Let's start with wanting to work together on this. Then do a voice chat to figure out what roles would be best. You be CEO. Let me be Executive Chairperson. This would be my first choice.
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) March 1, 2026
You seem to be working on the AI layer. There is a human layer to the same equation that speaks to my strengths.
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) March 1, 2026
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) March 1, 2026
The Economics of Technological Change What history and models can (and can’t) tell us about AI .......... It’s still difficult to predict what AI will actually do, and I have no special insights on that front. But while AI is an unprecedented technology, hype and fear about the impacts of new technology — together with hard thinking about the issue — are anything but new. In fact, concerns about the effects of new technology and attempts to model those effects go back more than two centuries, to the early days of the Industrial Revolution and the dawn of economics as an intellectual field.
It is indeed a historic visit to Israel. I’m confident it will add new momentum to the bilateral friendship between our nations. https://t.co/3dZpsf4Tqt
Attack of the Zombie Tariffs A brain is a terrible thing to have eaten ........... Never one to accept limitations on his power, Trump rushed to impose new tariffs using an obscure clause, Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. Section 122 tariffs have a 150-day limit, at which point they expire. So Trump officials are now claiming that they’ll find ways to reconstruct the tariffs using other legal loopholes before the expiration date is reached. ............. Why this desperate attempt to keep tariffs high? A MAGA loyalist would say it’s to preserve what those illegal tariffs have accomplished. But even before they were struck down, the tariffs had achieved none of their stated goals. In fact, they had put those goals further out of reach. .................. the U.S. trade deficit for all of 2025 was about the same as it was in 2024. .........
what Trump cited was a cherry-picked, misleading number that bears no relation to reality.
................ Trump also claimed that his tariffs would revive American manufacturing. In fact, manufacturing employment has declined since Liberation Day. ........... Trump likes to boast about the immense revenue generated by the tariffs. And they did indeed bring in some money — tariffs are taxes, and taxes yield revenue. .............. Revenue from the Trump tariffs, even pre-Court, wasn’t enough to make a large dent in the deficit. Moreover, it wouldn’t even pay for the increase in the deficit caused by the passage of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill tax cuts. Nor would it be enough to cover Trump’s call for a 50 percent increase in military spending — a rise so large that the White House hasn’t yet submitted a budget, two weeks past the statutory deadline, because the Pentagon hasn’t been able to figure out how to spend that much. .................. In reality, by the time of the Supreme Court ruling, Trump’s assertion that tariffs are a magic elixir that solves all problems wasn’t convincing anyone. Independent voters disapproved of his tariff policy by a three-to-one margin. Accordingly, when the Court’s decision came down, some Democrats immediately worried that the ruling would help Trump politically, giving him an escape route from an unpopular and ineffectual policy. ................. It has been clear from the beginning that a primary motivation for tariffs was that they empowered Trump personally. They allowed him to punish governments he didn’t like, demand subservience from other countries as the price of lower tariffs, and offer waivers and exemptions to companies that put money in his own pocket. And maybe Trump can’t bear the thought of losing that power. ................. The language of Section 122 calls for a flat-rate tariff on everyone. This means that nations Trump tried to punish — like Brazil, which faced high tariffs for daring to try Jair Bolsonaro for treason — have just received a big break. Meanwhile nations that groveled to Trump, like the UK, have just learned that they humiliated themselves for nothing: ...................... The obvious answer is that Trump can’t bring himself to acknowledge defeat. His tariff strategy is, by any reasonable standard, dead, and the tariffs should be dead too. But they won’t stay dead; they just keep shambling along.
A Supreme Court Test of Presidential Power: The Fate of Trump’s Emergency Tariffs
In early November 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., a case that could significantly reshape the balance of power between Congress and the presidency in matters of trade and economic emergency. At stake is the legality of sweeping tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a statute originally designed to address extraordinary national emergencies, not to serve as a standing trade weapon.
The Tariffs at Issue
Beginning in February 2025, the Trump administration imposed broad tariffs on imports from China, later extending them to Canada, Mexico, and several other trading partners. Unlike traditional tariffs enacted through congressional authorization or trade statutes such as Section 301 or Section 232, these measures were justified under IEEPA, a law that grants the president authority to regulate economic transactions during a declared national emergency.
The administration argued that persistent trade deficits and foreign economic practices constituted such an emergency. Critics, however, countered that this interpretation stretched IEEPA beyond recognition—turning a law meant for rare crises into a blank check for unilateral trade policy.
Lower Courts Push Back
Both the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against the administration, finding that the tariffs exceeded the president’s statutory authority. The courts emphasized that IEEPA does not explicitly authorize the imposition of tariffs and warned that allowing such a reading would effectively sideline Congress’s constitutional power over taxation and trade.
These rulings set the stage for Supreme Court review, transforming what began as a trade dispute into a constitutional confrontation over executive power.
Where the Supreme Court Stands
As of January 25, 2026, the Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision. The Court declined to release an opinion on January 20, and the next scheduled opinion release date is February 20, though additional dates could be added. If not resolved in February, the case could extend into late spring or even June, the traditional end of the Court’s term.
Despite the uncertainty around timing, legal analysts largely agree on direction. Based on oral arguments, lower-court precedents, and expert commentary, the Court appears more likely than not to strike down the tariffs—either entirely or in significant part.
What the Markets Are Saying
Prediction markets offer a quantitative glimpse into expectations. Platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket currently assign only a 26–29% probability that the tariffs will be upheld. In other words, markets are pricing in a roughly 70–75% chance that the Court will rule against the administration.
While not definitive, these markets aggregate the views of traders responding to legal analysis, judicial signals, and historical patterns—often serving as an early barometer of consensus.
Potential Consequences
If the tariffs are invalidated, the immediate effect could be substantial duty refunds for importers who paid billions of dollars under the disputed measures. However, such refunds would not be instantaneous; administrative processes could take months to unwind the tariffs and return funds.
More importantly, a ruling against the administration would draw a clear boundary around IEEPA, reinforcing that emergency powers are not a substitute for congressional authorization. It would signal that economic “emergencies” cannot be indefinitely invoked to bypass the legislative branch.
A Broader Constitutional Moment
Beyond trade and tariffs, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle over executive authority in the modern presidency. In an era where emergencies—real or perceived—are increasingly used to justify unilateral action, the Court’s decision will help determine whether IEEPA remains a scalpel for true crises or becomes a sledgehammer for routine policymaking.
However the Court rules, the case is likely to echo far beyond customs forms and supply chains. It speaks to a deeper question at the heart of American governance: where emergency ends, and constitutional order begins.
Today, I'm announcing a software tool + service for small business owners.
I built and sold my last company for $52,000,000. From idea to exit, it took almost exactly 4 years. We scaled to 150+ people, and in that entire time, I only worked on the business 782 hours in total. I…
The other night had a dinner with autonomous vehicle pioneer @AdrianKaehler1 who wrote the computer vision system for the Stanford team that became @waymo.
He told me at dinner that he didn’t believe @elonmusk could finish Robotaxi.
I appreciate @chetan_bhagat for opening up a necessary conversation around wheelchair usage at airports, even if the reality is more layered than it appears.
I’m not sure it’s fair to call this “abuse” without context.
