The most significant claim Trump made in the ‘announcement’ was a $550 billion Japanese investment fund in the US where the US would split profits with Japan 90/10. Trump called it a ‘signing bonus’. ‘They gave us $550B up front, 100%’, he said.”

… “Trump's 70 minute negotiation was with a desperate lame duck Japanese govt that just lost control of the parliament. It's not even clear PM Ishiba will be around to write the text of the agreement that doesn't exist. It could be that parts of the deal Trump announced eventually become formalized. But his big win for the US - a $550 billion Japanese ‘signing bonus’ to America - looks like fiction. Trump just made it up. But he got big headlines and Japan's denial got no headlines.”

… Financial Times: “Trump’s admin has denied permission for Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te to stop in NY en route to Central America, after China raised objections with Washington about the visit. Lai planned to transit the US in August en route to Paraguay, Guatemala and Belize, which recognise Taiwan as a country. But the US told Lai he could not visit NY on the way.”

… “Lai’s office issued a statement saying he had no plans to travel overseas in the near future because Taiwan was recovering from a recent typhoon and Taipei was in talks with the US about tariffs. The people familiar with the matter said his decision not to travel came after he had been told he would not be allowed to visit NY. The WH’s decision will deepen concerns among Taiwan’s supporters in Washington that Trump is taking a softer stance on China as he pushes to hold a summit with President Xi.”

… Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ): “Denying President Lai a transit is a deeply concerning break with bipartisan precedent and sends a reckless signal to Beijing that our partnership with Taiwan is on the negotiating table. American leadership is now seen as deeply unreliable, with Trump’s fits and starts with Ukraine, NATO allies, and other key partners. I urge President Trump to reverse course and do what presidents of both parties have done and allow a transit, and ask my colleagues in Congress to join me in that call.”

… WaPo: “Trump is increasingly frustrated with his admin’s handling of the furor around the Jeffrey Epstein files, concerned the saga’s unabated domination of the news is overshadowing his agenda. His exasperation follows weeks of missteps and no clear strategy among top officials who underestimated the outrage, especially from the president’s base, and hoped the country would forget about the unreleased Epstein files and move on, according to nearly a dozen people close to the situation.”

… One source close to Trump: “This is a pretty substantial distraction. While many are trying to keep the unity, in many ways, the DOJ and the FBI are breaking at the seams. Many are wondering how sustainable this is going to be for all the parties involved — be it the FBI director or AG.”

… Another source also explained why Trump hasn’t fired anyone over it: “He does not want to create a bigger spectacle by firing anyone.”

… Former Reagan and Bush DOJ official Stephen Saltzburg: “They completely miscalculated the fever pitch to which they built this up. Now, they seem to be in full-bore panic mode, trying to change the subject and flailing in an effort to make sense of what makes no sense.”

… Joe Rogan: “The Epstein files are a line in the sand. We thought Trump was gonna come in and drain the swamp, we're gonna figure everything out. And now they're trying to gaslight you on that. Then Kash Patel is like, ‘we have a film, we're gonna release it.’ And then the film has a fucking minute missing from it. Do you think we're babies? What is this?”

… During his meeting with Starmer today, Trump got several questions about the Epstein saga. He was first asked why his name is all over the files: “It’s a hoax. Those files were run by the worst scum on earth. They were run by Comey, Garland, Biden. Those files were run for 4 years by those people. The whole thing is a hoax. They can easily put something in the files that’s a phony. They can put things in the files that are fake. Those files were run by bad sick people.”

… Trump was asked what caused the rift between him and Epstein, and he gave a new version of the cover story: “For years I wouldn't talk to Jeffrey Epstein because he did something that was inappropriate. He hired help and I said don't ever do that again. He stole people that worked for me. So I warned him. But he did it again, so I threw him out. Persona non grata.”

… Trump’s spokesman claimed previously that Trump ditched Epstein because he supposedly hit on a young girl at Mar-a-Lago and Trump didn’t like that. I guess there’s a new version now.

… Trump: “I never went to the island. Bill Clinton went there supposedly 28 times. I never had the privilege of going to the island. I turned it down.”

… Interesting choice of words.

… Even as he rages behind the scenes about it, Trump claimed today that the Epstein story is actually helping him: “My poll numbers are up 4.5 points since this ridiculous Epstein stuff.”

… Just remember my old adage - every single time Trump uses a number it is a lie. 100% of the time.

… JD Vance was asked today what reasons could justify the govt shielding the Epstein client list from the public: “We’re not shielding anything. Trump has been incredibly transparent about that stuff and some of the stuff takes time. He wants full transparency.”

… Trump filed a motion today in his lawsuit against WSJ over their publication of his birthday card to Epstein. He argued that he should be permitted to take an immediate deposition of Rupert Murdoch on an expedited basis before other discovery takes place, citing that he is 94 years old and “has suffered from multiple mental health issues.”

… House Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-CA) was asked on MSNBC if he was going to subpoena Steve Bannon to get the tapes of the 15 hours of interviews he did of Epstein for a documentary that was never released: “Absolutely.”

… Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) was asked if the House Intel Committee will subpoena the CIA to find out whether Epstein was working for a foreign govt: “We can request that as a member of the Intel committee. The Chairman has to make it happen. I support getting all of the info. We represent the American people and I’m on the Intel committee. I would assume the FBI is working with the CIA on this, but that is certainly something we can request.”

When something happens suddenly like Trump’s ‘trade deal’ with the EU, I really try to grind to put the facts together since you can never accept anything the Trump admin says at face value. Thankfully I have some really great international sources I read and follow regularly, and increasingly their news about our country is a lot more accurate than what we get here. I’m confident that daily readers of this Bulletin are armed with sufficient facts to win any argument with a MAGA moron.

If you missed yesterday’s Bulletin, you can find it here.

… Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyer David Markus issued a statement about her pending petition to the Supreme Court: “No one is above the law—not even the Southern District of NY. Our govt made a deal, and it must honor it. The US cannot promise immunity with one hand in FL and prosecute with the other in NY. President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a deal—and surely he would agree that when