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.
राष्ट्रपति शक्ति की परीक्षा: ट्रंप के आपातकालीन टैरिफ़ का भविष्य
नवंबर 2025 के पहले सप्ताह में, अमेरिकी सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. मामले में मौखिक दलीलें सुनीं—यह एक ऐसा मुकदमा है जो व्यापार और आर्थिक आपात स्थितियों में कांग्रेस और राष्ट्रपति के बीच शक्ति-संतुलन को नए सिरे से परिभाषित कर सकता है। इस मामले का केंद्रबिंदु है इंटरनेशनल इमरजेंसी इकोनॉमिक पावर्स एक्ट (IEEPA) के तहत राष्ट्रपति डोनाल्ड ट्रंप द्वारा लगाए गए व्यापक टैरिफ़ की वैधता—एक ऐसा क़ानून जिसे मूल रूप से असाधारण राष्ट्रीय आपात स्थितियों के लिए बनाया गया था, न कि स्थायी व्यापार नीति के औज़ार के रूप में।
विवादित टैरिफ़
फरवरी 2025 से शुरू होकर, ट्रंप प्रशासन ने चीन से आयात पर व्यापक टैरिफ़ लगाए, जिन्हें बाद में कनाडा, मैक्सिको और अन्य व्यापारिक साझेदारों तक विस्तारित किया गया। पारंपरिक टैरिफ़, जो आमतौर पर कांग्रेस की स्वीकृति या सेक्शन 301 और सेक्शन 232 जैसे व्यापार क़ानूनों के तहत लगाए जाते हैं, उनसे अलग ये टैरिफ़ सीधे IEEPA के अंतर्गत लागू किए गए।
प्रशासन का तर्क था कि लगातार बने हुए व्यापार घाटे और विदेशी आर्थिक व्यवहार एक राष्ट्रीय आपात स्थिति के समान हैं। आलोचकों ने इसे IEEPA की भावना और उद्देश्य का गंभीर दुरुपयोग बताया—एक ऐसा प्रयास जो संकट-प्रबंधन के लिए बने क़ानून को राष्ट्रपति की एकतरफ़ा व्यापार नीति के हथियार में बदल देता है।
निचली अदालतों की असहमति
अमेरिकी कोर्ट ऑफ इंटरनेशनल ट्रेड और फेडरल सर्किट की अपीलीय अदालत—दोनों ने प्रशासन के विरुद्ध फ़ैसला सुनाया। अदालतों ने स्पष्ट किया कि IEEPA टैरिफ़ लगाने की स्पष्ट अनुमति नहीं देता और ऐसी व्याख्या स्वीकार करने से कर और व्यापार पर कांग्रेस की संवैधानिक शक्ति व्यावहारिक रूप से निष्प्रभावी हो जाएगी।
इन निर्णयों ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट की समीक्षा का मार्ग प्रशस्त किया और एक व्यापार विवाद को संवैधानिक टकराव में बदल दिया।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट की स्थिति
25 जनवरी 2026 तक, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कोई अंतिम निर्णय जारी नहीं किया है। 20 जनवरी को कोर्ट ने इस मामले से संबंधित कोई राय जारी नहीं की, और अगली निर्धारित राय-जारी तिथि 20 फरवरी है—हालाँकि आवश्यकता पड़ने पर अतिरिक्त तिथियाँ जोड़ी जा सकती हैं। यदि फरवरी में निर्णय नहीं आता, तो मामला जून तक खिंच सकता है, जो कोर्ट के कार्यकाल का पारंपरिक अंत होता है।
समय को लेकर अनिश्चितता बनी हुई है, लेकिन कानूनी विशेषज्ञों की राय अपेक्षाकृत स्पष्ट है। मौखिक बहसों, निचली अदालतों के निर्णयों और विशेषज्ञ विश्लेषण के आधार पर, यह अधिक संभावना है कि कोर्ट टैरिफ़ को पूरी तरह या आंशिक रूप से रद्द कर देगा।
बाज़ार क्या संकेत दे रहे हैं
पूर्वानुमान बाज़ार इस मुद्दे पर एक संख्यात्मक झलक देते हैं। Kalshi और Polymarket जैसे प्लेटफ़ॉर्म वर्तमान में टैरिफ़ के बरकरार रहने की संभावना केवल 26–29% आँकते हैं। इसका अर्थ है कि बाज़ार लगभग 70–75% संभावना मान रहा है कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट इन टैरिफ़ को अवैध ठहराएगा।
हालाँकि ये बाज़ार निर्णायक नहीं होते, लेकिन वे कानूनी विश्लेषण, न्यायिक संकेतों और ऐतिहासिक प्रवृत्तियों पर आधारित सामूहिक अपेक्षाओं को प्रतिबिंबित करते हैं—और अक्सर उभरती सहमति का प्रारंभिक संकेत देते हैं।
संभावित प्रभाव
यदि टैरिफ़ रद्द किए जाते हैं, तो आयातकों को अरबों डॉलर की शुल्क-वापसी का अधिकार मिल सकता है। हालाँकि यह प्रक्रिया तत्काल नहीं होगी; प्रशासनिक जटिलताओं के कारण रिफ़ंड में कई महीने लग सकते हैं।
इससे भी अधिक महत्वपूर्ण यह होगा कि ऐसा निर्णय IEEPA की सीमाओं को स्पष्ट करेगा और यह संदेश देगा कि आपातकालीन शक्तियाँ कांग्रेस की स्वीकृति का स्थायी विकल्प नहीं हो सकतीं। यह स्पष्ट करेगा कि आर्थिक “आपात स्थितियाँ” विधायी प्रक्रिया को दरकिनार करने का साधन नहीं बन सकतीं।
एक व्यापक संवैधानिक क्षण
व्यापार और टैरिफ़ से परे, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections आधुनिक राष्ट्रपति पद में कार्यकारी शक्ति के विस्तार पर चल रही बहस का एक निर्णायक मोड़ है। ऐसे समय में जब वास्तविक या कथित आपात स्थितियों का उपयोग एकतरफ़ा निर्णयों को सही ठहराने के लिए बढ़ता जा रहा है, सुप्रीम कोर्ट का फ़ैसला यह तय करेगा कि IEEPA एक सर्जिकल औज़ार बना रहेगा या सामान्य नीति-निर्माण का हथौड़ा बन जाएगा।
कोर्ट चाहे जो भी निर्णय दे, यह मामला केवल सीमा शुल्क और आपूर्ति शृंखलाओं तक सीमित नहीं रहेगा। यह अमेरिकी शासन व्यवस्था के मूल प्रश्न को छूता है—जहाँ आपातकाल समाप्त होता है, और संवैधानिक व्यवस्था की शुरुआत होती है।
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.
