Trump’s Tariffs Are Back — And Crazier Than Ever

SUMMARY

Ed Elson, joined by Peter Harrell and Rohan Goswami, analyzes the return of aggressive U.S. tariffs under Donald Trump, the legal and political challenges facing the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger, and Oracle's escalating debt crisis. The episode explores the economic, legal, and market implications of these major developments, highlighting risks for investors and industries alike.

MAIN POINTS

• Trump announces 50% tariffs on Canadian goods and new tariffs on Brazil, reigniting trade tensions. [1:02]
• Trump utilizes rarely used Section 338 of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to impose tariffs on Canada, raising legal questions. [6:02]
• Independent studies show that the majority of tariff costs are borne by Americans, fueling inflation concerns. [12:01]
• A judge issues a temporary restraining order halting Paramount's $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery on antitrust grounds. [18:00]
• Political motivations are discussed as a key factor in the legal challenge to the Paramount-Warner Bros. deal, with all 12 suing states led by Democratic attorneys general. [24:00]
• Rohan Goswami predicts the Paramount-Warner Bros. deal will eventually close, but only after significant concessions or prolonged litigation. [27:00]
• Oracle faces a $7 billion collateral bill due to its deteriorating credit rating and mounting debt, signaling broader risks in AI-related corporate borrowing. [28:00]

DETAILED ANALYSIS

Recent developments in U.S. trade policy have reintroduced significant volatility to global markets. Former President Donald Trump has announced a sweeping 50% tariff on most Canadian imports, citing alleged discrimination against U.S. industries. This move follows a pattern of escalating trade actions, including a new 25% tariff on select Brazilian imports and the pending expiration of earlier 10% tariffs.

The legal foundation for these tariffs has become increasingly complex and contentious. After the Supreme Court ruled in February that the Trump administration’s previous legal basis for tariffs was unlawful, the administration pivoted to a phased approach using different statutory authorities. Initially, Section 122 tariffs were implemented, but as these are set to expire, the administration has yet to finalize their replacement under Section 301, creating uncertainty for importers.

A particularly notable development is Trump's invocation of Section 338 of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to justify the new tariffs on Canada. This provision, largely dormant since the 1930s and rarely, if ever, used for actual tariff imposition, offers the executive branch broad and flexible authority. Legal experts question whether Section 338 remains valid, but its appeal lies in its lack of procedural constraints compared to other statutes.

The Trump administration’s reliance on such obscure legal mechanisms has led to a situation where the courts are often playing catch-up, with litigation lagging behind policy changes. This strategy effectively allows tariffs to remain in place for extended periods, even if they are later found unlawful.

The economic consequences of these tariffs are significant. Multiple independent studies indicate that 85% to 95% of tariff costs are ultimately paid by American consumers and businesses, either through higher prices or absorbed costs passed along the supply chain. The imposition of higher tariffs has contributed to rising inflation, exacerbating affordability issues for U.S. households.

Despite these negative effects, there is limited support within the administration and among some policymakers for targeted tariffs to protect specific industries, such as steel and autos. However, the breadth and severity of the current tariffs, particularly the unprecedented rates on Canadian goods, appear to be driven primarily by President Trump’s longstanding personal affinity for tariffs as a policy tool. This approach has introduced renewed unpredictability into U.S. trade relations, with the potential for further escalation against other trading partners.

Turning to the media sector, the proposed $110 billion merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery has encountered a major legal obstacle. A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order at the request of twelve state attorneys general, all Democrats, who argue that the deal would create excessive concentration in the cable and movie industries, leading to higher prices and reduced consumer choice.

The order pauses the merger for 14 days, with a hearing scheduled to determine whether a longer injunction is warranted. If the deal is not completed by September 30, Paramount faces substantial financial penalties, including a $600 million quarterly ticking fee owed to Warner Bros. Discovery.

The legal challenge is marked by both antitrust and political dimensions. While the states’ case focuses on potential anti-competitive effects in theatrical releases and cable television, observers note the political undertones, given the partisan composition of the attorneys general and the involvement of high-profile figures like David Ellison. The Ellison family’s political connections and financial resources are seen as both an asset and a liability in navigating the regulatory landscape.

Industry analysts suggest that Paramount may ultimately be forced to divest key assets, such as CNN or certain studios, to satisfy regulators and complete the merger. Despite the legal hurdles and shareholder anxiety—Paramount’s stock has dropped 25% and Warner Bros. Discovery’s 5%—the prevailing view among insiders is that the deal will eventually close, albeit after significant concessions or protracted litigation, possibly reaching the Supreme Court.

In the technology sector, Oracle’s financial position has deteriorated sharply. The company’s stock is down 35% year-to-date, and its credit rating has been downgraded to BBB-, just above junk status. Oracle’s aggressive borrowing—$43 billion over the past year to fund data center expansion—has outpaced its revenue and resulted in negative free cash flow of approximately $24 billion.

This precarious financial situation prompted the State Authority of Wisconsin to demand a $7 billion collateral payment for a planned data center project, further increasing Oracle’s borrowing costs. The company’s reliance on debt, rather than equity, to finance its AI infrastructure buildout exemplifies a broader trend in the technology industry, where an estimated $489 billion in AI-related debt has been issued this year. With hyperscalers like Oracle accounting for only 40% of this total, significant systemic risk may be accumulating beneath the surface, raising concerns about the sustainability of current investment patterns and the potential for broader market disruptions.

LINKS

• Prof G Markets YouTube channel
• Prof G Markets newsletter subscription
• "Notes On Being A Man" book order page
• No Mercy / No Malice newsletter subscription
• Prof G Markets Instagram
• Scott Galloway Instagram
• Ed Elson Instagram
• Ed Elson X (Twitter)
• Ed Elson Substack
• Gusto payroll and benefits software offer

KEYWORDS