How Europe Needs 50% of Trump’s Threat
Treasury Secretary Scott Bescent shared some insights during an interview with Bloomberg TV on Friday. He mentioned that Europe faces challenges due to a lack of “group action,” which complicates trade negotiations with the United States.
Bescent has discussed this issue before. He doesn’t simply criticize the European Union; instead, he points out the geopolitical realities. The European Union is an alliance of 27 independent countries, each with its own economic interests and political priorities. Negotiating a trade deal that encompasses all of them is, well, like trying to steer a canoe with 27 paddles.
But there’s a deeper layer to Bescent’s argument. He suggests that Trump’s threat of a 50% tariff on EU imports might actually push Europe to address these inefficiencies. The increased risk and potential costs associated with delays could create the urgency that Europe needs to take negotiations seriously.
“I think this is only at the pace of the EU,” Bescent remarked. “I hope this will set fire under the EU.”
This perspective challenges the common media narrative. Critics often label Trump’s tariffs as reckless, but from a game theory standpoint, they serve a purpose. The real issue isn’t that Europe lacks interest in trade, but rather that its decision-making structure makes decisive action nearly impossible. Trump’s approach forces decisions and sharpens focus.
As Bescent noted, “some countries don’t even know what’s being proposed in their names.” This highlights a governance crisis, which is the kind of issue that looming deadlines and difficult outcomes tend to clarify.
It seems Trump hasn’t weakened transatlantic trade; instead, he’s providing the shock therapy needed to bring about change.
Harvard Enrollment Games: How Foreign Students Help the Privatization of Public Policy
President Trump’s announcement regarding visa restrictions for international students at Harvard University has drawn attention to the rising share of foreign students at elite U.S. universities and the resulting impact on American students and immigrants.
The increase in international students isn’t just harmless globalization—it represents a withdrawal for profit.
This move by Trump to revoke visa privileges from prestigious institutions like Harvard has raised important questions, not merely symbolic but substantial, targeting the revenue streams behind an unsustainable and inequitable model.
Harvard proudly claims its global appeal, yet the math behind that appeal is often overlooked. The surge in international enrollments has effectively sidelined American students, both citizens and immigrants.
The statistics are telling. At Harvard, the share of international undergraduate students has grown significantly over the past two decades, even though the total class size has remained consistent. Two decades ago, around 1,600 students were admitted, with just 7% classified as international. That figure has since risen to 18%, even though overall class sizes have not increased.
This means that these new international students are not adding to the number of accepted students; they’re taking spots that could have gone to Americans. In simple terms, for each international student admitted, an American student was turned away. This also affects immigrants and permanent residents who have long-term ties to the country.
Proponents argue that accepting international students ultimately benefits domestic students, as they pay higher tuition fees. However, this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Harvard’s tuition fees remain the same for everyone. Claims about subsidies benefiting American students don’t seem substantiated. If a company raises prices for certain customers, it doesn’t typically do so to lower prices for others. It’s a classic case of price discrimination aimed at maximizing profits, and that’s what’s occurring here.
Harvard’s ability to issue visas as a public institution, while keeping the financial gains private, illustrates how it monetizes public resources: converting visas into educational revenue.
This isn’t about educational policy—it’s essentially a form of profit-taking.
It’s important to clarify that these foreign students are not immigrants. They are temporary residents who, more often than not, return home after their studies or when their visas expire. They aren’t a mass migration; they are, in essence, a source of income.
Harvard isn’t opening its doors to the world out of idealism but rather for the same reasons that powerful institutions typically operate today.
