In “American Consumers Will Pay for Trump’s War with Iran. The front line for many is at the grocery store, the gas pump, and in our electronics,” Jeff Nesbit writes at The Contrarian: “For the American consumer, the real Strait of Hormuz tax won’t just be paid at the pump. It will be felt in the pharmacy and the grocery checkout line as well…The most immediate threat is to the American dinner table. Approximately one-third of the world’s fertilizers traded by sea, including urea and potash, are currently stranded behind the blockade. This disruption has arrived at the worst possible moment: the northern hemisphere’s spring planting season…In the Midwest, farmers are facing a brutal calculus. With urea prices jumping about 50%, the cost of planting corn (a nitrogen-heavy crop) is skyrocketing…This isn’t just a problem for farmers. It’s a precursor to higher prices for beef, poultry, and pork, all of which rely on corn for feed. With no real end in sight for the war, we’re looking at a scenario in which a maritime blockade in the Persian Gulf dictates the price of a gallon of milk in Ohio…Further into the typical U.S. household, the tech sector is bracing as well. Qatar, for instance, accounts for roughly 30% of global helium capacity, a resource that is currently offline because of infrastructure damage that could take years to repair.” More here.

Aaron Blake explains why “Why Trump might regret his historic visit to the Supreme Court” at CNN Politics: “Presidents have avoided attending oral arguments to negate even the appearance of trying to unduly influence a coequal branch of government. But Trump is happy to browbeat whomever it takes to get what he wants. And he’s reserved some of his most pointed recent criticisms for Supreme Court justices he appointed who have occasionally ruled against him…Trump seemed to want to send a signal to judges, who have increasingly proven his biggest obstacles in his second term. The fact that he chose to attend even amid the war with Iran — and hours ahead of a primetime address to the nation on the conflict — would seem to reinforce that…But combined with a series of adverse recent court rulings, his presence at the Supreme Court risked reinforcing how little he can control the judicial branch…The policy at issue on Wednesday was Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. On the president’s first day back in office last year, he sought to effectively overturn the more-than-century-old interpretation that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to the children born to noncitizens on US soil…Trump left the hearing shortly after Sauer wrapped up and as the justices began questioning ACLU national legal director Cecillia Wang…We’ll likely have to wait until June or July to hear what the court rules. But based on the arguments, it seems possible the decision could be even more lopsided than Trump’s 6-3 defeat in the tariffs case…It would even seem possible, judging by Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s questions, that all three Trump appointees could rule against him.” Regardless of the merits of the “anchor baby” argument, Trump’s attending the session will probably add to his image as a  reckless president who doesn’t respect the separation of powers or anything else in the Constitution.

Also at CNN Politics, Ariel Edwards-Levy shares “What Americans thought about Trump’s Iran strategy before his Wednesday address,” and writes, “Just one-third of the public believes President Donald Trump has a clear plan to handle the situation in Iran, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, underscoring the deep skepticism ahead of his Wednesday night White House address on the war…Americans’ already broad disapproval of US military action in Iran has grown since the start of the war, the poll found. Just 34% of Americans now say they approve at least somewhat of the US decision to take military action in Iran, down 7 points from a CNN poll conducted just after the start of the war. Disapproval has risen to 66%, with strong opposition climbing 12 points to 43%…With a growing share of the public now calling a long-term military conflict between the US and Iran at least somewhat likely, most Americans are wary of deepening involvement. A 71% majority say they’d oppose Congress authorizing spending $200 billion to fund further US military action in Iran, as the Pentagon has proposed. A similar 68% are opposed to sending ground troops into Iran…Democrats and independents remain broadly opposed to the US deploying ground troops, but Republicans also break narrowly against the idea. Even Republicans identifying themselves as part of the “Make America Great Again” movement tilt against ground troops: 32% oppose the idea while 25% favor it. Among non-MAGA Republicans, 56% oppose it, with 20% in favor…Trump’s approval rating for handling the situation in Iran sits at 33%, just below his overall 35% approval rating and his 36% rating for foreign policy. And 33% now say they approve of his handling of the role of commander in chief. That’s down 8 points from a January poll taken in the immediate aftermath of US military action in Venezuela and 5 points below his previous presidential low. About 6 in 10 say he has gone too far in trying to expand America’s power over other countries, little changed since January.” More here.

In “The House: 11 Rating Changes in Democratic-Held Seats; Non-Presidential Party Typically Doesn’t Lose Many of Their Own Seats in Midterms,” Kyle Kondik writes bat Sabato’s Crystal Ball that “this isn’t going to be a year like 2006, when the president’s party didn’t flip any seats, and the Republicans could very well end up exceeding the average presidential party seat gain since 1954 (a modest five seats), with redistricting being a major reason why. Democrats, meanwhile, are already favored in six Republican-held seats in our ratings, all but one of which—the open NE-2, from which Republican Rep. Don Bacon is retiring—were made bluer by redistricting, most notably by the new Democratic gerrymander in California. NE-2, at Harris +4.5, was the bluest district won by a House Republican in 2024…But beyond these aforementioned districts, one would not expect Republicans to cut much further into current Democratic districts, particularly because this is not shaping up to be a year like 1998 or 2002, exceptionally good midterms for the presidential party. Rather, it looks more like a normal midterm, as President Trump’s approval rating is only barely above 40%, with a little bit of recent slippage coinciding with the strikes on Iran and subsequent gas price increases. Democrats generally have had the wind at their backs in elections held so far this cycle, although it’s also fair to note that their roughly 5-point lead in congressional generic ballot polling is not as robust as it was in 2018…Since we looked above at the challenges for the presidential party in flipping seats defended by the non-presidential party, we’re going to focus on Democratic-held seats in today’s rating changes…we continue to await what could be a very impactful U.S. Supreme Court decision on the fate of majority-minority districts. But the longer we wait—another decision announcement day came and went yesterday without the decision being released—the less likely it is that the decision has a big impact on 2026, whatever the ruling ultimately says. But this is still a wild card for 2026…Democrats remain favored to flip the majority in November, which has been our assessment of the race for the House since we released our initial ratings nearly a year ago.” More here.