Tariffs and favoritism are signs of a poisoned political era.

[link removed]

Donald Trump seems to have landed on the time when he thinks America was truly “great”: the late 1800s. Mark Twain named it the Gilded Age.

The Progressive Era historian Vernon Parrington gave it a different name. He called that time of high tariffs, no income taxes, vast new fortunes, and government largesse “the Great Barbecue.” Many were invited, though “not quite all, to be sure; inconspicuous persons, those at home on the farm or at work in the mills and offices were overlooked; a good many indeed out of the total number of the American people. But all the important persons, leading bankers and promoters and business men, received invitations.”

A key to that era’s crony capitalism was the way the federal government paid for itself. Government was much, much smaller, of course, and barely did anything. Most of the executive branch fit into one office building (the elaborate pile now known as the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House).

But tariffs — the main way the government funded its operations — became a principal locus of lobbying, favoritism, and graft. Already, as in the original Gilded Age, the rot is starting to show underneath the gold veneer.

Two weeks ago, Trump declared a trade war all at once against the entire world, possibly not a fully thought-through strategy. One week after “Liberation Day” came “Capitulation Day” after the bond market signaled a rapidly approaching financial crisis. But the 125 percent tariffs on imports from China remained, plus or minus myriad exceptions and complications

[link removed]

.

Super-high tariffs could be devastating to the consumer electronics industry. We all recall the startling vista on Inauguration Day of the country’s three richest men — Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg — sitting in the front row, ahead of the cabinet secretaries. Nestled in alongside them was Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, whose iPhones and other products are made in China. Tech firms raised alarms about the tariffs, with lobbyists swarming the administration

[link removed]

.

So even as he kept the high taxes on nearly all products imported from China, late on Friday night Trump quietly announced that smartphones, laptops, and other similar devices were exempt from the tariffs

[link removed]

.

This is raw favoritism. It also makes no sense on its own terms.

Howard Lutnick, the voluble commerce secretary, had explained

[link removed]

that the tariffs sought to return these very industries to our shores. “We are going to replace the army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little screws to make iPhones, that kind of thing is going to come to America.” (Those factories would be automated. Not to worry: The “tradecraft of America” would be to fix the HVAC systems at the automated iPhone factories!)

Anyway, Trump’s tariffs would make it more costly to build those iPhones here than in China, as the screws, the HVAC systems, and all the parts that we import to build those things would be subject to the new taxes.

The exceptions to the tariffs also show the regressive nature of these consumer taxes. Laptops costing thousands would be exempt, but clothes, toasters, ballpoint pens, and other things important to everyday life would face the maximum charge.

Now, there’s no proof (yet) that campaign contributions flowed after the tariff announcement or that lobbyists won this gaping loophole in the White House’s signature policy. Either way, we are seeing the first example of how a quest for exemptions will come to define this kind of mercantilist approach.

Because Trump claims the power to levy these taxes unilaterally through presidential emergency powers, the favor-seekers will go directly to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The new imperial presidency meets the new billionaire politics.

Members of Congress, in other eras, set these rates, as they do other taxes. Here they are standing by, mouths agape. Still, some seem to have found a way to be part of the Great Barbecue.

According to The New York Times, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s recent financial disclosures reveal that she bought as much as $315,000 in stocks a few hours before Trump announced his reversal on overall tariff rates. (Members of Congress typically blame their financial advisers for this kind of lucky timing.) Greene is one of dozens of lawmakers from both parties who actively trade stocks while exercising power over vast sectors of the economy.

We can only expect more of this. What are the answers? Public financing of campaigns (first proposed by Theodore Roosevelt), full disclosure of big gifts, stronger curbs or even a ban on congressional stock trading, and emergency powers reform, for a start.

Those of us who care about the outsize role of money in politics should understand the import of this moment. People are always unhappy about the way big money dominates government, but they are just as often skeptical that anything can be done. At times, though, people get angry. When they see the unfairness and chicanery that can accompany transactional government, they have been stirred to action. Theodore Roosevelt said of the last Gilded Age that, sooner or later, there would come a “day of atonement.”





New Holes in Election Security

Over the last few months, the Trump administration has made a concerted, far-reaching effort to dismantle much of the federal support, funding, and infrastructure that help states protect our elections from attack. A Brennan Center explainer details how the cuts have undermined four critical areas of election security and left officials uncertain about how to prepare for upcoming elections. “Regardless of what happens next, states — which actually run our elections — and civil society will need to step up to fill the gaps the federal government has left,” Lawrence Norden and LaTasha Hill write. Read more

[link removed]

Dangerous Anti-Voter Bill Moves Forward

Last week, the House passed the SAVE Act

[link removed]

, an anti-voter bill that would require Americans to present a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. The legislation could prevent 21 million American citizens from voting and throw election administration into chaos, warns Veronica Degraffenreid, who served as a state election official for more than a decade. “The SAVE Act would be an operational nightmare, an unfunded mandate, and put election officials at legal risk — all for an unnecessary requirement,” Degraffenreid writes in Governing. Read more

[link removed]

The “Emergency” Tariffs, Explained

The president invoked an economic emergency powers law last week to impose worldwide tariffs — taxes that are paid by U.S. importers and then typically passed on to consumers. The tariffs are now on hold and their future is uncertain, but one thing is clear: Using emergency powers to impose them is a presidential overreach. In a new explainer, Elizabeth Goitein breaks down why these sweeping tariffs are an abuse of presidential power and what Congress and the courts can do to push back. Read more

[link removed]

A Threat to Election Integrity

The North Carolina Supreme Court issued a ruling last week that threatens to disenfranchise thousands of military and overseas voters who participated in the state’s 2024 judicial race. The case, which centers on the losing state supreme court candidate’s challenge to long-standing state voting rules, could “lead to grave consequences not only for this election, but for future elections and for our democracy,” Justin Lam writes in State Court Report. Read more

[link removed]

Models for Fair and Effective Criminal Justice

The Brennan Center visited prisons in Norway and Germany last year to learn more about the laws and philosophies on criminal justice policy in those countries, whose dignity-first approach to incarceration offers useful lessons for ongoing initiatives to improve corrections in the United States. “Beyond individual policies, understanding different correctional practices and overall philosophies can have the valuable effect of spurring correctional leaders and staff to innovate and experiment,” Lauren-Brooke Eisen writes. Read more

[link removed]

PODCAST: The Risks of Government by AI

In our latest podcast episode, a panel of experts discusses the administration’s approach to artificial intelligence and the controversy surrounding AI use in the federal government. Panelists include Vittoria Elliott, platforms and power reporter at Wired; Faiza Patel, senior director of the Brennan Center Liberty and National Security Program; Suresh Venkatasubramanian, professor of data science and computer science at Brown University; and Kareem Crayton, vice president for the Brennan Center’s Washington, DC, office. Listen on Spotify

[link removed]

, Apple Podcasts

[link removed]

, or your favorite podcast platform

[link removed]

.





Coming Up

HYBRID EVENT — Constitutional Meaning in the Shadow of the Articles of Confederation

[link removed]

Monday, May 12, 11 a.m.–4 p.m. ET



The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has embraced a form of interpretation called “originalism” to resolve some of the most important constitutional questions of our time. But discerning the goals and assumptions of those who ratified the Constitution requires an understanding of the document they were replacing. The Constitution was an explicit attempt to form a union “more perfect” than that of the Articles of Confederation, which therefore provide vital context for the framers’ choices. Join us virtually or in person to watch historians, journalists, law professors, and political scientists explore how the nation’s first experiment in self-governance paved the way for the Constitution we have today and continues to influence modern-day constitutional interpretation. RSVP TODAY to attend in person

[link removed]

or virtually

[link removed]



Presented in partnership with the National Constitution Center

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Elizabeth Goitein on military installations at the southwest border // MILITARY TIMES

[link removed]

Sean Morales-Doyle on the consequences of passing the SAVE Act // USA TODAY

[link removed]

Faiza Patel on politicized targeting of institutions // THE NEW YORKER

[link removed]

Gowri Ramachandran on federal cuts to election security // CNN

[link removed]

Wendy Weiser on the executive order on elections // LINCOLN SQUARE MEDIA

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]