Here’s some dumb stuff that just happened:

Alright — a few points to consider. Firstly, Amazon didn’t take any “action”; instead, there was just a single-sourced story that everyone wanted to accept as true. Consequently, Leavitt (and, if you trust her account, Trump) responded with extreme anger to the mere suggestion that a prominent American retailer might introduce price transparency on its website. This transparency would reveal that their tariff strategies are essentially nonsensical. This outrage led to rapid compliance.

Secondly, and crucially, Jeff Bezos is now left with no option but to ensure Amazon displays tariffs on its website. There’s absolutely no alternative. If he does not enforce it, he demonstrates himself as one of history’s least principled cowards.

I say this frankly because Bezos has spent the past year dismantling the Washington Post, resulting in significant subscriber losses, and impacting reporters, editors, cartoonists, reputation, and morale, all in the name of his “two pillars:” personal freedoms and free markets. You don’t have to take it from me — here is Jeff, outlining his personalized redesign of the Post opinion section:

“We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others […] I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.”

Well buddy, chaotic ChatGPT-designed tariff schemes that threaten to crush small businesses across the country are not “free markets,” the basic definition of which requires the market to set prices, not unhinged madmen who believe they run the world. At the minimum, I’d expect to see the Post in full attack mode here, since threatening your baby for merely displaying price information is so far from “free markets” it’s breathtaking.

What of retribution, you might ask? Shouldn’t Jeff act in the best interests of his shareholders and bow to our would-be king, as Amazon is already doing? Let’s ask Jeff — here’s what he wrote to readers in regards to how his wealth affects the editorial decisions of the Post, with my emphasis added.

“You can see my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against intimidation, or you can see them as a web of conflicting interests. Only my own principles can tip the balance from one to the other. I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled, and I believe my track record as owner of The Post since 2013 backs this up. You are of course free to make your own determination, but I challenge you to find one instance in those 11 years where I have prevailed upon anyone at The Post in favor of my own interests. It hasn’t happened.”

What we have here is one of America’s richest men, insisting that his wealth and principles will protect his newspaper from intimidation while it pursues an advocacy campaign for free markets, all while the White House calling the mere idea that Amazon might display pricing information a “hostile and political act” causes his company to cave. It seems like that same wealth and power might serve to protect Amazon, no? And definitely seems like a man so committed to free markets that he’s willing to burn down his newspaper has no choice but to look the bully in the eye and really put his money where his mouth is.

It’s either that, or falling flat on his face pretending to open a door again.