Welcome to the deep dive. This is where we take
that stack of sources you send us, articles,
reports, all sorts of things, and well, we dive
deep. We look for the key insights, the surprising
connections, basically trying to cut through
the noise for you. So for this deep dive, we're
unpacking a whole collection of recent reports.
They're centered around government actions, economic
signs, and some real challenges hitting established
institutions. It's all straight from the material
you provided. And it's quite a mix, isn't it?
We've got sources touching on international travel
policy, trade tensions, but also the nitty gritty
of how the U .S. government collects its economic
data. Plus, these pretty significant legal and
institutional challenges for universities, even
parts of the justice system. The idea is to connect
these dots, figure out what really matters and
why it matters. Exactly. It ranges from travel
bans to trade fights, data collection methods
to university accreditation battles. It's a lot,
but we'll sort through it. OK, let's get started.
First up, let's talk about a policy that really
defined the first Trump administration. The travel
ban. The sources say there's a new version, travel
ban v2 .0, announced just yesterday. That's right.
And this one's pretty wide -reaching. It completely
bans citizens from 12 countries, and then there
are partial bans for seven others. Do the sources
list the countries? They do. The full ban list
includes Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo,
Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya,
Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. and the partial
list. Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo,
Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. OK, so how does
this version V2 .0 stack up against the original
one, the one that got tied up in courts for so
long? Well, you'll remember V1 .0 faced a ton
of legal challenges. Eventually, the Supreme
Court upheld it 5 -4. They cited national security,
basically giving the president pretty broad powers
in that area. Then, of course, Joe Biden lifted
those restrictions back in 2021. And this new
ban? The sources suggest there was maybe more
groundwork laid this time. Yeah, the observation
in the source material is that the State Department
seems to have done more, let's call it homework,
possibly to help it survive court challenges
better this time. The source uses this phrase
describing the targeted nations as, quote, full
of Muslims, but not full of oil, a threat to
the United States. And the timing. The sources
linked it to a recent attack. They do, specifically
an attack mentioned in Colorado. And there's
a quote attributed to Trump connecting the ban
to preventing major foreign terror attacks on
American soil, similar to his first term. The
source points out he didn't name a specific attack,
but right -wing media apparently drew the lines
pretty quickly. So what's the simplest read on
this, according to the sources? What's the real
driver here? Well, the Occam's razor explanation
offered is that it's basically political theater.
It's designed to show the base that the administration
is cracking down on, quote, dangerous foreigners.
And the source suggests it might also serve to
distract from trickier issues like lack of progress
at the border or fights over the budget. Right.
And this kind of executive action targeting countries,
it connects to other things, too, like trade
tensions. Your sources mention China tariffs.
Absolutely. Trump's arguments for tariffs usually
boil down to two things. Bringing jobs back.
and making deals, getting wins. There's a quote
the source highlights from his social media.
I like President Yellen of China, but he's very
tough and extremely hard to make a deal with.
And the source reads that as him focusing on
the deal -swins part. That's the interpretation,
yeah. That he's really angling for a negotiation
win right now. How do the sources paint Xi Jinping's
position in all this? They describe him as, well,
a Chinese patriot and definitely not stupid.
The thinking is, he knows Trump wants a quick
headline -grabbing win. And since she doesn't
face elections like Trump does, he can afford
to wait. The source suggests he knows Trump might
get more desperate and eventually settle for
less, for crumbs, as the source puts it. OK,
there was that deal mentioned, May 12th in Switzerland,
90 -day tariff suspension. But now they're accusing
each other of breaking it. Exactly. And a really
interesting piece of that puzzle, according to
the source, involves rare earth materials. Trump
apparently expected Xi to ease up on export restrictions
for these critical minerals. That hasn't happened.
Was that actually in the deal or just something
Trump hoped for? The source says it's unclear.
It might have been part of the formal agreement
or maybe Xi just said he'd consider it. But these
rare earths are vital, right? They go into tons
of U .S. products. So the source speculates manufacturers
might be leaning on Trump now. And Trump keeps
saying he wants to get Xi on the phone. The source
thinks that's a bad idea. Yeah, they call it
really stupid, basically, for a few reasons.
First, it signals desperation, gives G leverage.
Second, there's the worry Trump might not be
fully briefed on complex stuff like rare earths,
whereas G would have his experts prepping him.
And third, G apparently prefers his experts to
hammer out the details before he steps in. So
the source predicts if she does take the call.
The prediction is, in their words, he'll eat
his lunch. They use this moo shoo pork analogy,
which apparently is like the Chinese version
of getting taken to the cleaners in a negotiation.
OK. Let's shift gears. Another big theme in the
sources. The reliability of government information,
starting with economic data. Right. Your sources
picked up on the Fed's beige book report from
Wednesday. The key takeaways noted were that
the U .S. economy actually contracted a bit over
the last six weeks, hiring slowed down and businesses
and consumers are worried specifically about
tariff related price increases. What did it say
about inflation overall? It described prices
rising at a moderate pace. But, and this is important,
it also mentioned widespread reports of contacts
expecting costs and prices to rise at a faster
rate going forward. Some businesses are apparently
already planning to pass on those tariff costs
in about three months. And it wasn't uniform
across the country. No, definitely regional differences.
Boston, New York, Philadelphia reported slowing
or declining activity. Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago
saw better growth. The source specifically pulled
out the mention of New York seeing heightened
uncertainty and those tariff -inducted cost increases.
Okay, now connect that to something else in the
sources. There's a report about the Labor Department
having trouble collecting this data. Yes, exactly.
A report detailing cutback in how the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, the BLS, collects inflation
data for the Consumer Price Index and the reasons
cited directly in the source. The administration's
government -wide hiring freeze. What does that
mean practically? Fewer samples. Pretty much.
The source says the BLS is reducing sample in
areas across the country. And they've actually
stopped collecting price data altogether in a
few specific cities because of staffing shortages.
Rich cities. Lincoln, Nebraska, Provo, Utah,
and Buffalo, New York. Just not enough people,
the source says, due to the freeze. Why should
people care? I mean, how critical is this data?
Oh, it's incredibly critical. The source reminds
us it's used for Social Security cost of living
adjustments, for calculating interest on certain
treasury bonds, TPS. It even influences private
sector wages. Economists quoted in the source
are worried. They think these kinds of cuts could
degrade the reliability and efficacy of agencies
like BLS. And it's not just consumer prices.
The source mentions BLS also stopped collecting
wholesale prices for the producer price index
in about 350 categories. What are the specific
worries, especially given the timing with tariffs?
Well, one economist, Omer Sharif, is quoted saying
it's worrying given that we're heading into the
teeth of the tariff impact on prices. Yeah. His
point is that a smaller sample size means more
potential error. It can make the indexes jump
around more, become more volatile, and potentially
less accurate. But the BLS itself says the impact
is minimal. They do say the overall impact is
minimal, according to the source. but they also
admit it may increase the volatility of specific
items. And the source provides context. Trump
froze hiring on day one, extended it, so future
reports will likely have less data, too. Plus,
the administration apparently got rid of advisory
committees that used to work with these statistical
agencies. There's also a quote from a former
BLS commissioner, Erica Groshen. Yes. She estimates
the agency lost about 15 % of its staff. Cites
low morale and what she calls attacks on government
workers and she warns It's not just the big numbers
people see it threatens less visible but still
important data like import prices or job opening
stats Okay, so we have concerns about data collection,
but the sources also talk about potential censorship
of reports That's right a report claiming Trump
officials are censoring government reports that
Donald Trump might not like The source kind of
shrugs Call it Dog Bites Man? Yeah. News, maybe
not surprising, but points out it was still Politico's
lead story. Is there a specific example? Yes.
A routine agricultural trade report. It forecast
the trade deficit would increase. That's something
Trump dislikes, right? He claims tariffs reduce
deficits. So according to the source, officials
just killed the forecast, removed it from the
report. And what's the source's take on what
this signals? They see it as part of a pattern.
viewing truth as basically what he wants to hear
and what advances his personal goals. This raises
what the source calls the unlesant but likely
possibility that any fact -based report that
doesn't align with his narrative might get squashed
or edited to fit. What are the potential downstream
effects if people stop trusting government reports?
Big problems, potentially. Loss of public trust,
obviously. The source quotes a former USDA chief
economist, Joe Glauber, saying, objectivity is
really key here. To lose that trust would be
terrible. It could also lead to chaos in industries
that depend on accurate data, like farmers making
planting decisions or buyers setting prices.
The worst case scenario sketched out is nobody
takes government stats seriously anymore, causing
huge uncertainty and unnecessary economic harm.
Right. The source even mentioned that movie Trading
Places as an analogy for bad decisions based
on bad USDA reports. Exactly. That kind of ripple
effect. OK. Let's pivot again. The sources also
show the administration challenging other established
institutions, specifically universities and parts
of the Justice Department. Yeah. Your sources
focus on actions against Harvard in Colombia,
calling it a crusade. Start with Harvard. What's
happening there? Well, the administration announced
it's canceling Harvard's approval for international
students. They're citing presidential powers
for national security. The source describes the
order itself as rambling and only semi coherent.
It apparently accuses Harvard of hiding info
on criminal foreign students, threatens existing
visas, and it even veers into affirmative action,
accusing Harvard of discriminating against non
favored races. Isn't this the second time they've
gone after Harvard's international students?
It is. The source points out the first attempt
by Homeland Security is actually still stuck
in court under a temporary restraining order.
So the expectation is this new attempt will also
end up in court, and the source doesn't seem
to rate the White House's chances very highly.
Okay, what about Colombia? The issue there is
accreditation. Yes. The administration is trying
to get Colombia's accreditation revoked. The
stated reason, according to the source, is that
Colombia allegedly hasn't done enough about anti
-Semitism or protecting Jewish students since
the Gaza war started. They're invoking the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. The source called the accreditation
process very weedy. Why is it so complicated?
Well, basically, the government can influence
things like student aid eligibility, but it doesn't
directly control accreditation. That's done by
private nonprofit agencies. In Colombia's case,
it's the Middle States Commission on Higher Education,
or MSCHE. So this threat against Colombia, what
does it actually amount to, practically speaking?
According to the source, It really boils down
to a letter from the Secretary of Education asking
MSCHE to consider revoking accreditation. And
the MSCE spokesperson apparently described the
request as just a press release. The source calls
that pretty serious shade in academic circles.
Huh. Okay, and the likely outcome here, how long
might this take? The source calls the administration's
argument laughable. They think MSCHE isn't likely
to jump on this. Even if they did investigate,
the source estimates it would take years before
anything happened, maybe a decade before Columbia
was in real peril. That's long after January
2029. Plus, you'd expect lawsuits to drag it
out even further. Why does Columbia have to fight
this so hard, though? Because losing accreditation
is existential. The source says non -accredited
degrees are basically worthless. Losing billions
is bad. But losing accreditation means the university,
for all practical purposes, ceases to exist.
So they have no choice but to fight it tooth
and nail. And the source drew a broader lesson
from Columbia's experience. Yeah, they point
out Columbia was reportedly trying to play ball,
kowtowing to Trump and trying to do his bidding.
as the source puts it, and their reward, having
their entire existence threatened. The lesson,
the source suggests, for universities and maybe
law firms too, is you can never give Trump enough.
They use that inch -mile analogy, escalating
to light years and parsecs, like the Kessel Run.
You can never satisfy the demand. There was also
that Thomas Edsall piece cited, giving some context
to this whole university thing. Right. Edsel
argues that while the fight is nominally about
anti -Semitism, it's in reality clearly about
something else. His take is that Trump just hates
higher education and to do, especially the elite
institutions, and wants to make an example of
some. The source even had that quote from a cabinet
meeting. Trump justifying cutting Harvard grants
because they're not American. Yeah, because it's
students professors Its whole attitude is not
American and they don't swallow his BS hole According
to the sources account of the court and potential
influences like JD Vance the source mentions
Vance a Yale law grad calling universities Fundamentally
corrupt and saying people need to attack the
universities He apparently ended a speech quoting
Nixon. The press is the enemy the professors
are the enemy The source interprets that pretty
broadly. Anyone critical is the enemy. Wow. And
Secretary McMahon saying research is OK as long
as it's in sync with administration goals. Yes,
the source reads that as basically saying if
your research shows we're wrong, you shouldn't
do it. The example given was vaccine research
potentially conflicting with a party line. But
the source has also acknowledged bias within
universities, right? It's not one sided. No,
they do touch on that. The general observation
is universities might tolerate left -leaning
speech more readily than right -leaning speech.
You know, welcoming speakers they agree with
while others face protests. They use the old
example of Professor Arthur Jensen's controversial
IQ research at Berkeley. The source notes the
general freakout versus maybe focusing on methodology
and speculates if his results have been different
he might have been praised. Again, the source
stresses this isn't endorsing Jensen just illustrating
a perceived general bent. So the source's bottom
line on this university crusade is that Trump
sees elite universities as liberal strongholds
that need to be essentially torn down and rebuilt
on conservative lines, which the source notes
is just swapping one bias for another. And the
prosperity that comes from the research at these
places, apparently not a factor for him. There
was that point about irony from Professor Sean
Westwood too. Right. Westwood points out the
contradiction. wanting to kill DEI programs for
considering factors besides merit, while also
openly calling to hire more conservative professors,
which is hiring based on a non -merit factor
political viewpoint. And the Wall Street Journal
piece detailed specific actions against Harvard?
Yeah, frozen grants, threats to tax status, trying
to dictate curriculum and hiring. The Journal
piece, as cited, suggests the government seems
bent on destroying the school for the offense
of fighting back. So, summing up the source's
view, Trump is trying to neutralize opposition.
Media, law firms may be already pressured. Universities
are next on the list. The stated reasons, anti
-Semitism or whatever, are seen as excuses. The
real goal is to crush all opposition, and Harvard's
a big target. But the source does add maybe he's
bitten off more than he can chew this time. Okay,
let's shift slightly again. Challenges to the
justice system itself. Your sources talk about
former DoJ lawyers forming a group. That's right.
A new group led by Stacey Young made up of former
DoJ lawyers. Their goal is specifically to help
people targeted by Trump. Why did they feel this
was necessary? The source explains the concern
is that with the administration attacking law
firms, the big established firms might shy away
from representing people Trump targets, especially
in complex cases. This could leave those people
with no recourse at all, potentially leading
to, as the source puts it, no justice at all
soon. Who are these volunteer lawyers? They all
used to work at the Department of Justice. So
they have deep experience, which the source thinks
will give targets confidence in them. There was
a quote from one volunteer, Melanie Proctor.
Yes, she talked about her pride in the Doje oath
out. The law was the law and her fear now that
people will be targeted for doing the right thing,
not for breaking the law, but for upholding it
against the administration's wishes. And they're
particularly concerned about one group of DOJ
attorneys. Yes, those who prosecuted January
6 cases. Trump has reportedly promised to fire
them. They'll likely need lawyers to fight those
dismissals. But there's a problem with where
they'd fight those dismissals. A huge problem.
The usual place, the Merit Systems Protections
Board, MSPB, isn't functioning. The administration
fired the chair, Kathy Harris, so it lacks a
quorum enough members to actually make decisions.
The Supreme Court apparently didn't reinstate
her while her case goes on. This spells trouble
for anyone fired, the source says. They can't
appeal through the normal channel, and it could
last for a while. Another former DOJ person,
David Loftman, who worked on the Russia probe,
was quoted too. Yes. Loftman called the DOJ a
cornerstone of the rule of law. and said the
administration took a sledgehammer to that. He
feels a moral obligation to help colleagues whose
careers are threatened for just doing their jobs
without fear or favor. OK, let's look at a couple
of specific legal battles mentioned in the sources.
First, this election case Trump apparently won.
Right. This relates to an executive order from
early in his term. It basically says federal
agencies must follow the attorney general's legal
opinions and can't contradict the AG or the president.
And Democrats were worried about how that might
play out in elections. Their concern, according
to the source, was that a future AG could issue
an opinion favoring Republicans and the FEC,
the Federal Election Commission, would be legally
required to follow it. So they sued. And the
result? On Tuesday, Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee,
tossed the lawsuit out. On what grounds? The
source says it was no standing to sue. Basically,
the Democrats couldn't show they had already
been harmed by the executive order. You generally
need to show actual concrete damage to sue the
government. And the judge wasn't convinced that
it happened yet. Even though they argued they
were already changing their behavior because
of it? Apparently not convincing enough. The
source indicates the judge wanted a concrete
example of damage the order had already done,
not just anticipated future harm. But he left
the door open for them to come back. Yes, the
source notes the judge said if circumstances
change and they can show actual damages from
the order, they're welcome to refile the case.
OK, second case, the Birthright Citizenship case
appeal. This came from an executive order on
day one of Trump v 2 .0. Yes, that's the order
trying to limit automatic citizenship only to
babies born in the U .S. if at least one parent
is a citizen. Trump lost the first round. He
did. Judge John Koffner ruled the order. violated
the Constitution. So yesterday was the appeal
hearing in the Ninth Circuit. What were the administration's
arguments per the source? The DOJ lawyer, Eric
MacArthur, argued a few things. That a literal
reading of the Constitution encourages birth
tourism. That the 14th Amendment Citizenship
Clause only applies to women domiciled here.
And that the original debate around the amendment
only intended to cover newly freed slaves. How
did the judges react? The source describes two
judges, both Clinton appointees, as pretty skeptical.
Judge Ronald Gould apparently questioned the
textual basis for the domiciled argument, saying,
I don't see any language in there textually that
says, why? And Judge Michael Hawkins reportedly
said relying on congressional debate would get
scorned from a textualist like Justice Scalia.
The source thinks MacArthur probably won't get
their votes. But there was a third judge. Judge
Patrick DuMette, a Trump appointee. He was not
as skeptical. according to the source. What was
his focus? He apparently brought up the old 1898
Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark. That case affirmed
birthright citizenship, even if parents weren't
citizens. Boumete supposedly suggested the legality
of the parents presence was somehow key, even
though the source adds that nothing in the decision
suggested that. So the outlook at this appeal
level. based on the source. Doesn't look great
for Trump, with two skeptical judges on the three
-judge panel. But the source adds, if Bumate
does vote to uphold the order, his reasoning
might be something the Supreme Court could latch
onto if it ever gets there. OK, just a couple
more quick political items from the sources to
round things out. The Virginia special election.
Yes, for the late Jerry Connolly seat. Governor
Glenn Youngkin set the date for September 9th.
And the source noted something about that date
choice. Yeah, they observed Yonkin didn't play
political games with the timing, unlike, say,
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who reportedly scheduled
another special election way out in November.
The speculation in the sources may be Yonkin,
eyeing a 2028 paradidential run, wants to keep
a moderate lane open, avoid looking very partisan,
especially if Trump's numbers aren't great. Interesting.
OK, finally, international news. The Dutch government
collapsed. Yeah, kind of surprising news this
week. The source described it as a coalition
of four very different parties that just couldn't
hold it together despite months of trying. And
Geert Wilder's party, PVV, is key here. His party
won the most seats last time. But forming a government
was tough because others didn't want to work
with him. They finally got a technocrat PM, Dick
Scoof. But the source says Wilder's still runs
the show from Parliament. His main issue being
immigration. Absolutely. Stopping immigration
by any means is how the source puts it. They
mention his support for things like banning the
Quran, closing mosques. The source notes, he
doesn't like Muslims much. We've heard that before
somewhere. What caused the final break, according
to the source? Wilders apparently got fed up
with the other party stalling about banning asylum
seekers. He gave them a list of demands, told
them to sign as is. They refused. He pulled out
and boom, new elections, probably in October.
What are the underlying tensions the source points
to? Costs? Yeah. costs for housing, health care,
education for immigrants. Plus, this clashes
with the EU pushing members to spend way more
on defense. That means social spending might
need cuts and Wilders doesn't want that money
going to foreigners. And this isn't just a Dutch
thing. No. The source places it in a wider European
context. Says it's hard to find a country where
the people want more immigrants. Pointing to
the AFD party getting 21 percent in Germany is
another example. And the timing is a bit awkward.
Just slightly embarrassing. Yeah. NATO leaders
are meeting in The Hague soon. And the head of
NATO now is Mark Rote, the former Dutch PM whose
government just fell. And there was something
about the limits on the current caretaker government.
Right. They're technically only supposed to carry
out existing policy. The source finds that impractical.
Like, what if Ukraine urgently needs help? Can
they really just muddle along? And we have to
mention that quirky anecdote from the source
about their own consulting experience in Dutch
elections. Oh, yeah. The story about lawyers
not getting open source software. and counting
votes on those enormous paper ballots by hand,
a little window into how things actually work
sometimes. Wow. OK, we have covered a lot of
ground today, all pulled from those sources you
shared. We went from travel bans and trade spats
to serious questions about university futures,
the justice system, even the reliability of basic
government data. Yeah. And when you put it all
together like this, you really see patterns emerging,
don't you? Significant shifts, major challenges
across different sectors. often driven by pretty
specific political goals leading to these really
complex legal and economic ripple effects. Exactly.
So you've just navigated all that with us. You
can see how an action here like tariffs might
connect over there to economic reports or how
a legal fight here shapes how policies are enforced
over there or who can even access legal help.
Right and maybe the final thought to leave you
with connecting all this is when these core institutions
We rely on universities for knowledge, agencies
for data, the courts for justice. When they face
the kind of pressure or disruption described
in these sources, how does that change things?
How does it change how we understand what's happening?
How reliable are the usual sources? Can you still
seek redress through normal channels? It really
raises a fundamental question. How do you navigate
a landscape where the very systems designed to
inform us and uphold norms seem to be under so
much strain? Something to chew on until our next
deep dive.