You ever get that feeling, just overwhelmed with
news and headlines, and you just want someone
to cut to the chase and explain what's actually
important? Yeah, totally. Well, that's what we're
doing today. This is the deep dive. It's your
shortcut to understanding what happened today
and why it matters. We've got a whole stack of
news and analysis from today, April 9th, 2025.
And we're going to find the signal in all the
noise. Absolutely. I think it's a really interesting
mix of things today from the start of an actual
trade war to some, you know, legal rulings and
immigration and tax policies, even the early
jockeying for position for 2026. So let's dive
right in. And the big news today, I mean, front
and center, is this trade war has officially
started. It's not just threats anymore. And the
markets definitely reacted. The Dow dropped 320
points, the S &P 500 down almost 80. Nasdaq took
the biggest hit down 335. Wow. Yeah, that's a
lot. It seems like Wall Street was hoping that,
you know, someone would blink, but nobody did.
It seems that way. So the tariffs. that everyone's
been talking about are now real. But then on
top of that, President Trump announced additional
tariffs, specifically targeting China. It's incredible.
If you put it all together, it's estimated to
be a 104 % tariff on goods coming in from China.
Wow. I even saw one of the authors joking that,
you know, when they were doing the calculation,
it felt like it must be a typo. It just seems
like such an absurdly high number. So, you know,
this is really signaling potentially a decoupling
of the two economies. A huge shift from past
administration's approach, which has been managed
trade. I mean, it's almost impossible to wrap
your head around a hundred and four percent.
Yeah. Yeah. You really have to ask, what's the
end game here? It's a big question. And it's
a question a lot of people are asking. You know,
I read that even Republican senators are reportedly
trying to get some clarity on that. And of course,
it's not just a domestic issue. It affects the
entire world. Other countries are apparently
finding it extremely difficult to even initiate
preliminary talks with the administration so
that. lack of a clear strategy and the difficulty
in even starting a conversation points to, you
know, a lot of uncertainty going forward. You
really have to wonder what are some potential
unintended consequences we might see down the
line. Oh, yeah. Lots to think about there. OK.
So moving on next week, the president is scheduled
to meet with Italian Prime Minister Georgia Maloney.
Oh, right. Apparently, the hope is that she can
act as some kind of intermediary with the European
Union. I see. And the author just throws in this
dry little comment, presumably because she speaks
fluent fascist. So there's definitely some skepticism
around finding a quick resolution to this trade
war. Yeah, I can understand why. All right. Let's
turn to some legal news. The Trump administration
had, I guess you could call it a mixed bag of
outcomes in the courts today. OK. Had a surprising
result in a lawsuit brought by the Associated
Press. So if you remember, the AP had their access
restricted to White House press events. And the
reason they were given is that they refused to
refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
I remember that. It was just incredible. I mean,
can you believe that? It was unbelievable. But
even more unbelievable is that the judge who
ruled in favor of the AP is Judge Trevor McFadden.
And this judge has been described as one of the
trumpiest judges in the land. Oh, wow. Interesting.
And his reasoning was pretty clear cut. He quoted
the First Amendment saying that, let's see, if
the government opens its doors to some journalists,
be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere,
it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists
because of their viewpoints. The Constitution
requires no less. Wow, that's strong language,
and especially coming from, as you said, a Trump
appointee. It really underscores that freedom
of the press is paramount, even when it might
be politically inconvenient. So kind of a loss
for the administration there. But they did get
a win at the Supreme Court. And this case was
about those 16 ,000 probationary federal employees
that had been fired. Right, right. And a lower
court had issued an injunction to say that they
should be rehired temporarily while the case
was moving forward. OK. But the Supreme Court
has now canceled that injunction. Interesting.
So these are federal workers who are within a
trial period. They have fewer job protections.
So this is a win for the administration. But
it could have a real impact on these 16 ,000
people, because they're going to stay fired for
who knows how long. It could take a long time
to resolve the whole case. And if they do eventually
win, they'll have been without pay for a really
long time. And it's unlikely they'd be able to
get back pay. So a temporary win for the White
House, but potentially a permanent hardship for
these workers. Wow, that's a great point. Another
big Supreme Court decision today dealt with deportations
to El Salvador. Okay. And this one mentions something
called the Shadow Docket. Which sounds kind of
ominous. Yeah, the shadow docket. It's been getting
a lot of attention lately. The Supreme Court
uses it to make decisions often on an emergency
basis without the full briefing and oral arguments
they usually do. So there's less transparency.
So in this case, it was a five to four decision
and the majority. basically redefine due process
in a way that has a lot of people concerned.
They ruled that a habeas corpus petition, which
is a legal tool you can use to challenge unlawful
detention, has to be filed in the place where
you're being detained. So in this case, it would
be Texas, regardless of where the person's actually
being deported to. Well, that doesn't seem to
make much sense. Right. If someone's facing deportation
to El Salvador, why do they have to file a petition
in Texas? And Justice Sotomayor actually dissented
on that very point. that the majority was, let
me find the exact quote here, oh yeah, rather
aggressively reinventing the meaning of habeas
corpus petition, and she pointed out that a habeas
corpus petition is supposed to be about getting
someone released from government custody, not
about where they should be held if they are deported.
It's a big legal interpretation, and it's going
to have a very real impact on people facing deportation.
Definitely. Okay, let's talk about immigration,
and you know, our source uses this very strong
word, gaslighting. They're saying that what the
administration is doing is very different from
what they're saying. Yeah, that's a strong word.
But I see their point. You know, the administration
has repeatedly said that they're committed to
reducing undocumented immigration. And they cite
reasons like combating crime, stopping fentanyl,
protecting jobs for American workers, but their
actions seem to contradict that. So specifically,
they're revoking the residency status of around
895 ,000 people who came to the U .S. legally.
And they came in using the Biden -era CBP One
app, which is now called CBP Home. What exactly
was this app for? So the CBP One app was meant
to be a legal pathway for sponsored immigrants.
The idea was, instead of trying to come in illegally,
if you had a sponsor in the U .S., someone who
could offer you a job, you could apply for a
green card through the app. So it was supposed
to manage immigration in a more efficient and
humane way. So these people followed the rules.
They had sponsors, they were here legally, and
now they're being kicked out. And our source
calls them low -hanging fruit. Right. They're
easy to find because they're not hiding. And
because they came in legally, they tend to be
law -abiding. So... The author's point is that
deporting them doesn't really achieve the administration's
stated goals. They're not criminals, they're
not smuggling fentanyl, and they're not taking
jobs away from American citizens because those
jobs were offered through the app. And the author's
suggesting that maybe the real goal isn't really
about enforcing immigration laws, but more about
just getting the numbers up. To make it look
like they're being tough on immigration. Exactly.
To create this illusion of success. So this gaslighting
idea. It comes up again when we look at taxes.
And there's a lot going on at the IRS driven
by Elon Musk and his Department of Government
Efficiency, which I guess is DOGE. Yeah, DOGE.
Their stated goal is to save money, balance the
budget by cutting spending across government
agencies. Makes sense. But the IRS has been hit.
particularly hard. And the projections are that
these cuts could actually end up costing way
more than they save. How is that possible? So
of course they will save on salaries and benefits.
But the analysis says that with fewer IRS staff,
there will be a lot less auditing and enforcement.
And that's going to lead to a drop in income
tax revenue. They're predicting a 10 percent
drop, which would be around five hundred billion
dollars. Five hundred billion. That's huge. Yeah.
And the author points out, sarcastically, does
the average IRS employee earn 25 million dollars
annually. The point being that the lost revenue
dwarfs any savings from firing people. Yeah for
sure. And on top of that the Department of Justice's
tax division is being underfunded. They can't
just eliminate it because it was created by law.
But they've basically starved it of resources.
So it'll still exist, but it won't be able to
do its job, which is to enforce tax laws, especially
against the wealthy. Interesting. And then there's
this decision to share IRS data with IC for immigration
enforcement. That sounds pretty controversial.
Oh, yeah. It's raised a ton of ethical and legal
concerns. And in fact, Acting IRS Commissioner
Melanie Krauss resigned over it. And again, there's
this apparent contradiction. You know, if these
people are filing taxes, that means they're following
the rules, paying their taxes. So using that
information to deport them doesn't really make
sense, and it could also backfire. If people
are afraid they'll be deported for paying taxes,
they might just stop paying taxes. Yeah, I see
their point. So the overall argument is that
these tax policies aren't really about fiscal
responsibility. They're about helping the wealthy
and reducing scrutiny on businesses. That's a
pretty serious accusation. It is. And all these
things together, the IRS cuts, the DOJ tax division,
sharing data with ICE, it really suggests an
agenda to shield the wealthy and make it harder
to hold them accountable. OK, moving on. The
last part of this gaslighting analysis is about
coal. Oh, great. President Trump has always said
he wants to bring back the coal industry, especially
in states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania. And
he's just issued four executive orders to try
to do that, including one with his very interesting
title, reinvigorating America's beautiful clean
coal industry. Clean coal. That's a phrase that's
been debated for a long time. Yeah. And President
Trump has said that coal is clean, even the cleanest
form of energy known to man. Not exactly accurate.
Not quite. It's actually one of the dirtiest.
Yeah. So, you know, regulations have definitely
played a role in the decline of coal. Right.
But the main reason is economic. Other energy
sources like solar, wind, natural gas are just
cheaper. Yeah. And building new coal plants is
really expensive. It's a risky investment, which
is why no one's built a major new coal plant
in the U .S. for a decade. And it's not like
President Trump hasn't tried this before. Right.
This was a big part of his first term, too. And
it didn't work then because the economics haven't
changed. So the argument is that this isn't really
about helping coal communities. It's about creating
headlines, giving people false hope. And that
actually makes it harder for them to transition
to new industries. Kind of kicking the can down
the road. Yeah, exactly. All right. Shifting
gears now. I can't believe we're already talking
about the 2026 Senate races. But hey, things
move fast in politics. And some interesting news
out of Texas. Oh, yeah. Attorney General Ken
Paxton has officially announced that he's running
for the Senate. I see. And he's going up against
the incumbent John Cornyn. And Paxton is very
popular with the Magier wing of the Republican
Party. Early polling even shows him beating Cornyn
in the primary. But our source says that while
he might do well in the primary, the general
election could be a different story. Yeah, that
makes sense. Paxton's appeal might be limited
to the most conservative Republicans, independent
voters, and maybe moderate Republicans might
not be so keen on him. So this could be an opportunity
for a Democrat. Congressman Colin Allred, who
ran against Ted Cruz a couple of years ago, he
hasn't announced yet. But with Paxton in the
race, he might jump in. OK. And up in New Hampshire,
there's been some news that's not good for the
Republicans. Really? Governor Chris Sunu has
said he's not going to run for the Senate. This
seat that's being vacated by Jean Shaheen and
the National Republican Senatorial Committee,
they're calling this bad news because Sunu was
seen as their best shot at winning that seat.
Oh, yeah, he's pretty popular. So who are the
potential Republican candidates now? Well. There
are a few names being thrown around, Scott Brown,
Lily Tang Williams, and Corey Lewandowski. But
they all have some weaknesses, including what's
called carpet bagger problems, meaning they're
seen as outsiders. Right. That can be a real
problem in New Hampshire. Yeah. So the likely
Democratic candidate is Chris Papas. And he would
have had a tough race against Sununu, but against
any of these other guys, he's the favorite. There's
also a chance that Governor Kelly Ayotte might
run. Oh, interesting. But that would mean risking
the governorship. Right. They'd have to have
a special election. Exactly. Yeah. So let's wrap
up with a look at the House races. The DCCC has
released their initial list of Republicans they're
going to target in 2026, and they're clearly
focusing on those who just barely won in 2024.
There are 35 Republicans on this list, and they
come from a range of districts, from slightly
Democratic to solidly Republican. But a lot of
them won by less than four points last time.
So they could be vulnerable in a midterm election?
Yeah, midterms are always tricky for the party
in power. And the DCCC has also included some
data on the median household income in these
districts. What's the significance of that? Well,
that kind of information can tell you a lot about
the voters in a district, what issues matter
to them, what messages resonate, and also voter
turnout tends to be higher in wealthier districts.
So the strategies for flipping a seat in a wealthy
suburb are going to be different from flipping
one in a rural area. Yeah, that makes sense.
And some Republicans in districts that are, you
know, only slightly Republican, they're not on
the list. What do you think is going on there?
Well, the DCCC has to pick their battles. They
only have so much money and resources. So maybe
those Republicans are just really strong. Maybe
they overperformed last time or they're good
at raising money or maybe the demographics of
their districts just make them really tough to
beat. So. As we wrap up, what are the big themes
that tie all of this together? Well, I think
we're seeing a pattern here. The administration
is pushing through some big changes, trade, immigration,
taxes, but they're not always being straight
with the public about what they're doing. And
the courts are pushing back in some cases, but
not in others. And meanwhile, the political gears
are already turning for 2026. Yeah. It's a lot
to keep track of. But hopefully this deep dive
has made it a little bit easier to understand.
Exactly. And we've given you some things to think
about. For sure. Like this new trade war, for
example. Yeah. What do you think the long term
effects are going to be, not just here, but around
the world? That's something worth pondering.
Absolutely. Thanks for joining us. We'll be back
soon with another deep dive. See you then.