How Trump's $45 million DC parade will lower food prices
President Trump promised to get those grocery prices down. He's a master dealmaker, so he said prices would drop on Day 1. I've noticed that didn't happen, since I'm still paying $10 for a box of Patriot-O's cereal ("It's like an insurrection in your tummy!") and alternating which kid gets to eat dinner each night.
Trump spending millions sending troops to LA will lower food prices
But that's all part of Trump's genius.
He SAID grocery prices would fall immediately, then they didn't, and now he's spending millions on things that appear to have nothing to do with lowering grocery prices or inflation.
CHECKMATE, DEMOCRATS!
Opinion: After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest
I'm confident that once MY president uses loads of taxpayer money squashing the LA protests he smartly provoked and celebrating his birthday by destroying the streets of DC with a tank parade, grocery stores and food suppliers will have no choice but to drop their prices. Because who knows what this guy might do next?
It's the art of the deal, baby!
Trump's business savvy means we all benefit from his birthday parade
Say you're a grocery store owner and you're about to slap a price tag on a box of cereal. Those cereal producers might be charging the store more because of Trump's incredibly smart tariffs, or because of supply chain issues, or because of the inflation Trump promised would disappear, that hasn't disappeared yet. (That's also part of his master plan - he's trying to confuse inflation so it won't know what to expect out of him. Classic dealmaker maneuver.)
Opinion: Trump lied about LA protests to deploy the National Guard. He wants violence.
If you're a Marxist, radical, socialist Democrat, you probably think: The grocery store owner is going to put a higher price on the cereal because it costs them more, and they need to make a profit.
WRONG!
'I'm going to patriotically lower the cost of this cereal'
That grocery store owner is going to think: "Since President Trump was willing to spend millions in taxpayer money to send the Marines into Los Angeles to fight people I don't like, and because he loves America so much he made America pay for his birthday parade, I'm going to patriotically lower the cost of this cereal to make my president look good, even if it means I'll go out of business in three months."
Duh. That's a little thing called good ol' American capitalism, you lefty doorknobs. Look it up!!
Enjoy the military parade and the US invasion of LA, MAGA!
So yes, as an American who loves America and has invested my life savings in President Trump's cryptocurrency, I feel 1,000% confident that dropping nearly $200 million on invading Los Angeles and rolling tanks through our nation's capital will lower grocery prices and probably also reduce inflation.
The rest of you just don't understand how America can get great again. Maybe if you watch the big June 14 military parade that we're paying for, you'll understand.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @rexhuppke.bsky.social and on Facebook at facebook.com/RexIsAJerk
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Goldman Sachs trims US recession probability to 30%
June 12 (Reuters) - Goldman Sachs on Thursday trimmed its U.S. recession probability to 30% from 35% on easing uncertainty around Trump's tariff policies.
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Judge to consider California's request for restraining order against Trump over use of troops in LA
A federal judge on Thursday is expected to hear arguments over the request of the California governor, Gavin Newsom, for a temporary restraining order to block Donald Trump from deploying national guard troops and marines to suppress protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles. The hearing, set for 4.30pm ET in federal district court in San Francisco, comes after the presiding judge, Charles Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, earlier declined to grant an immediate injunction against the administration. The request for the restraining order is part of a lawsuit filed by the state of California challenging Trump's move to call up more than 4,000 national guard troops and about 700 active-duty marines based at Twentynine Palms in California over Newsom's objections. The complaint is largely aimed at the legitimacy of Trump's order. It sought a judicial declaration to nullify the order and to make clear that it was unlawful for the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to bypass Newsom in federalizing the state's national guard forces in this instance. The hearing is expected to focus on the Title 10 statute invoked by Trump, which allows the president to federalize the national guard if there is a 'rebellion or a danger of rebellion', or if the president is 'unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. Although pockets of protests turned violent – some threw rocks at law enforcement vehicles and set alight a series of driverless Waymo cars – local authorities in Los Angeles county did not say they needed federal assistance. The California attorney general, Rob Bonta, is expected to argue that Trump needed Newsom's approval or request for such a mobilization, and that there was no basis to bring in national guard forces because the protests did not rise to the level of a rebellion. But the Trump administration has suggested that decision on whether to federalize the national guard was at the discretion of the president, and that federal courts cannot second-guess decisions by the executive branch as to whether the military was needed. In its 29-page response to the lawsuit, the justice department also said Newsom was misrepresenting the situation because the military was always only going be used in a protective function and not to perform law enforcement functions. The justice department cited memos from the office of legal counsel, written by William Rehnquist before he became chief justice of the United States, which suggested the military could be used to protect federal buildings from anti-war protesters during the Vietnam war. The memos envisioned the president relying upon his inherent authority in the US constitution as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, possibly to get around the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which makes it illegal for the military to perform a law enforcement function on domestic soil unless the president has invoked the Insurrection Act, which Trump has not. The memos have never been legally tested in court. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The justice department also contended that the Trump administration had complied with the statute in full with respect to the governor's putative role, because it had notified Newsom of Trump's intentions to deploy the national guard and marines before they were implemented. Trump has been suggesting the idea of deploying troops against Americans since his first term, when some Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020 turned violent. He opted against doing so at the time, but has since expressed regret to advisers that he did not punish the protesters more aggressively. Notably, during a campaign rally in 2023, Trump vowed to respond more forcefully if elected to a second term. 'You're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,' he said of the president's usual role in deciding whether to send in the military. 'The next time, I'm not waiting.'
Economist
an hour ago
- Economist
The world's biggest food company plans to beef up in America
Consumers outside Brazil may not be familiar with JBS, even though many will have tasted its products. But as the meat-packing colossus prepared to list on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on June 13th, its American competitors were quivering in their cowboy boots. The listing is designed to allow JBS, already the world's biggest food company by revenue, to gobble up even more market share by tapping cheaper capital and attracting new investors. Yet it could also leave the firm vulnerable to litigation from its broad range of enemies, who include environmentalists as well as an unusual coalition of Republicans and Democrats.
