US Supreme Court blocks Trump tarrifs

Friday’s news from the US Supreme Court that President Trump’s use of tariffs under his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was unlawful came as a shock to much of the public, but some economists say they were not surprised, while others say that position might be one of cynicism rather than reality. But, no matter how it is termed, this represents a strong push-back on what has been seen as a legislative acquiescence to the demands of Trump since he began his second term.

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs,” Roberts elaborated in his 21-page written opinion. “We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that (the International Emergency Economic Powers Act) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs."

Along with immigration, tariffs have been a keystone of his administration, and also a campaign promise that the US would be very rich from them, But taken with tax cuts for the wealthy the lost revenue must be made somehow, and this was a major source of revenue, now compromised.

The blow to importers in the US that paid what is in effect a tax, was in most cases passed onto American consumers, and while some companies stockpiled products ahead of their implementation, many smaller business could not, and many families were paying more than they wanted for them and, on the back of higher grocery prices, and increasing housing costs the president has received increasingly negative poll ratings on his handling of the economy.

To no one’s surprise Trump, in less than five minutes after the 6-3 decision was announced he stated that he would still levy global tariffs. As The Hill reported, “Even so, Trump still has plenty of power to impose new tariffs to replace the old, and he is warning trading partners against celebrating with his critics.”

“Any Country that wants to ‘play games’ with the ridiculous supreme court decision, especially those that have ‘Ripped Off’ the U.S.A. for years, and even decades, will be met with a much higher Tariff, and worse, than that which they just recently agreed to,” Trump wrote Monday in a post on Truth Social.”

“Trump had used the IEEPA to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China soon after taking office last year, claiming those countries had not done enough to stop fentanyl trafficking into the U.S.,” the report added.

In April of last year, on the so-called Liberation Day, Trump’s announcement in the White House Rose Garden, themselves questionable in their calculation brought uncertainty not only to global markets but the aforementioned consumers, and the fallout caused the zigzag pattern of tariffs, on again, then off again, causing as much concern on Wall Street, as well as Main Street.

Now there are calls for refunds from American companies as well as politicians, and state leaders such as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker who has called for a check to be cut for refunds to Illinoisans.

On Monday, NBC News reported that “FedEx today filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeking a “full refund” of all tariffs it paid to the government under the overturned International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

“Accordingly...Plaintiffs seek for themselves a full refund from Defendants of all IEEPA duties Plaintiffs have paid to the United States,” lawyers for FedEx wrote in the lawsuit lodged at the Customs and Border Protection Agency in the United States Court of International Trade.”

Going ahead, the picture looks murky and in the same report from NBC we have “House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., [who] said today that the House was not likely to get on the same page when it comes to legislation on tariffs.

“We have a wide range of opinions on this topic, so I think it’d be difficult to build consensus around it, but we’ll have to see,” Johnson said.

Asked if Congress should take the lead on tariffs now that the Supreme Court has issued a ruling, Johnson said the House would “wait and see what the administration does with the executive authority” regarding tariffs.

“As I’ve said, it may take a couple weeks to sort all this out, given the Supreme Court opinion, so we’ll see,” Johnson said.

According to the Associated Press, “Trump has already signed an executive order enabling him to bypass Congress and impose a 10% tax on global imports, starting on Tuesday, the same day as his State of the Union speech.”

Taking a closer look at Trump’s next move, Yahoo Finance reported, “On Friday, he imposed a "global" tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That statute allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address trade deficits. After 150 days, Congress would need to approve any extension. That authority, however, has never been used to impose tariffs,” and is predicted to be a cumbersome process.

“On Monday, the US Customs and Border Protection agency said that it will stop all collections of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as of 12:01 a.m. EST on Tuesday. The agency said in a message to shippers on its Cargo Systems Messaging Service that it will deactivate all tariff codes associated with President Trump's IEEPA-related ‌orders.”

Ratification of the US trade deals from last year with the European Union are now pending, waiting for clarification. Yahoo Finance reported, "Tariff rates on goods negotiated separately, such as steel, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, and agricultural products, aren't impacted by the Supreme Court's decision and will remain in place."

In characteristic fashion the president lashed out against those justices that voted against him, and, “calling them “fools and lap dogs” and he suggested that two he had nominated during his first term — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — were “an embarrassment to their families” because they didn’t take his side,” according to The New York Times.

While the embattled president engages in his Plan B, according to some on Capitol Hill, he faces this from the NBC/Marist polls: “As of February 2026, a NPR/PBS News/Marist poll shows a record 59% of Americans disapprove of President Trump's handling of the economy, the highest in his terms. Only 36% approve, with 56% believing his tariffs hurt the U.S. economy. Key concerns driving this sentiment include inflation, cost of living, and the potential for a recession. “

Last April the president said that his goal was to even the playing field and force foreign companies to make their products in the United States, but that goal was hardly feasible, with tariff retaliation, and the near impossibility of suddenly reformatting global supply chains, which in the best case scenario could take years, and considerable expense. And, now we see the reality of those lofty goals, failure, rebuttal from the Supreme Court, and anger from those who expected more, and got less.

“The Supreme Court just confirmed what we already know. Trump’s tariffs are illegal. He did it without the support of Congress or the voters, and you paid the price,”  Gov. Pritzker said in a short video posted on the social platform X.

He claimed Trump “illegally took $1,700 from every American family,” a figure that falls within the range cited in Yale Budget Lab research from March of last year, which projected an average household loss of between $1,600 and $2,000 due to the tariffs.

“That’s a tax on working people. Donald Trump now owes you a refund for every dollar of it. America’s working families deserve a refund. Cut the check, Donald,” Pritzker added in a report from The Hill.

Notably, they added, “The governor, who’s been floated as a possible 2028 presidential contender, demanded in an accompanying letter that the president issue refunds of that amount to more than 5.1 million households in Illinois, totaling nearly $8.7 billion.”

President Trump and the National Guard

When President Trump ordered the National Guard to safeguard American’s capital, Washington DC, in mid August from “violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals” there was a huge outcry of disbelief, and even horror, from residents and political commentators alike, at what seemed to be an unnecessary action, in a city that has seen a 33 percent drop in homicides, and seemed to be another example of presidential overreach, and while many did Google searches on crime statistics and protested the guard being used this way, and while vast legions of talking heads appeared on national television and social media decrying the president's actions, much seemed, especially, in hindsight to have missed the point of Trump’s actions.

This seems not to be about crime, at all, but reflects long held statements by the president on Democratic cities, and the general belief that their leadership, in fact, all Democrats were soft on crime; a belief that has roots from Richard Nixon who ran on a law and order platform and reached the heights of the George Floyd protests, that were tagged by violent hooligans who seized the opportunity for theft and mayhem; and, all of which played into the hands of Republicans who funneled the perception of Democratic leadership ignoring violent crime while they upheld trans rights and affirmative action for Blacks in employment and university admissions.

This is not to say that crime does not exist in many large American cities, it does, and tackling a complicated issue requires more than political posturing, and as The New York Times noted in a report, locking up criminals, addressing the root causes of crime has experts they consulted pointing “to an unclaimed middle ground for savvy politicians who want to acknowledge the problem, put aside the clash between facts and feelings and focus on what works.”

While Washington, DC has had a severe crime reduction for the most violent of crimes, an incident with a former DOGE staffer who was violently assaulted in an attempted car jacking, the time for the administration to act was now, and this they did, and in well publicized statements,Trump set up a test pilot to continue the actions of the guards to Democratically led cities especially, the bluest of the blues, Chicago, and set up a perfect storm to create the chaos that he began in his first term of office.

Crime and crime stats are not the point, but the intentions to harness the base of his support to see him as a strongman against lefty liberals who can’t control their cities is sure to shore up support in the upcoming midterms, where despite overall strength, the president is seeing his support dwindle; especially, among worried seniors and low income people, who for the most part wholeheartedly voted to put him back in office, and who might defect over potential losses for health coverage from The Big Beautiful Bill, and who in ruby red town halls saw Republican lawmakers booed, hissed, and shouted down by constituents, now discouraged by national leadership.

 

Whether this will bring them back from the brink of possible defection  is in question, but Trump who wants to keep the Dems from taking back the House  in the upcoming mid term elections needs these potential defectors whose lives for the most part, lie outside of large urban areas; and, if you add the brouhaha over the Epstein files, with subsequent protests from his base who feel deserted by his seeming abandonment of the Deep State, and the disastrous press meeting by Attorney General Pam Bondi, that she had not cleared with the White House, and her backtracking on the existence of a client list kept By Epstein that she previously said was on her desk later changing her statement to say she had lots of files on her desk, it’s obvious that Trump is worried about taking a drumming in the midterms.

It may be that some plans were being made for the National Guard to be called in to safeguard the public in Washington, the earlier play in June in Los Angeles was a starting point for a boost to the base, and to serve as a distraction from the Epstein furor, has made that effort a template for future actions.

Taking things further, on Monday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hesgeth ordered the use of side weapons for the guard in Washington, DC, but while this is a significant development, some residents, and media, have reported that they are also picking up trash, and painting over graffiti in the capital city, and earlier reports did say they the guard would be used as part of a beautification effort which has raised suspicion among cynics in Washington, of which are not in short supply in the city.

Some crime statisticians have attributed beautification efforts as a crime deterrent in cities like Baltimore, according to The New York Times.

As CNN reported, “President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday tasking his secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, with establishing “specialized units” in the National Guard that will be “specifically trained and equipped to deal with public order issues” — the clearest sign yet he intends to expand the US military’s role in domestic law enforcement activities across the country.”

Interestingly enough, guard units have been pulled from red states to patrol DC who voted overwhelmingly for Trump, but ironically have much higher crime rates in their respective states of West Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Ohio, Louisiana and Tennessee.

“A US official told CNN on Monday that some troops will carry M4 rifles, as that is their primary weapon, whereas military police, for example, primarily use a M17 handgun. A Joint Task Force spokesperson said the troops are authorized to use their firearms for “personal protection” only, meaning self defense— and “not for policing.”

While this bolsters the president’s efforts, it also creates some confusion, of what they can do or not to do. It’s important to know that since the District of Columbia is not a state with only semi autonomous rule, Congress, and the president, can control much of the governance of the capital city.

“The DC National Guard is unique in that the president has the authority to activate them under Title 32, though that authority is typically delegated to the secretary of the Army. Otherwise, National Guard troops elsewhere in the country are under the control of their governors while on Title 32,” of the Posse Comitatus Act. 

Notably, Trump however did go over the head of California governor, Gavin Newsom to Los Angeles to protect federal buildings amidst protests against ICE deportations of undocumented persons, something that may happen in Chicago, as early as next week says Tom Homan, the designated Border Czar, to round up undocumented immigrants, creating a perfect storm for residents.

In a Monday press conference, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, along with Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, said that the threat was a publicity stunt to distract Americans from Trump’s failed policies.

Ahead of the governor’s statements was this: “DC sets a bad example,” said “Rachel Van Landingham, a former Air Force judge advocate and current law professor at Southwestern Law School, told CNN on Monday,” adding, “It sets an example of normalizing this when nothing is normal about it, and DC is not representative of other states. … It would just be a whole new world for them to try a Washington, DC-type maneuver in Chicago or anywhere else that’s not Washington, DC, because Washington, DC, is so legally different than any other area.”

A question of stagecraft versus statecraft is on the minds of some observers, but a distinction may be hard to discern, say others. But, Pritzker did note in his opening remarks, “What President Trump is doing is unprecedented and unwarranted. It is illegal. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.”

“No one from the White House or the executive branch has reached out to me or to the mayor. No one has reached out to our staffs. No effort has been made to coordinate or to ask for our assistance in identifying any actions that might be helpful to us. Local law enforcement has not been contacted. We have made no requests for federal intervention. None.”

Warming to the occasion, Pritzker added, “If this was really about fighting crime and making the streets safe, what possible justification could the White House have for planning such an exceptional action without any conversations or consultations with the governor, the mayor, or the police?

Let me answer that question: This is not about fighting crime. This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to deploy the military in a blue city, in a blue state, to try and intimidate his political rivals.”

"This is about the president of the United States and his complicit lackey, Stephen Miller, searching for ways to lay the groundwork to circumvent our democracy, militarize our cities and end elections.”

Mamdani surge might energize Democrats

When Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker announced that he was going to run for a third term as Illinois governor, local tongues began to wag, and ponder, was he giving up presidential ambitions, or was he using this as a time to solidify his national reputation, after a series of appearances, and blunt criticism of Donald Trump, who in turn, has openly criticized him, and calling him names.

Pulling back from the optics, and the rhetoric, with the Democrats sidelined by the juggernaut of the second Trump administration, it’s going to be tough sledding for them as they attempt to make a comeback, and while it’s been done before after being in the weeds, notably with the election of Bill Clinton; but, they have faced an onslaught of bad publicity, which was ratcheted up when Joe Biden stepped aside, and Vice President Kamala Harris stepped up from the bench, to keep the presidency in Democratic hands.

As we once noted about the failed campaign of Hillary Clinton, the book has not been written on that loss, but we did offer a post mortem, of sorts, shortly after her defeat, it’s now safe to say that Trump won in no small measure by appealing to many of the fears and cultural concerns about Brown and Black people, immigrants, and especially trans people.

In short, the Democrats have a bad reputation, with the reality of Trump’s command of the culture wars in America; and, while some conservative positions  had gone underground after the Reagan years, only to reemerge decades later, Trump brought them forward in a defense of traditional values, and pilloried attempts, starting with the bathroom wars, by others to support these populations.

The great American culture figure, Will Rogers, once famously said: “I belong to no organized party; I am a Democrat.” Aphorisms aside, that may be the central question. What do they stand for? Who can they appeal to?

Framing those questions has become the $64,000 question, and Pritzker raising his national profile, stating pride in defending diversity, affording equality in education, and gender diversity might not win him points with the right, or even the extreme left, but, entering the fray in the city that defines much of urban America, comes Zohran Mamdani who beat out disgraced former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, in the recent city primary, And, in a city like New York, the shock was akin to the election of  American Bishop Robert Prevost to the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church. 

All roads might have once led to Rome but can the tables be turned to allow a 33 year old Ugandan born Indian with an unwieldy name to take on the most embattled and diverse of American cities, Chicago excepting? And, also one that has previously eaten and spit out lesser mortals as they attempt governance. 

Two parts of his plank that have warmed the hearts of New Yorkers are the “bread and butter” issues of historically high rents, groceries, and fears of subway crimes, to mention just a few. The response has been overwhelming, and it’s also notable for the absence of hot button cultural issues, perhaps echoing Abraham Lincoln’s famous words of a house divided cannot stand.

One significant factor is Mamdani’s attraction for younger voters, and as NY Mag reported a Marist poll gave Mamdani a 34 point lead, “among voters under 45”. Coupled with a younger turnout, “voters 25 to 34 have been the largest share of early voters among any age cohort, making up one quarter of the early vote with voters under 45 comprising almost half the early vote.”

If retail politics rule the day, then Mamdani walking from one end of Manhattan to the other, video crew in hand, before the Friday primary election, while his much older opponent, Cuomo, was reticent to reveal his schedule, speaks volumes to a new day dawning for a younger, physically abled candidate which has not been seen in the last three presidential elections cycles; and, while this is not a presidential election, it does give a sharper edge to how a Democratic candidate might perform on the national stage.

What might be held against him is the label of Democratic Socialist which might need clarification for some voters, especially if elected and a crop of similarly identified voters are also running for office; but, then again, we've seen this before nationally, with the run of Bernie Sanders, and his socialist tag that joined a debate about who was more progressive, a battle never won.

Then in 2019, there was a presage of sorts with mayoral elections in Chicago, that prompted The Economist to note the upswing in aldermanic races with a surge of Socialist Democrats to state, “Looking past the label, however American socialists are more progressive Democrats rather than Castros in waiting, and their rise poses more of a challenge to the Democratic Party than to capitalism.”

We may see that again, and already with the anti immigration efforts from Trump, he has already, along with others, been talking about Mamdani’s status as a naturalized citizen, and either deporting him, or denaturalizing him, a lengthy process that could rattle his primacy.

Up for grabs, in any local, or national election is the Black vote, something that has factored into the success of any Democratic president since the 1960s, and in the last presidential election played a role in Trump’s victory where more Black men, younger, voted for him giving him a decisive edge.

If we take a look at Mamdani and his voters we see that, early as it is, “young Black voters appear to have gone decisively for him in the NYC primary. According to one primary exit poll (with a small sample size), about 70 percent of Black voters under 50 voted for Mamdani citywide,” according to The Intercept.

For a national candidate, the focus on bread and butter issues can take a sharp turn towards success. but despite accusations of taking the Black vote for granted, the future for Democrats may have to take a turn from traditional transactional strategies to recognizing that Black communities are not monolithic.

It’s apparent that for voters youth matters, and while younger Black voters are turning out for Mamdani, there is also a surge within Democratic circles for Patrick Roath, a young 38 year old candidate vying to win a House seat from incumbent Stephen Lynch, 70, who some voters feel is not only youthful enough, but not as progressive as they need, or desire, as a force against Trump.

Roath, much like Mamdani, is pushing hard for those same “bread and butter” issues that he feels are most important for voters in Massachusetts, such as affordable housing access to jobs. but also to return and redefine the issues for Democrats, admittedly no small feat, in and of itself. 

While some may see this as a way to regain the ground lost in 2024, a return to party roots, Rogers infamous quote aside, may have some traction, especially in the midterms next year, and especially as the president is coming under close scrutiny for his alleged involvement with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, a story that seems to have legs, to use the old newspaperman jargon.

That  aside, considering Roath as an example, there may be some good old fashioned youthful New Frontier “vigah” for his campaign, than establishment stalwarts such as Pritzker.

Part and parcel of Roath’s energy comes also from his moral outrage of the Trump detentions, and deportations, of undocumented immigrants, as the administration attempts to meet a goal of 3,000 deportations each day.

When we take a look at the high cost of housing, especially on the  East Coast as well as across the nation, voters may wonder why this is not a priority of the president. Then add healthcare, or more specifically, the potential loss of 11 million Medicaid recipients from “The Big Beautiful Bill” passed by Congress, then the die may be cast for a path forward.

Still there is some pushback against youth as a factor, and in an interview with WBUR, Bill Curry, a former member of the Clinton administration and Democratic veteran, seemed wary of a “bright and shiny” new candidate, and wants to stress past Democratic legislation, and achievements.

He said that there needs to be more than youth, but instead a return “specific asks” citing past successes such as Civil Rights, for Black Americans, backlash to the Watergate scandal, to jump start the push back against Trump.

Political and financial costs of migrants in the US

The ongoing migrant crisis in the United States has become a definitive issue for the country and its elected officials as they attempt to grapple with the influx of over 100, 000 people mostly from Central and South America, after being sent to Northern states by Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott in August of 2023 and has also become a central issue in the November presidential elections, especially by the presumed Republican nominee, Donald Trump, as he attempts to regain the White House after losing to Joe Biden, indeed, immigration has become a central plank in his undeclared campaign platform.

Reprising his previous statements in the 2016 campaign, he has also told his base that the migrants are poisoning the bloodlines of Americans, and blaming the increase to President Biden, who has struggled with the burgeoning crisis, and has given piecemeal contributions to the welfare and housing of their families, as well as to individuals, while there is a deliberate pushback in receiving cities such as Denver, Los Anglees and Chicago where residents have fought against housing them in their communities; but, for some observers,this is ironic,since many are descended from immigrant ancestors.

Despite, or perhaps because of American nativism, seen in the New York Draft Riots of , 1863 and the resulting backlash against Irish arrivals (who were frequently lampooned in cartoons of the era), shows the receptivity of Trump’s message on ready ears. And, he has said, if re-elected, he would round up migrants and deport them to their home countries.

For many Americans there is no distinguishing between asylum seekers, protected by international law, and illegal immigration, and, as some in the national media have noted, for many, the facts don’t matter.

Recently overheard on a bus in Chicago, was an elderly white man yelling about polluted bloodlines by the immigrants, mostly who are Venezuelan, and blaming Biden for “allowing them in,” while some heads nodded in agreement.

Chicago has approximately 12,000 migrants residing in shelters across the city, of the more than 36,300, reported by The Chicago Tribune. 

Taking a wider look, and turning back to Abbott, he has sent, according to the Texas Tribune,102,000 migrants to Northern cities including New York, to the tune of $148 million from his state coffers.

For the receiving cities, the subsequent financial cost has been a burden and the new mayoral administration of Brandon Johnson, has struggled to keep up,bleeding cash, to the tune of $1.5 million each day. A trip last November to meet with White House officials for $5 billion in help did not materialize.

Federal help to migrants is currently limited to three methods: the Temporary Protective Status, governed by The US Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security for those people unable to return to their homes, and offers temporary work permits for Venezuelans, and others in the country arriving before July 31, 2023. Asylum seekers can seek work permits after 150 days of residence

Then there is Asylum, for those fleeing their home countries to evade persecution due to “race, religion, political opinion or other factors,” reported Crain’s Chicago Business.. 

The third is Parole, (separate from the criminal system) which the government grants to those people to determine admittance for humanitarian benefits, making them eligible for work permits. But, all three of these three routes are overburdened by administrative and technical challenges with the software used to access the program.

What remains is inadequate and the Republican dominated U.S. House of Representatives is reluctant to take a much needed legislative effort for fear of giving support to the Biden reelection campaign, but as we have noted before in 1965 the Immigration and Nationality Act favored skilled immigrants and family reunification rather than a country quota, and in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized “millions of unauthorized immigrants, mainly from Latin America, who met certain conditions.”

Since that time Congress has failed to pass comprehensive immigration law and new rules for asylum seekers, bringing us to this current juncture.

Chicago news stories of immigrant mothers reusing diapers, being served bad food, and suffering abusive staff has not helped Johnson’s efforts, especially since many from the city's traditional white ethnic communities did not want another Black mayor after the defeated, and much maligned, Lori Lightfoot.

Backlash from advocates for the homeless community has also been strident as have those from some members of the local Latino leadership, and individuals who protest that some of the recent arrivals are getting work permits, while undocumented residents have labored in the shadows, being taxed without representation, for years. A protest held on Saturday in the Pilsen neighborhood did just that.

.

Adding further fuel to the fire are longtime Chicago Black residents, who have faced decades of racial discrimination, and feel that they are being discriminated against, and are being passed over, and many have expressed their frustration with Johnson for his help to the migrants.

As we were told some months back, falsely, by an older Black woman, “the migrants are getting $7,000 a month.” These sentiments echo much of the tensions in Chicago,and reverberating in other urban areas receiving large influxes of immigrants.

Money to help them settle in the States is a central issue, and at the end of February, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker rolled out a proposed $52.7 billion budget, of which he has included $182 million for the new arrivals.

WTTW, Chicago’s PBS affiliate reported that, "Leaders say that amount, combined with funding from Cook County and potentially the city of Chicago, is enough to cover the crisis through the end of the calendar year”.

They also noted that “Pritzker used amplified rhetoric to make his case for the funding, chastising Illinois’ three Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives for recently voting down a federal immigration overhaul “because Donald Trump told them to, and they’re afraid of him.” Pritzker also reprimanded Texas Gov. Greg Abbot for transporting nearly 36,000 asylum seekers to Chicago.

“Children, pregnant women and the elderly have been sent here in the dead of night, left far from our designated welcome centers, in freezing temperatures, wearing flip flops and T-shirts. Think about that the next time a politician from Texas wants to lecture you about being a good Christian,” Pritzker said to loud applause from Democratic lawmakers. “Listen, maybe some of you think we should just say, ‘This is not our problem,’ and that we should let the migrant families starve or freeze to death. But that’s not what decent Midwesterners do. That’s not what leaders do. We didn’t ask for this manufactured crisis. But we must deal with it all the same.”

“However, Democratic reluctance has so far kept the General Assembly from approving the $160 million Pritzker diverted from this year’s budget in November to spend on the migrant response. It’s expected he’ll have to negotiate to get members of his party on board with the additional $182 million, given that members of the minority party are openly hostile to the idea.”

Meanwhile in Denver local and state budgets are being stretched to the limits to provide basic humanitarian need after spending $60 million, and Mayor Mike Johnston has said while the early morning arrivals of people dressed in shorts and sandals left homeless on the streets is not a sight he wants to see, told USA TODAY, “we don’t want that to happen but we also know that we can’t provide an infinite amount of services. We’re having to pull back the amount of services we can provide, the number of people we can serve, and figure out how to balance the budget to get there.”