Raw Story

CNN's Dana Bash on Thursday mocked President Donald Trump for leveling tariffs against an island that are inhabited solely by penguins.

"No one is safe from President Trump's new tariffs, not even penguins," she said. "A remote island near Antarctica that is home to mainly penguins, no humans, is now subject to a 10 percent American tariff. This is not a joke. We are not kidding. These penguins, who do not trade goods or services with the United States as far as we know, are on the receiving end of a new tax."

Bash said that there were serious questions, however, raised by Trump's decision to launch a trade war against a penguin island.

"In addition to it just being ridiculous, there is the question of how did this even happen?" she wondered.

Trump's tariffs actually included two places, Heard Island and McDonald Islands, that are Australian territories near Antarctica and have no human inhabitants.

ALSO READ: 'For what purpose?' Ex-officials question DOGE staffer accessing children's private data

NPR White House correspondent Tamara Keith said that the inclusion of the penguin island in the tariff package was an indication that "essentially, this was put together very quickly even though Donald Trump has been talking about this very thing for years."

Conservative panelist Jonah Goldberg argued that the slapdash nature of the tariff rollout would spell big political trouble for Trump going forward.

"We heard [Commerce Secretary] Howard Lutnick, just before the show, came on saying... 'Trust Donald Trump to run the global economy,'" he said. "And there are lots of people, small businesses. they're going to go out of business. There are small businesses that are going to suffer. There are lots of consumers who are going to have to pay more at the grocery store. And we're supposed to trust them to run the global economy, and they're taxing penguins. And it goes to the credibility of the administration."

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Declaring a “national emergency that threatens our security and our very way of life,” President Donald Trump, after markets closed on Wednesday afternoon, announced sweeping tariffs on nearly every nation across the globe—tanking stock market futures in the U.S. and abroad, unleashing global “chaos,” and pushing the so-called “fear index” to “extreme.”

Hours after what he dubbed “Liberation Day,” the president, on Thursday afternoon, will land at Miami International Airport and head straight to his Trump National Doral Golf Club for the LIV dinner, ahead of this weekend’s golf tournament which he is expected to attend.

As global leaders prepare to make contact with President Trump to stave off what may become a “global trade war,” he will not be in the Oval Office, but in Florida—likely hitting the greens for the remainder of the week, something he himself accused federal workers of doing back in February. (At the same time, the House of Representatives has shut down, stalled by internal Republican divisions.)

Some critics are blasting Trump’s decision to head to his golf club during this “national emergency,” which he has a long history of doing.

And as Thursday morning unfolded, CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter posted a screenshot of CNBC’s coverage of the “global selloff.”

READ MORE: ‘Parade of Incompetence’: Trump Security Adviser Set Up Numerous Signal Chats on Key Crises

Business media company Morning Brew offered this graphic of how the stock markets are reacting.

Economists and economic experts are stunned by Trump’s massive tariffs, deemed “worse than the worst case scenario,” according to multiple financial experts.

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, who spent decades in finance and financial journalism, criticized Trump tariffs.

“Folks who were unhappy with the economy did NOT vote for tariffs. They voted for Trump’s promise to lower inflation. His choice of action – tariff implementation will INCREASE inflation,” she noted.

And calling it “another large step toward a new old era of trade protectionism,” The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board blasted “Trump’s New Protectionist Age.”

“Blowing up the world trading system has consequences that the President isn’t advertising,” they warned, adding they could result in “shrinking world trade and slower growth, recession, or worse.”

They also declared that “Trump’s tariffs look ‘reciprocal’ in name only,” which brings up the question of how and why Trump imposed these tariffs.

“Economists and U.S. trade partners are raising questions about how the White House calculated the tariff rates it claimed other countries ‘charge’ the United States,” CNBC reports.

Meanwhile, economist Justin Wolfers explained why he says Trump’s thinking on tariffs is “bananas,” and “indescribably crazy.”

“Take a simple example,” offered Dr. Wolfers, a public policy scholar and professor of economics. “I run a trade deficit with Trader Joe’s buying their meals, while they buy none of mine. My trade deficit as a share of my imports is 100%. By Trump’s trade logic, this deficit is evidence they’re imposing 100% tariffs on the meals I try to sell them.”

RELATED: ‘Just Plain Dumb’: Trump’s Smuggled Fentanyl Tariff Mocked

“The White House ‘reciprocal’ tariff bears no relation to actual tariff barriers,” he adds. “It’s equal to half of the trade deficit (as a share of imports). This is indescribably crazy.”

Pointing to the “calculations” from the U.S. Trade Representative, Wolfers adds, “Obviously this is nonsense. Even crazier is that they’ve written what they think is a defense of this. I know not everyone speaks economist algebra, so lemme translate: This is muddled nonsense.”

Others, too, have criticized Trump’s method and calculations.

“Trump’s tariff chart was ‘illogical and absurd,’ full of ‘factually incorrect’ numbers about what other countries charge the U.S.,” tech analyst Dan Ives “of Wedbush Securities wrote to clients this morning,” Stelter also reported.

The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page on Tuesday whacked President Donald Trump for handing Democrats what it said could be a winning campaign message in the 2026 midterm elections.

In particular, the Journal took aim at Trump for professing indifference to the price increases his tariffs are likely to inflict upon American consumers when he said that "I couldn’t care less" if car manufacturers raise prices in response to his tariffs. He further added, "I hope they raise their prices, because if they do, people are gonna buy American-made cars."

The Journal did not take kindly to this economic analysis on the president's part.

"Mr. Trump also ignores that U.S. car makers are also likely to raise their prices," the editors contended. "If Hyundai raises the price of an export model made in South Korea, then Ford and GM may at first try to capture market share. But over time the U.S firms would be foolish not to raise their prices to increase profits, perhaps by some margin less than the increase on imported cars. That’s what happened after Mr. Trump raised tariffs on washing machines in his first term. Washer prices rose nearly 12%, according to a 2019 study, and it didn’t matter where the machine was made."

ALSO READ: 'It's a bloodbath': Trump admin is now being sued by nearly half of U.S

The Journal then hammered Trump for bungling not just the economics but also the politics of tariffs.

"As a political matter, Mr. Trump’s 'I couldn’t care less' quote about price increases is likely to show up in Democratic campaign ads next year," the editors warned. "Polling shows most voters don’t think Mr. Trump is focusing enough on reducing prices—64% say not enough in the CBS News survey released Sunday. Mr. Trump won’t be on the ballot in 2026, but you can bet TV ads will link Republicans in Congress to Mr. Trump and those comments."

Read the full editorial here.

COLUMBIA — Legislation touted by GOP leaders as making South Carolina’s tax code appear more competitive would require most tax filers to pay more initially, according to an analysis by state fiscal experts.

Collapsing South Carolina’s tax brackets into a single flat tax rate of 3.99% in 2026 would reduce state revenues by $216.6 million overall.

But that’s done by broadening and shifting the tax burden: 19.4% of filers would owe less in spring 2027, while a whopping 59.4% of filers would owe more; 21.2% would experience no change, according to the fiscal impact report by the state Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office released ahead of Tuesday’s first hearing on the bill.

The analysis cautions against generalizing: “The impact on individual taxpayers varies widely within each range depending on the specific tax situation of each tax filer,” reads the seven-page summary signed by the office’s director, Frank Rainwater.

Still, the report provides hard estimates on how many South Carolina taxpayers will pay more versus less — and the extent of the swings per taxpayers’ income levels after all applicable deductions, exemptions and tax credits are applied to reduce their reported earnings.

Of the nearly 1.7 million tax filers expected to pay more in state income taxes under the plan, their increase for calendar year 2026 will average $560, with hikes ranging from $98 on the low end of income levels to over $10,000 for taxpayers reporting more than $1 million in adjusted income.

That compares to about 550,000 tax filers who would see an average decrease of $2,110.

Thanks to a new personal income deduction for low-income earners, several hundred people at the bottom end of the pay scale would see an average decrease of $3,700, while tens of thousands of people reporting $30,000 to $50,000 of income would see a dip of less than $40.

On the top end of the scale, roughly 9,900 tax filers reporting more than $1 million would see their income tax liability plummet by an average of $31,000.

More people would be contributing to state coffers.

Under the proposal, 23% of tax filers would still pay zero in state income taxes. But that compares to roughly 45% currently, according to the Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office.

“Everybody has to pay something — a little something, at least — to be a part of this great state of South Carolina,” Gov. Henry McMaster said last week when the plan was announced.

The new personal adjustment would provide a $6,000 deduction for single filers making up to $30,000, then provide some relief up to $40,000 of income. Married couples filing jointly could deduct $12,000 for incomes up to $60,000, with the deduction phasing out at $80,000.

Still, looking at South Carolinians reporting an adjusted gross income between zero and $40,000, nearly 714,400 tax filers will owe more, while fewer than 20,000 would pay less.

The plan accomplishes what Republicans have long wanted: a tax structure that looks to be among the nation’s lowest. Collapsing three tax brackets to 3.99% would make South Carolina’s flat tax rate the lowest in the Southeast, except for Florida and Tennessee, which don’t have a state income tax.

In 2022, the Legislature passed a law that phased in a tax cut of more than $1 billion, but it still left the top marginal rate as the highest in the Southeast this year at 6.2%. However, the effective rate — what tax filers actually pay — was among the nation’s lowest even before the 2022 law.

The bill promises to keep cutting the rate as revenue collections increase. For every year income tax projections rise by 5%, the bill would reduce revenue by another $200 million until the tax rate gets to 2.49%.

When and if that happens, then the bill would truly be a tax cut for the overwhelming majority of South Carolinians: More than 77% of tax filers would see a collective decrease in their income taxes of $2.5 billion, compared to tax year 2026; 23% would still see no change whatsoever, but no one would pay more.

How many years it would take to get to 2.49% would depend on the economy and income growth.

Advocates promise to make the Legislature’s ruling Republicans feel the pressure to pass the bill.

The state chapter of Americans for Prosperity announced last week plans to launch a “six figure campaign” urging legislators to approve the plan. The group’s marketing push will include mailings, as well as online and radio ads and an “unmatched grassroots presence” going door to door asking residents to call their legislators.

Nearly half the nation's states are suing U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over the agency's sweeping cuts.

The attorneys general for 23 states and Washington, D.C., filed a suit Tuesday seeking a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief to immediately pause cuts to $12 billion in public health funding that they argued was unlawful and harmful, reported CNN.

“Slashing this funding now will reverse our progress on the opioid crisis, throw our mental health systems into chaos, and leave hospitals struggling to care for patients,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state could lose more than $400 million in public health funding.

Kennedy said last week that 10,000 full-time employees would be cut in addition to thousands who have already left or probationary employees already on leave, saying the department could do more with less, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention imposed cuts Tuesday at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the Office of Smoking and Health, Violence Prevention division and HIV offices.

“It’s a bloodbath,” said one U.S. Food and Drug Administration employee.

The CDC pulled back about $11.4 billion in funding to states and community health departments during the Covid-19 pandemic, the HHS said it expects to recover that money in about 30 days.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago," the agency said in a statement. "HHS is prioritizing funding projects that will deliver on President Trump’s mandate to address our chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again."

The coalition of attorneys general argued those funds were not limited to the Covid-19 response but was allocated as long-term support for the public health system, and they alleged that the administration undermined constitutional power of Congress by rescinding funds that had already been approved by the legislative branch.

Jason Stanley, a Yale University professor and author known for his expertise on the history of fascism, recently made a bombshell announcement: He is leaving the United States and moving to Canada.

Stanley, author of the 2018 book, "How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them," accepted a job offer at the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. And he is being candid about his reasons for leaving the country: Stanley believes the U.S. is moving in an increasingly authoritarian direction during Donald Trump's second presidency.

The Yale scholar told the Daily Nous he wants "to raise my kids in a country that is not tilting towards a fascist dictatorship."

ALSO READ: 'Not much I can do': GOP senator gives up fight against Trump's tariffs

Stanley isn't the only well-known American who is making such a move. Actress Rosie O'Donnell, a liberal Trump critic, is now living in the Republic of Ireland — where she says she is "sleeping better."

Stanley discussed his move to Canada during a Monday morning, March 31 appearance on MSNBC, stressing that leaving the U.S. was not a decision he made lightly.

When MSNBC host Ana Cabrera asked Stanley why he doesn't stay in the U.S. and be part of the "pushback" against Trump policies he opposes, the Yale scholar/author responded, "I will continue to throw punches against fascism and bullies from Canada, don't worry. I have two Black and Jewish kids. I think my kids actually are more important to me than anything else…. And I want to send a political message, as I've been doing with my work."

Stanley added, "This comes at great personal cost…. I'm taking a huge salary cut. I'm not a super wealthy person. I'll still be well- paid, but I'm taking like a 25 percent salary cut and moving myself from my homeland that I love."

Stanley defended Yale during the interview, pointing out that his decision to leave the U.S. has nothing to with the Connecticut university. And he warned that Trump's threat to cut off Columbia's funding is historically dangerous.

"Yale has, to this extent, protected its scholars — unlike Columbia (University), who forced, for example, Katharine Frank, a prominent law professor, into early retirement," Stanley told Cabrera. "So, it has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with my children and my desire to send a warning to Americans that is consonant with the work I've been doing…. Never before has the federal government intervened to put a department into receivership, much less an excellent department like the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia University…. Needless to say, this crackdown, Columbia's capitulation to this, is a grave sign about the future of academic freedom in addition to, say, hauling people off the street and sending them to Louisiana prisons like they did at Tufts University for co-authoring op-eds in the student newspaper."

Stanley added that the Trump Administration will only escalate its tactics in the months ahead.

Stanley told Cabrera, "Right now, they're targeting non-citizens for writing in student newspapers. I suspect they'll start pulling people's passports, targeting U.S. citizens for various reasons, and exploiting Americans' ignorance generally…. They're trying to, and I fear they will succeed, in destroying America's higher education system — which is by far the best in the world.

Watch the full video below.