Welcome back to insights from Mac and Mike. In this discussion, we dive into two major topics making waves: a landmark $30 million jury verdict against the City of Seattle for its handling of the 2020 Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP/CHAZ) zone, and the ongoing debate over President Trump’s tariffs—especially after recent court challenges.
The Seattle CHOP Verdict: A Warning to Cities That Abandon Law Enforcement
A King County jury recently awarded approximately $30 million (around $26 million to the father and $4 million to the estate) to the family of 16-year-old Antonio Mays Jr., who was shot and killed in Seattle’s CHOP zone during the summer of 2020. The jury found the city negligent in its response—police had abandoned the East Precinct, barriers blocked access, and emergency services (including ambulances) were delayed or unable to enter the area promptly.
This “Summer of Love” zone, as then-Mayor Jenny Durkan called it, saw protesters and unaffiliated individuals take over several blocks, declaring it an autonomous area without official authority. Violence escalated, people died, and many were injured. The lawsuit argued that if the city had enforced its laws and prevented this takeover, Mays Jr.’s death could have been avoided.
The jury agreed: Cities can’t selectively enforce laws or allow lawlessness in parts of their jurisdiction. Once incorporated, a city has the authority—and obligation—to maintain order everywhere within its borders. Mayors and officials don’t get to pick and choose where laws apply.
This has clear implications for other Democrat-run cities facing similar issues. Think Minneapolis during unrest tied to immigration enforcement (ICE operations), or Chicago’s South Side, where weekend shootings routinely claim dozens of lives with seemingly little intervention. If patterns of non-enforcement lead to preventable deaths, could cities face liability? From a common-sense view, yes—it’s a failure of duty. Police officers acting in good faith have protections against lawsuits in wrongful-death cases during duty, but systemic omission (not acting at all) is different from commission (acting wrongly).
As taxpayers, we may not like footing the bill, but holding leaders accountable could pressure better policing. Votes for officials have direct consequences—liberal policies that de-emphasize enforcement can lead to higher costs when things go wrong. This verdict might spark more lawsuits in under-policed areas, forcing change through legal and financial leverage.
Tariffs: Short-Term Pain for Long-Term Gain in American Manufacturing
Shifting to tariffs, recent news highlighted a Supreme Court ruling (6-3) striking down some of President Trump’s broad tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that the law doesn’t authorize the president to impose tariffs this way—it’s not an unlimited delegation of Congress’s taxing power.
Media outlets sometimes framed it as “Trump’s tariffs ruled illegal,” but that’s imprecise. It was a split decision on a specific emergency statute, not a blanket ban. The administration has other legal avenues (like Section 301 or others), and officials like Secretary Bessent have indicated they’ll pivot to tested authorities. Tariffs aren’t going away; the approach is adjusting.
Why push tariffs? They’re strategic tools to rebuild U.S. manufacturing. Countries like China subsidize industries, dumping goods below cost to keep jobs and stability at home. We can’t do that—our system doesn’t allow government bailouts to undercut prices. The result: offshoring, lost jobs, and vulnerable supply chains (remember COVID shortages, including medicines mostly made abroad?).
Tariffs level the field. Yes, they can raise consumer prices slightly (studies show around a 0.5% one-time increase, not ongoing inflation). But companies respond by building plants here to avoid duties—Apple, chipmakers, automakers are investing billions in U.S. facilities. Manufacturing jobs create exponential value: one factory job supports others in services (dry cleaners, restaurants, etc.) around it.
Critics say it hurts allies like Canada or Europe. But post-WWII, we’ve rebuilt their infrastructure (often better than ours) without full repayment, and they’ve taken advantage with trade imbalances. Trump (and NATO pressure) pushes fairness—why subsidize others indefinitely? Long-term, reshoring strengthens national security and the economy. Short-term costs pale against decades of hollowed-out manufacturing.
Broader Themes: Rule of Law, Personal Impact, and Election Integrity
These issues tie together: Without enforced laws—whether local policing or fair trade—chaos follows. A moving example: An African-American grandmother in D.C., a lifelong Democrat, praised Trump for reducing crime after her grandson was murdered. Nothing matters until it’s personal. As the old New York saying goes, a conservative is a liberal mugged yesterday.
On elections, concerns linger about non-citizen voting in local races (e.g., New York City allowing it), though studies show minimal federal impact. The SAVE Act pushes citizenship proof for federal votes. Perception matters—even if fraud is rare, people need confidence in secure elections to avoid division.
Finally, on the White House ballroom addition: Trump is funding it privately (hundreds of millions from donors, no taxpayer money). It’s to create an impressive indoor space for state dinners, projecting America’s strength like palaces abroad. Critics complain anyway, but it’s no cost to us and stems from love of country.
Donald Trump can be blunt, hyperbolic, and polarizing. Not everything he says is perfect. But evaluate policies by results: safer streets in some areas, reshored jobs, stronger alliances through fairness. Short-term gripes aside, the long-term benefits for America are hard to ignore.
What do you think—does accountability like Seattle’s verdict change anything, or are tariffs worth the trade-offs? Drop your thoughts below.
Mac and Mike out.
Recent Comments