President Donald Trump on Wednesday accusedIreland’s tax systemof luring American pharmaceutical companies, taking revenue and jobs from the U.S. because of its low corporate tax rate.
"Ireland was very smart. They took our pharmaceutical companies away from presidents that didn’t know what they were doing, and it’s too bad that happened," Trump said while sitting next to Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin.
Trump claimed the move would never have happened had he been president.
President Donald Trump and Irish Taoiseach Micheal Martin speak to reporters ahead of meetings in the Oval Office at the White House March 12, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images / Getty Images)
American pharmaceutical companies started migrating to Ireland in the early 2000’s after U.S. production peaked in 2006 ahead of the global financial crisis.
"When the pharmaceutical companies started to go to Ireland, I would have said that’s OK if you want to go to Ireland. I think that’s great. But if you want to sell anything into the United States, I’m going to put a 200% tariff on you so you’re never going to be able to sell anything into the United States," Trump said. "You know what they would have done? They would have stayed here.
"I have great respect for Ireland and what they did. And they should have done just what they did, but the United States shouldn’t have let that happen," he added.
In 2024, Ireland exported €72.6 billion in goods, which amounts to just over $79 billion, to the U.S., a reported increase of roughly $20 billion from 2023, according to Ireland’s Central Statistics Office.
Trump confirmed his belief that Ireland is "taking advantage" of the U.S., but he said his bigger beef is with the European Union.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gestures as she addresses a closing press conference at the end of an EU summit in Brussels Oct. 17, 2024. (Getty Images / Getty Images)
The EU on Wednesday slapped 25% retaliatory tariffs on U.S. steel and aluminum in response to tariffs Trump imposed last week.
"The European Union treats us very badly, and they have for years," Trump told reporters, claiming the tariffs created "ill will."
Trump said he planned to "respond" to the EU tariffs and suggested he may take similar actions that he threatened to levy against Canada when the government of Ontario said it would be passing electricity price hikes on to U.S. customers.
Ontario’s threat, which it issued after Trump’s first announced round of 25% tariffs, was reversed after Trump said he would double U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 50%.
"We’ve been abused for a long time, and we will be abused no longer," Trump said regarding Washington’s relationship with the EU.
"The European Union treats us very badly, and they have for years," he added. "They sue our companies and win massive amounts of money."
The FBI has said it is handing over subpoenaed documents to Republican House Judiciary lawmakers, responding to a letter that called for “transparency and accountability” at the bureau.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel about information and documents that he said were withheld under former FBI Director Christopher Wray.
In a letter dated March 7, FBI Assistant Director Marshall Yates responded by including documents and information about alleged pipe bombs that were found near Democratic and Republican headquarters in Washington in January 2021, the FBI’s communications with social media companies, and investigations into threats against school officials.
“As a sign of good faith, we are providing this initial production more than a week ahead of the Committee’s subpoena deadline,” Yates wrote. “But this will not be the last production we will send to satisfactorily comply with the Committee’s subpoena. To that end, we are diligently working to completely comply with your subpoenas.”
Due to “the diverse and broad subject matters implicated in your requests, the FBI is providing” an initial response, he said, adding that more documents will be identified and submitted to the House panel.
Documents sent to Jordan’s office will also include “minimal redactions” to protect sensitive law enforcement information, the FBI said.
In a letter dated Feb. 24, days after Patel was confirmed as the FBI’s director, Jordan requested a bevy of documents and information about the FBI’s activity under Wray, who stepped down from his post as President Donald Trump took office in January.
That included Wray’s alleged “slow-walking” of an investigation into pipe bombs found near the headquarters around the time of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach as well as the FBI’s usage of “confidential human sources” on Jan. 6.
Some Republicans have asserted that FBI informants were present on Jan. 6, details of which were later confirmed by the bureau’s inspector general office in December 2024. While there were no undercover FBI agents present, there were more than two dozen informants present on Jan. 6, the report found.
Other details sought by Republicans in their letter include the FBI sending agents to local school board meetings following a controversial memo that was issued in 2021 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland about threats against school administrators and teachers. Details about the FBI Richmond office sending a memo that labeled some Catholics as “violent extremists” were also requested in the letter.
Earlier this year, Wray told CBS News that he stepped down because he “deeply” cares about the FBI and its staff, while Trump “had made it clear that he intended to make a change.” As a result, he said that his “conclusion was that the thing that was best for the Bureau was to try to do this in an orderly way, to not thrust the FBI deeper into the fray.”
Meanwhile, Patel has said that he wants the FBI to be more transparent and to rebuild trust in the federal law enforcement agency.
The Epoch Times contacted Jordan’s office for comment on Tuesday.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is moving ahead with an antitrust probe of Microsoft that was opened in the waning days of the Biden administration, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter.
The FTC staff have in the recent weeks been meeting companies and other groups to gather information, the report said. Microsoft and the FTC did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The FTC had last year opened a sweeping antitrust investigation into Microsoft, including into its software licensing and cloud computing businesses, Reuters had reported in November.
The investigation was approved by then FTC chair Lina Khan ahead of her departure. Andrew Ferguson became the new chair when President Donald Trump took office in January.
The FTC is examining allegations that Microsoft is potentially abusing its market power in productivity software, such as by imposing punitive licensing terms to prevent customers from moving from its Azure cloud service to rival platforms.
The agency has asked Microsoft details about its data centers, its struggles to find enough computing power to meet customer demand and information about licensing rule changes expected later this year, the Bloomberg report said.
Microsoft's decision to cut funding on its own artificial intelligence projects after striking a deal with OpenAI, is also under scrutiny, the report said.
It has also been looking into Microsoft's practices related to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence products.
The Trump administration’s push to streamline the bureaucracy and boost the productivity of federal employees has struck a nerve among voters. A substantial majority of Americans now believe that federal workers deserve the same treatment as private-sector workers, according to the I&I/TIPP Poll.
The national online I&I/TIPP Poll, taken from Feb. 24-26, asked 1,434 adults the following question: “Should federal employees be treated differently than private-sector workers in terms of pay, benefits, and job protections?” The poll has a margin of error of +/-2.6 percentage points.
The answer was a resounding “no.” Of those queried, 65% said “no, they should be treated the same.” Just 22% answered, “yes, they should receive more.” Another 13% responded “not sure.”
The responses by political affiliation showed this is a non-partisan issue down the line. Among Democrats, 63% answered “no,” while only 25% said “yes.” Republicans weren’t much different: 66% said “no,” 24% said “yes.” Independents, a bit surprisingly, were strongest in their response, with 70% saying “no,” and just 14% giving a “yes” to the poll.
It seems to be a very strong issue of fairness, even when looking at the responses of very different demographic groups. Men (60% no, 28% yes) were actually lower than women (70% no, 16% yes) in rejecting equivalent treatment for federal and private sector workers.
Also, white respondents (71% no, 16% yes) were stronger in their rejection of differential treatment than minority respondents (55% no, 32% yes). But note: Even among black and Hispanic poll participants, there was still a healthy majority rejecting the idea of better treatment for federal workers.
One of the more controversial requirements brought into the Trump administration by Elon Musk, the controversial head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is for federal workers to file weekly reports listing things they accomplished in the preceding period.
I&I/TIPP asked Americans about this: “Do you support or oppose requiring federal employees to submit a weekly report detailing their work activities?”
There, once again, voting-age respondents gave solid backing, with 56% saying they either “support strongly” (32%) or “support somewhat” (24%), while only 30% said they either “oppose somewhat” (12%) or “oppose strongly” (18%).
But this time, there was a very clear divergence among the political parties and independent/third-party poll participants. Democrats (34% support, 53% oppose) were strongly against weekly reports. Meanwhile, a majority of both Republicans (81% support, 10% oppose) and independent voters (52% support, 31% oppose) supported the idea.
What’s behind this resentment of government workers by average Americans? It’s not mere envy. Studies going back to the 1970s and beyond show clearly that government employees are both better paid and less productive than their equivalent private-sector counterparts.
As a 1979 congressional Joint Economic Committee study bluntly put it, “The American people are clearly tired of paying more and more for a Federal Government which daily seems to become less and less effective. While they want to put a stop to the growth of big government, they seem to be weary of empty antigovernment rhetoric which offers no solutions for improving its efficiency and lowering its cost.”
Federal civilian workers whose highest level of education was a bachelor’s degree earned 5 percent more, on average, in the federal government than in the private sector (see figure below).
Federal civilian workers with no more than a high school education earned 34 percent more, on average, than similar workers in the private sector.
Only one group, those with professional degrees (lawyers, doctors, etc.) and those with doctorates, earned less than their private-sector counterparts: Roughly 24% less.
Yet another study issued by Princeton’s Griswold Center for Economic Policy Studies, which included benefits, found: “With respect to hourly remuneration (wages plus employer contributions to defined contribution plans), federal workers earn a premium of about 39%, taking differences in employee characteristics into account.”
That’s an enormous gap. And it likely accounts for much of the huge difference in total productivity between the two groups, public and private. All things equal, if you pay one person a lot more than another person to do the same job, the productivity difference will reflect that.
As for now, actually shrinking the federal workforce to enhance productivity has been going strong since Donald Trump entered office.
According to the Federal Reserve, the estimated net 10,000 jobs lost by the government sector in February was the largest since 2022 – when the COVID lockdowns made hiring for government posts difficult.
But the actual progress under DOGE appears to be much bigger.
“The recent decline in federal employment aligns with the Trump Administration’s objectives to both reduce government expenditure and enhance efficiency,” Peter Earle, a senior economist at the American Institute for Economic Research, told the Daily Caller.
He added: “The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been the tip of the spear in that regard implementing significant workforce reductions across various federal agencies. To date, approximately 62,530 job cuts have been reported across 17 federal agencies, reflecting efforts to streamline operations and eliminate redundancies.”
As for self-reporting what people do on the job for the federal government, DOGE head Elon Musk asserted on X nearly three weeks ago: “To be clear, the bar is very low here. An email with some bullet points that make any sense at all is acceptable! Should take less than 5 mins to write.”
If nothing else, however, the persistent difference between private-sector workers and public-sector workers underscores why most Americans either support or understand why President Trump and DOGE chief Musk are cutting workforces and removing unnecessary departments.
Already, Musk says he’s cut at least $105 billion, part of the ultimate goal to save U.S. taxpayers $1 trillion. Can it be done? As the I&I/TIPP Poll plainly indicates, taxpayers hope so.
I&I/TIPP publishes timely, unique, and informative data each month on topics of public interest. TIPP’s reputation for polling excellence comes from being the most accurate pollster for the past six presidential elections.
Terry Jones is an editor of Issues & Insights. His four decades of journalism experience include serving as national issues editor, economics editor, and editorial page editor for Investor’s Business Daily.
First the good news: Elon Musk's DOGE is going through government spending with a fine-toothed comb, slashing a million here, a billion there.
The bad news: at the rate it is going, DOGE will need a few hundred years to make a tangible impact, because as the Treasury just reported, in February the US government spent a staggering $603 billion, a 6% increase from the $567 billion a year ago...
... while it collected just $296 billion in tax revenues...
... which resulted in a $307 billion budget deficit for the month, which means that all tax revenues collected by the US government in February were less than the deficit! Said otherwise, the US spent more than twice what it collected in February.
Which in turn, means this February's deficit was just shy of the highest on record, and only the post-covid shock of 2021 was greater...
... and pushed the cumulative total for 2025 to $1.147 trillion, covering 38% of all US spending in fiscal 2025.
This is a problem because as shown in the next chart, the cumulative budget deficit for the first 5 months of fiscal 2025 is the highest on record, surpassing even the fiscal shock from the depths of the post-covid response!
And the punchline is that no matter what Musk does, the USS Titanic remain fully on autopilot because while a few billion in discretionary spending here and there can be cut, neither entitlements (Social Security, Medicare) nor interest on the debt can be - without a default (it can however be inflated away... and it will be) - and in February, gross interest on the Federal debt hit a record $1.177 trillion in the past twelve months thanks to another $86 billion in interest spending.
Another way of looking at it: in the first five months of the fiscal year, the US has spent $480 billion on interest alone, the highest 5 month total ever.
What else to say? Well, we could lie to you and tell you that there is some hope and that DOGE will be able to fix this, but as much as we'd like that to be the case, we are now well beyond the Minsky Moment and for all the kicking and screaming, there is only one way all of this ends.
