Salem Political Snark

U.S. moves closer to authoritarianism as Trump lies about immigrant "invasion"

We're not even five months into Trump's second term as president and already the warnings from the 2024 Democratic campaign are coming true: if Trump is elected over Kamala Harris, our democracy will be threatened by authoritarianism. 

It's happening faster than I expected.

Which means buckle up for the remaining three and a half years of Trump's time in the White House, because he's going to be putting pedal to the metal increasingly forcefully in his drive to become the first truly authoritarian president in our nation's history.

This evening the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, issued a warning in a speech about Trump's pouring fuel on the fire of protests against hard-working undocumented immigrants being detained in Los Angeles by putting 2,000 members of the state's National Guard under federal control and sending hundreds of Marines to deal with a crisis of Trump's own making.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) warned in a public address Tuesday evening that democracy in the United States “is under assault” and broadly accused President Donald Trump of acting like an authoritarian leader, characterizing his unilateral deployment of U.S. armed forces to Los Angeles as the first phase of an overall decay in citizens’ rights.

“This isn’t just about protests here in Los Angeles. … This is about all of us,” Newsom said in his speech.“California may be first,” he added, “but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next.”

Newsom reiterated his accusations that Trump broke the law by deploying military forces to the protests, calling it a “brazen abuse of power” that “inflamed a combustible situation.” He said the ongoing raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were “very different than anything we’ve seen before,” and recounted the arrest of a U.S. citizen who was nine months pregnant, as well as the detainment of a 4-year-old girl.

He accused the Trump administration of “pushing mass deportations” and “indiscriminately targeting hardworking immigrant families,” pointing to raids near a Home Depot in a largely Latino suburb and a clothing company downtown. He rejected the idea that the immigration crackdown was focused on “serious criminals” or those with final deportation orders, and warned that migrants may just be the first vulnerable group to be targeted.

“If some of us could be snatched off the streets without a warrant, based only on suspicion or skin color, then none of us are safe,” Newsom stated. “Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves. But they do not stop there.”

The reality is that the protests in Los Angeles are limited to a few streets around the downtown federal building. Some jerks have set a few cars on fire, thrown fireworks at police, and hurled water bottles at law enforcement personnel. 

The Sheriff of Los Angeles County has said that local authorities don't need any federal help in dealing with the protests. So has the Los Angeles Mayor, along with Governor Newsom. But Trump has pointed to protesters waving Mexican flags as evidence that an "invasion" of undocumented immigrants is taking place.

Well, I've seen demonstrators on college campuses waving Israeli flags. Why isn't this a sign that Israel is "invading" the United States? 

It seems clear that Trump is using Los Angeles as a test case of how far he can go in using our military to crush dissent against his cruel, mindless policies. Newsom is absolutely correct. If Trump gets away with  mobilizing the National Guard and Marines against protests by American citizens, he'll add this to his authoritarian playbook whenever people gather to say NO to his actions.

Today Trump threatened anyone who dares to protest his expensive military parade this Saturday in Washington D.C. that marks both the 250th anniversary of the U.S. army and Trump's 79th birthday.

“If there’s any protesters that want to come out, they’re will be met with very big force,” he said. “For those people that want to protest, they’re going to be met with very big force. And I haven’t even heard about a protest. But, you know, this is, people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.”

Note that Trump didn't threaten very big force against violent protestors. He threatened anyone who exercises their First Amendment right to protest what their president is doing. That use of free speech is fine in democracies. But Trump wants the United States to be more like Russia: a country run by an authoritarian where elections are held, but are meaningless, being controlled by the Authoritarian-in-Chief.

There's an increasing chance that Trump will use scattered protests against his policies in the run-up to the 2026 midterm election to declare that the United States is facing an insurrection by his favorite derogatory term, "people who hate our country." Then Trump would use martial law or some other bizarre legal theory to cancel the election in enough blue states to guarantee that Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate.

If that sounds wildly improbable, consider this: six months ago, how likely did it seem that a battalion of Marines would be sent to the streets of Los Angeles because a few protesters threw fireworks and water bottles at police officers? Very unlikely. Yet that is happening.

Trump's Big Beautiful Bill adds between $3 trillion and $5 trillion to nation's debt

The reconciliation legislation recently passed by the House and being considered by the Senate is called the One Big Beautiful Bill, because that's the name Trump gave it. 

Like just about everything Trump touches, the name is a lie. Actually the legislation is horribly ugly, though it is indeed big.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget summarizes the impact on the nation's debt, which is currently $36.2 trillion. 

The House of Representatives’ Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 reconciliation bill – titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (OBBBA) – would add $2.4 trillion to primary deficits over the coming decade, adding $3.0 trillion to the debt including interest. If its temporary provisions are extended without offsets, we estimate it would add $5.0 trillion to the debt including interest.

This is why Elon Musk strongly opposes the bill, urging that it be killed.

Musk has been wrong about many things after he became a major Trump supporter in the 2024 election and led efforts to slash government programs through DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency that isn't really a department and has actually made the federal government less efficient through Musk's thoughtless chainsaw approach to cutting costs when a thoughtful scalpel was called for.

But Musk is absolutely correct that the One Big Beautiful Bill will increase, not decrease, federal budget deficits. A Washington Post story, "Trump proposes policies that would increase the soaring national debt," says:

President Donald Trump is pursuing an agenda that would add trillions of dollars to the soaring national debt, ignoring warnings from Wall Street, Republican deficit hawks and his outgoing cost-cutting champion.

Though Trump ran for office in part on pledges to slash the size of the federal government and rein in the debt, his record so far has been less fiscally disciplined.

His administration this week asked Congress to cancel a little more than $9 billion in spending in the current fiscal year — a fraction of a federal budget that has grown to nearly $7 trillion. The government has already spent nearly $170 billion more in the fiscal year that began in October than it did by this point in the previous year.

The tariffs that the White House has said would produce a gusher of new revenue face an uncertain future, challenged in court and subject to revision as Trump negotiates with foreign trading partners.

And while Trump has proposed cutting agency spending by $163 billion in the coming fiscal year, even that reduction in some programs would have little effect on overall spending, which is driven primarily by social safety net programs.

The national debt now sits at $36.2 trillion, after sharp increases under Trump and President Joe Biden. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates for deficit reduction, estimates that Biden approved $4.7 trillion in new 10-year borrowing, while Trump approved $8.4 trillion during his first term, including $3.6 trillion in emergency pandemic relief.

Now Trump and congressional Republicans are racing to approve his One Big Beautiful Bill, which would extend his expensive 2017 tax cuts, end taxes on tips and overtime wages, increase deductions for state and local taxes, and increase spending on immigration enforcement.

“This debt wave coming looks almost insurmountable. I’m not sure why [the Trump administration] is pushing it,” said Chris Rupkey, the chief economist at FWD Bonds. “They’re trying to do too many things at the start of the administration when, with the deficit they inherited, there’s just no room to increase it.”

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has a comprehensive, easy to understand list of the major provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill. They say:

The table below is a comprehensive tally of each provision included in the respective committee bills that make up the OBBBA, along with a deficit impact estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. This table will be updated if additional changes are made.

This is the first category in the list. It shows that extending and expanding the individual provisions of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would increase the nation's debt by $3.9 trillion.

I'm not sure why the SALT (State and Local Tax Deduction) item shows that increasing the cap to $40,000 for incomes below $500,000 from the current $10,000 cap would result in a ten year deficit reduction of $787 billion. I'd assumed that raising the cap would increase the deficit by reducing federal revenues. But maybe the reason is the mention of "limits on workarounds and high-income taxpayers," in line with a CNBC story. 

Trump's tariffs blocked by multi-state lawsuit led by Oregon Attorney General

Way to go Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. Yesterday the lawsuit brought by Oregon and eleven other states challenging the legal authority for Trump's tariffs got a win from the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Here's what Rayfield said in a media release.

Today, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down the tariffs imposed by President Trump’s executive orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision was made in a multi-state lawsuit led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield.

In reaction to the ruling, Attorney General Rayfield said:

“The court’s ruling is a victory not just for Oregon, but for working families, small businesses, and everyday Americans. President Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating. They triggered retaliatory measures, inflated prices on essential goods, and placed an unfair burden on American families, small businesses and manufacturers.

“We brought this case because the Constitution doesn’t give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy. This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim.”

The decision halts the existing IEEPA tariffs. It also stops President Trump from increasing tariffs, including the threatened 145 percent tariffs on imports from China and 50 percent tariffs on imports from the European Union.

The case is led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont.

An appeals court did impose a temporary stay on the lower court's decision. But this shouldn't be viewed as a clearcut victory for the Trump administration, according to a Washington Post story. 

The Court of International Trade dealt a blow to Trump’s aggressive trade policy Wednesday when it ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in imposing tariffs on all imported goods.

The law he used to impose the tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not allow for such sweeping levies, it said. The court noted that the IEEPA says the president may only use his emergency powers “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.”

The Trump administration quickly asked the federal appeals court to pause the decision. On Thursday, the court did just that, asking both the administration and the states and businesses who brought the suit to respond in early June.

The Liberty Justice Center, which filed one of the original suits challenging the tariffs that led to this decision, said in a statement Thursday that the pause is “merely a procedural step as the court considers the government's request for a longer stay pending appeal.”

Separately, a second federal court also ruled Thursday that many of Trump’s tariffs are unlawful. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the emergency economic powers law Trump invoked to impose many of the tariffs did not enable him to “unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy.”

...Legal experts have told The Washington Post that the lawsuits are likely to succeed if they make it to the Supreme Court. Tim Meyer, the co-director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at Duke University Law School, said the president is “overwriting” legislation that Congress passed to levy tariffs.

“When the White House is itself touting this as the largest tax increase in American history, I think that’s going to make the justices sit back and think the Constitution gives Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to levy duties, impose tariffs and to regulate foreign commerce,” said Meyer, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Trump-nominated Supreme Court justice, when he served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Until these lawsuits are resolved, they make it very difficult for the Trump administration to negotiate with the 90 or so countries that tariffs were imposed on. Why would any country want to make a deal with Trump since there's a good chance courts will rule that he doesn't have the legal authority to do what he did?

And even if this doesn't happen, Wall Street has given Trump a new nickname, TACO -- which stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. That's true. Whenever the Trump tariffs cause a marked decline in the stock market or threaten our country's economic vitality, Trump backs off on the tariffs. He's a terrible negotiator.

Trump has definitely become an authoritarian

There's good reason to argue that Donald Trump has always been an authoritarian.

He admires strongmen such as the dictators and quasi-dictators who run Russia, North Korea, China, Turkey, and Hungary. He demands absolute loyalty with no backtalk from people who work for him. He despises central tenets of democracy like free and fair elections unless he manages to win.

But after four months of his second term as president, now there's no doubt on which side of the authoritarian fence Trump is on. Just about every action he's taken has either pushed to the limit norms that have been recognized by every preceding president, or broken that limit.

Every morning when I wake up I keep thinking that there's no way the news is going to be filled with some outrageous act by Trump that surpasses the depravity of what he's already done. But many mornings I'm unpleasantly surprised by what my iPhone brings me.

Today it was...

Trump threatening 50% tariffs on the European Union for no reason other than negotiators for the EU are refusing to give in to Trump's crazy trade war demands.

Trump telling Apple that if the company doesn't produce all of the iPhones sold in the United States by factories within the United States, he'll slap a 25% tariff on iPhones -- ignoring the inconvenient fact that tariffs can't be imposed on individual companies.

Trump invalidating the visas of every student from a foreign country who is attending Harvard University just because he doesn't like Harvard refusing to let the federal government decide how the university is run.

There were other outrages, but these were at the top of my Authoritarianism List. 

Our nation truly is in dangerous territory. It seems clear that hardly any Republicans in Congress are willing to stand up to Trump. It also is increasingly evident that the Trump administration will ignore rulings by federal courts that it doesn't like, even Supreme Court decisions.

So there's a very good chance that we're going to suffer through a constitutional crisis like the United States has never seen before, because no president has been so willing to trash the Constitution like Trump is.

Today Michael Berman, a professor of law and of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, had an opinion piece in the Washington Post, "No, Trump can't force his agenda on U.S. entities. They have rights." Here's some excerpts:

Universities refuse to fully dismantle their DEI programs? The Trump administration withdraws billions of dollars in federal funding, and cancels visas for their foreign students. Law firms won’t donate their services to causes that President Donald Trump favors? Trump cancels their lawyers’ security clearances and refuses to deal with their clients. Journalists still call the Gulf of Mexico “the Gulf of Mexico”? Trump pulls their credentials for press briefings. The state of Maine allows some transgender athletes to compete on some girls’ and women’s sports teams? Trump threatens to cut off federal funding for its public schools.

Different targets, but one common tool: leverage. Trump uses federal funds and other government benefits to pressure individuals and institutions into exercising their constitutional rights as he prefers. This is extortionate. And therefore unconstitutional.

...If Trump can use threats over tariffs to pressure nations into opening their markets or strengthening their currencies or ordering more U.S. arms, why can’t he do the same with American institutions?

Because foreign nations have no constitutional rights, but American universities, lawyers, journalists and states do — rights protected by the First, Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Amendments. Trump’s efforts to leverage government benefits against them violate those rights by penalizing their exercise.

...Leverage is powerful. More than two millennia ago, Archimedes of Syracuse is reputed to have claimed that, given a long enough lever and a place to stand, he could move the Earth. The courts have long recognized that such power requires constitutional limits. The president may not withhold otherwise available funds, or deny access to government benefits, to make it costly for Americans to exercise their constitutional rights.

Salem area special election results looking good, especially to liberals

With Oregon allowing mailed ballots to be counted as long as they're postmarked on or before election day, more ballots will be received in the next few days. But the current results for key races in the Salem area likely will hold up, given the margin of victory (or defeat) in each of them.

The biggest news is the 56-44 passage of Measure 24-514, also known as the Livability Levy. Given that there was no organized opposition to an increase in Salem property taxes to fund the library, parks, and Center 50+, it wasn't a surprise that the measure passed. But 56% in favor testifies to the smart campaigning supporters of the measure put in.  

Liberals are pleased that Mai Vang, the candidate endorsed by Progressive Salem in the Ward 6 City Council race to choose a replacement for Julie Hoy after she was elected mayor, appears to have won fairly handily over the conservative candidate, Deanna Garcia, and Logan Lor. This restores the progressive/conservative split on the City Council to 6-3.

The four Salem-Keizer School Board seats up for election got some national attention from Taniel, a political observer who I follow on X, but will always think of as Twitter. Currently the progressive slate is leading in three of the four races.

In Zone 1 Harnisch, a progressive, has a 56-44 lead over Mitchell, a conservative.

In Zone 2 Parker, a conservative, has a 52-48 led over Arredondo Baca, a progressive.

In Zone 5 Guzman Ortiz, a progressive, has a 52-48 lead over Kroker, a conservative.

In Zone 7 Fuller, a progressive, has a 54-45 lead over Radka, a conservative.

Lastly, the Chemeketa Community College bond measure is passing by a 52-48 margin.

Conservatives up to dirty tricks in Ward 6 City Council race

Thanks to a Salem Reporter story by Joe Siess, "Newly formed PAC jumps into Salem council race as election winds down," I learned about the latest dirty trick that conservatives desperate to regain control of the Salem City Council are playing on voters.

In almost every local election cycle something like this occurs. The basic reason is that while liberals value playing fair (naturally with some exceptions), conservatives value doing whatever it takes to win.

Here's how the Salem Reporter story starts out.

Dru Draper says his days-old political action committee has jumped into Salem’s contested council race to make it more fair.

But the candidate supposedly benefitting from the late spending smells a political trick.

And so do others watching the three-way race for a seat on the Salem City Council representing northeast Salem.

The candidates include Deanna Garcia, Mai Vang and Logan Lor, and voters in Ward 6 will decide who will represent them come Election Day – Tuesday, May 20. 

Marion County Clerk Bill Burgess told Salem Reporter that so far 10.5% of ballots in Ward 6, or 1,241 out of 11,846 ballots, have been turned in. He said voter turnout is typically between 20-25% and that 30-40% of ballots come in on the final couple of days before the election.

Voters received the two-sided flyer in their mailboxes last week urging their support for Lor.  

The flyer was distributed by a political action committee called Citizens for a Better Salem.

State government records in the ORESTAR system show that the Citizens for a Better Salem PAC was formed on May 8, 2025. This political action committee shows a grand total of zero contributions, zero revenues, and zero expenses.

Yet it was able to send out a mailing supporting Logan Lor to residents of Ward 6, images of which were included in the Salem Reporter story.

Given that Draper is a Republican political strategist and former spokesman for the Republican caucus in the Oregon Senate, it seems clear that his newly formed PAC has only one purpose: to split the votes of Ward 6 residents between the two candidates who lean liberal, Logan Lor and Mai Vang (Vang is endorsed by Progressive Salem) to increase the chance that the more conservative candidate, Deanna Garcia, will come out on top.

Because this is a special election to fill the Ward 6 City Council vacancy created when Julie Hoy was elected Mayor, the candidate with the most votes wins outright, while generally it takes winning 50% of the votes plus 1 to win in May without going to a November election runoff between the top two candidates.

I take this last minute dirty trick by Dru Draper and his Citizens for a Better Salem PAC to be a sign that Mai Vang is running a strong campaign that has struck fear into the Chamber of Commerce and other conservative supporters of Deanna Garcia who desperately want to shrink the majority of progressives on the City Council to a slim 5-4.

Hopefully Mai Vang will still win. If Garcia does, and it's by a slim margin, we'll never know the role these last minute mailings had on the race. Dirty tricks shouldn't pay off with a victory, but sometimes sleazy tactics pay off in elections.

One thing that Salem Mayor Julie Hoy and President Trump have in common

Understand: I'm not equating Julie Hoy, the Mayor of Salem, Oregon, with Donald Trump, the President of the United States. Though they're each conservative, fortunately Hoy isn't nearly as obnoxious and dangerous as Trump.

But they do have this in common. Both Hoy and Trump benefit from the fact that doing something illegal or unethical can be done quickly, while holding someone to account for such an action can take months or years.

This relates to the adage, "Justice delayed is justice denied." Wikipedia explains:

"Justice delayed is justice denied" is a legal maxim. It means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all.

This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal system, because of the unfairness for the injured party who sustained the injury having little hope for timely and effective remedy and resolution. 

Today I phoned the Oregon Government Ethics Commission to check on the status of a complaint I filed against Mayor Hoy on March 12 of this year. My complaint alleges that Hoy engaged in prohibited private serial communications with a majority of the City Council, which led to the forced resignation of City Manager Keith Stahley.

As noted on its web site, the Ethics Commission has 60 days for its staff to conduct a Preliminary Review of the complaint. I was told that the 60 days has expired (which I already knew). The next step is for the Ethics Commission to decide at its June 13 meeting whether there is cause to move to the Investigation Phase, which can be 180 days. After that there can be a Contested Case Hearing and an Appeal to the Court of Appeals.

So the whole process can take the better part of a year, or even longer. Meanwhile, Hoy enjoys what I allege she was able to do: get rid of a City Manager she didn't like through an unethical action prohibited by state law. That happened quickly. Holding Hoy to account will require many more months, assuming the Oregon Government Ethics Commission agrees to investigate my complaint.

Also today, the United States Supreme Court held a hearing on Trump's executive order that he issued on his first day in office declaring that birthright citizenship isn't the law of the land, even though it is part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Trump issued the order because he wants to deport everyone who is in this country illegally. Doing away with the citizenship of children born to undocumented migrants would make that easier. However, the Supreme Court paid little attention to whether Trump's executive order is unconstitutional, because almost certainly it is.

The debate centered on whether district court judges could issue injunctions that apply to the entire country, in the case to forbid the Trump administration from not recognizing the citizenship of almost all children born in the United States (exceptions include children born to parents who work in a foreign embassy). A New York Times story says:

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday in a case related to President Trump’s executive order trying to end so-called birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented migrants. But the question before the justices was narrower: whether a single district court judge has the power to block a policy across the country.

...Shortly after being sworn in to his second term, Mr. Trump signed an order that reinterpreted the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to grant automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.

The order seeks to deny citizenship to babies born to undocumented migrants and visitors without green cards. As a practical matter, that would start with agencies in the executive branch refusing them citizenship-affirming documents like Social Security cards.

Multiple courts around the country have blocked the government from obeying that order, ruling that it is most likely illegal. They did so using universal injunctions, or orders that apply nationwide and cover people in similar situations who were not parties to the cases. At this stage, the Trump administration is challenging only the ability of courts to issue such orders.

...One of the major themes drawn out by lawyers for the plaintiffs was the practical effect of doing away with nationwide injunctions in a case that touched on an issue affecting all Americans. The lawyers worried that before the Supreme Court issued a final ruling on the question of birthright citizenship, there could be “chaos on the ground” if some states were allowed to keep the practice and others states did not.

Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s solicitor general, pointed out that if Mr. Trump’s policy prevailed in certain states, children of immigrants born there might not be able to get Social Security numbers. That could become a problem, he suggested, if they later moved to states that did recognize them as citizens, particularly if they tried to apply for government benefits.

Mr. Feigenbaum also noted that if a person’s citizenship depended on what state they were in, there could be widespread confusion about their immigration status as well. He wondered aloud whether the children of immigrants might be subject to deportation in states that did not recognize birthright citizenship and yet be shielded from removal in states that did.

Some of the justices raised an important issue.

If the Trump administration never appeals adverse rulings by lower courts to the Supreme Court, then if a nationwide injunction isn't in effect, undocumented migrants who were born in the United States and live in the 28 states where courts haven't ruled against Trump could be deported for an indefinite period -- giving Trump what he wants by delaying justice, which means justice denied.

So this is why Mayor Hoy and President Trump have something in common. Each politician is benefitting from a legal system that moves much more slowly than it took for apparently illegal/unethical actions to be carried out by Hoy and Trump.

Oregon's Attorney General leading 12-state lawsuit challenging Trump tariffs

It warmed my Oregon heart to see my state prominently featured in a Politico story today, "'There is No Rational Basis Behind What the President is Trying to Accomplish': Oregon's Attorney General is suing to block Trump's tariffs -- and he might win." Excerpt:

Attorney General Dan Rayfield

Dan Rayfield, Oregon’s rookie attorney general, says he didn’t want to spend his first months in office fighting presidential edicts in court. But along with the consumer protection and law-and-order duties that more typically define his role, the Democrat is now a key combatant in Donald Trump’s trade war, leading a 12-state lawsuit challenging the president’s sweeping tariff regime.

Rayfield, 46, is among the newest in a band of Democratic state attorneys general that’s been strikingly coordinated in challenging and stalling Trump’s avalanche of executive orders slashing federal spending, restricting birthright citizenship, gutting diversity and inclusion programs and much more since Jan. 20.

The looming impact of the tariffs in his trade-dependent Pacific Northwest state made taking the lead on the lawsuit an easy call, says Rayfield, who served as speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives before winning the AG post in November.

“Right now, in Canada, they are literally pulling [Oregon] products off of shelves,” he told POLITICO Magazine last week as he attended meetings in New York.

Rayfield has worked closely with Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes in leading the suit, which challenges Trump’s invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, enacted in 1977 and now used for the first time to impose tariffs.

“It’s an unprecedented misuse of emergency powers,” said Rayfield.

California was the first state to file suit over the tariffs last month (perhaps unsurprisingly, given its economic heft and Gov. Gavin Newson’s political profile). But Rayfield’s suit — State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump — is expected to be taken up first, and will likely be cited in the U.S. Court of International Trade this week, where judges will consider a private company’s challenge to the tariffs.

Here's the Introduction to the State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump lawsuit.

1. The Constitution assigns to Congress, not the President, the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Art. I, § 8. Yet over the last three months, the President has imposed, modified, escalated, and suspended tariffs by executive order, memoranda, social media post, and agency decree. These edicts reflect a national trade policy that now hinges on the President’s whims rather than the sound exercise of his lawful authority. By claiming the authority to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs on whatever goods entering the United States he chooses, for whatever reason he finds convenient to declare an emergency, the President has upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy.

2. The President has no authority to arbitrarily impose tariffs as he has done here. The text and history of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—the statute the President has invoked for the most damaging of his tariffs—confirm that the President cannot impose such tariffs under that law. And even if it did, it would not allow the worldwide tariffs he has imposed, which were not a response to an emergency as IEEPA defines it and have no nexus to the circumstances that purported to justify them.

3. Because these tariffs are unlawful, this Court should declare that they are not in force, enjoin the Defendant agencies and officers from enforcing them, and vacate the agency actions implementing them.

The Oregon Department of Justice issued a May 7 media release about the lawsuit:

Attorney General Dan Rayfield today led a coalition of attorneys general in filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of President Trump’s illegal tariffs. The motion seeks a court order pausing the tariffs imposed under four of President Trump’s executive orders without congressional action.

“These tariffs are doing real damage to Oregonians and our small businesses. Families cannot be expected to pay more at the store at a time when they’re already struggling to afford the basics.” Rayfield said. “The President can’t just slap on tariffs that hurt working people without following the law. I don’t know many families who can afford an extra $3800 a year.”

The motion asks the U.S. Court of International Trade to order federal agencies to stop collecting illegal tariffs President Trump imposed on most products worldwide. These tariffs impose a 145 percent tariff on most products from China, a 25 percent tariff on most products from Canada and Mexico, and 10 percent tariffs on most products from the rest of the world. It also asks the Court to put on hold President Trump’s plan to raise tariffs on imports from 56 other trading partners on July 9.

One analysis found that the average household will pay $3800 extra annually due to the tariffs. Businesses say they are already struggling. Todd Nelson is the co-owner of Bountiful Farms in Woodburn, and said the relationships he has spent years building with Canada have been greatly damaged.

“Many Canadian nurseries now have ‘Buy Canadian First’ initiatives, and just in the last few months, I’ve had several long-standing orders canceled. It’s not just disappointing – it’s heartbreaking,” Nelson said.

Oregon state agencies and universities are also bracing for significant cost increases, with budgets set before tariffs were in place. This will ultimately result in reduced services or delayed investments.

Economic analysis submitted to the court shows that state and local governments in the 12 states joining the motion stand to pay at least $3.4 billion per year in additional costs due to the tariffs. The states also submitted a Federal Reserve report noting that businesses “expected elevated input cost growth resulting from tariffs” and that “Most businesses expected to pass through additional costs to customers.”

Under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress has the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The executive orders cite the powers granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but that law applies only when an emergency presents “unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad and does not give the President the power to impose tariffs. Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977. No President had imposed tariffs based on IEEPA until President Trump did so this year.

The case is entitled State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00077-GSK-TMR-JAR) and is pending before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade.

The case is led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont.

Vanessa Nordyke makes closing argument for Salem's livability levy

City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke is an attorney. Today she made a presentation to the Salem City Club that she called a closing argument for Measure 24-514 on the May ballot -- which is unofficially called the livability levy, being a property tax increase to fund the library, parks, and Center 50+.

Nordyke said that she chose her black suit because it's what she likes to wear to a closing argument. "Closing," because ballots need to be postmarked on or before May 20, or put in a drop box before 8 pm on the 20th. That's just eleven days away.

Here's a slide from her presentation that I consider to be one of the most persuasive reasons to vote for the measure, if someone hasn't already made up their mind about the livability levy.

In the top row on the very right is a logo of the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce. In the middle of the third row is the logo of the Marion County Democrats. It's rare that these organizations are on the same side of a major issue, especially one that involves a tax increase.

But there they are, strange bedfellows, united in their view that Salem is best served by having a properly funded library, parks, and senior center. Nordyke's next slide said, "And now, a few words from the organized opposition to the levy..." There weren't even a few words, because there's no organized opposition.

One reason is described in the following excerpt from a valuable Salem Reporter story about Measure 24-514 by Rachel Alexander that was published a few days ago, "Salem Reporter answers your questions about city tax levy and what comes next."
Download Salem Reporter answers your questions about city tax levy and what comes next - Salem Reporter

Why doesn’t the city just spend less?

City officials have taken some steps to cut costs, including freezing hiring on some vacant positions, eliminating an assistant city manager job and curtailing travel and supply spending.

But some rising expenses are outside the city’s control. Pension rates, a major driver of growing city expenses, are set by the state. Salem will spend about $11 million more this year paying those costs for already-retired workers.

An outside committee of business and nonprofit executives reviewed the city’s budget early this year. They concluded the city was already providing services more efficiently than other Oregon cities, and that the issues with the city’s budget were largely due to structural issues outside city control.

Erdmann said that review was what led the home builders to endorse the levy.

City officials say more cost-cutting would mean reducing services.

If the livability levy doesn't pass, cuts would be extreme. Here's a few examples: the library would only be open 20 hours per week, with over half of library staff laid off; all hard (permanent) restrooms in 70 neighborhood parks would be closed; Center 50+ would cut two part-time employees, reducing outreach, programming and volunteer recruitment.

So I urge you to vote YES on Measure 24-514. We've got to keep Salem livable.

If criticizing Israel is antisemitic, then I'm an antisemite

Antisemitism used to mean what it actually is: hostility toward Jews, including hatred, discrimination, and prejudice. But lately in some circles the meaning of the word has expanded to something that it isn't: criticism of Israel.

This is completely wrong. It conflates two separate things, the Jewish religion and the nation of Israel. There are lots of people in Israel who strongly oppose policies of the current right-wing Israeli government, which is headed up by Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Many, if not most, of those people are observant Jews. So are they antisemitic, somehow being prejudiced against themselves? Of course not. They simply disagree with what their government is doing. This includes how Netanyahu and his cronies are conducting the war against Hamas.

Yet in this country Trump and his acolytes have been trying to equate anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian protests with antisemitism. That's ridiculous. There's good reason to believe that the Israeli government is committing war crimes against the two million or so people who live in Gaza.

Protesting this deserves praise, or at least a recognition that everyone in the United States, citizen and non-citizen alike, are entitled to express their views about the war freely. 

My own viewpoint is in line with how most Americans seem to see the Israeli-Hamas conflict. Hamas was wrong to start the war on October 7, 2023. Israel was justified in striking back against Hamas. However, the rules of war require that civilian casualties be minimized and that civilians not be forced to leave their homes or denied humanitarian aid such as food, water, and shelter.

Israel has failed to comply with both of those requirements. Gaza has been almost completely destroyed, with the population continually forced to move from one area to another by Israeli forces. An estimated 15,000 children have been killed in Gaza, with over 25,000 injured. That infuriates me.

I'm also deeply angered by Israel severely limiting humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, most of whom have no connection with Hamas and the October 7 terror attacks. Amnesty International tells it like it is:

Israel must immediately end its devastating siege on the occupied Gaza Strip which constitutes a genocidal act, a blatant form of unlawful collective punishment, and the war crime of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, said Amnesty International, marking two months since Israel reimposed a ban on the entry of aid and commercial goods into the Strip on 2 March 2025.  

By blocking the entry of supplies critical for the survival of the population, Israel continues its policy of deliberately imposing conditions of life on Palestinians in Gaza calculated to bring about their physical destruction; this constitutes an act of genocide.  

Harrowing new testimonies gathered by Amnesty International throughout April reveal the catastrophic human cost of Israel’s two-month long total siege, where starvation and denial of life-saving essentials are being used as weapons of war in flagrant violation of international law. 

“The extent of human suffering in Gaza for the past 19 months has been unimaginable, and it is a direct consequence of Israel’s ongoing genocide. Apart from a brief respite during the temporary truce, Israel has relentlessly and mercilessly turned Gaza into an inferno of death and destruction,” Erika Guevara Rosas, Senior Director for Research, Advocacy, Policy, and Campaigns at Amnesty International. 

“For the past two months, Israel has completely cut off the supply of humanitarian aid and other items indispensable to the survival of civilians in a clear and calculated effort to collectively punish over two million civilians and to make Gaza unlivable. This is genocide in action.  

“The international community must not continue to stand by as Israel perpetrates these atrocities with impunity. States, especially Israel’s allies, must act now and take concrete measures to pressure Israel into immediately lifting its total siege and allowing the unhindered entry of humanitarian aid and its safe distribution across all of Gaza. A sustained ceasefire is essential to ensure that can happen.” 

This week in the Hague, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is holding public hearings to examine Israel’s obligations in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations (UN) and other international organizations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), including the provision of humanitarian assistance. Amnesty International reiterates the critical urgency of allowing UNRWA, other UN agencies and humanitarian organizations, to carry out their life-saving work across the OPT without obstructions.   

Israel’s refusal to allow aid into Gaza also flouts repeated ICJ orders to ensure Palestinians have access to sufficient humanitarian assistance and basic services. 

So, yes, if criticism of Israel is antisemitic, then I'm proud to be labeled an antisemite -- because I abhor how Israel is using starvation and forced displacement as a weapon of war against the people of Gaza.