logo
Could Donald Trump's tariffs cause a recession?

Could Donald Trump's tariffs cause a recession?

Gulf Today18-03-2025

Sarah Foster,
Tribune News Service
Investors are growing increasingly concerned that President Donald Trump's tariff policies and federal layoffs could spark a US recession. An even bigger worry is that the Federal Reserve might not be able to do much about it. Officials on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) are set to discuss at their March 18-19 rate-setting meeting what more can be done — if anything — to control inflation and rescue a slowing economy within an increasingly volatile economic and political environment. In a matter of weeks, Trump's post-election effect on the stock market has gone from 'bump' to 'slump.' Americans' investment accounts have been getting pummeled, with the S&P 500 dropping more than 8% from its all-time high on Feb. 19. The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite Index plunged 4% alone on March 10, its worst day of trading since 2022. A measure of volatility within financial markets, meanwhile, spiked to the highest since August, reflecting investors' struggles to parse through Trump's stop-and-go tariff hikes. To be sure, policymakers are almost certainly expected to leave borrowing costs alone this week. The Fed's chief central banker said as much in his final public comments before the committee's March meeting.
'Despite elevated levels of uncertainty, the US economy continues to be in a good place,' Fed Chair Jerome Powell said at an event hosted by the University of Chicago on March 7. 'We do not need to be in a hurry and are well positioned to wait for greater clarity.' Investors and consumers, though, will likely be looking for clues about what the FOMC expects to do the rest of the year. Along with its rate decision, the committee will also update its projections for economic growth, inflation, the job market and interest rates. The stakes couldn't be higher for an economy still battered by post-pandemic inflation. In addition to weighing on economic growth, tariffs could also push up prices at a time when price pressures remain elevated. In a Fox News interview earlier in March, Trump didn't deny that his policies could spark a recession and urged Americans to brace for a 'period of transition.' The Trump administration has also signaled that it may press ahead with new tariffs even if they weaken the economy.
What do threats of weaker growth and higher inflation mean for the Fed's next moves? Here are the biggest questions facing the US central bank as it decides what to do with the interest rates that influence how much you pay to borrow money. Save the economy from a slowdown or keep inflation in check? Fed officials could be forced to 'choose one over the other' Typically, higher prices and a slower economy are counterintuitive. Inflation usually indicates that the financial system is red-hot, a symptom of wage hikes or too much money chasing too few goods — similar to what happened during the pandemic. They also both require something different from the Fed. The US central bank slashes the price of borrowing money when the financial system might be losing steam and raises interest rates when they want to cool the economy.
The rare combination, however, has happened before: in the 1970s and early '80s. Back then, prices soared almost twice as high as they did during the post-pandemic era, while the Fed intentionally inflicted a devastating US recession — at the time, the worst since the Great Depression — to bring price pressures back down. Economists have a term for it that's become a dirty word for the Americans who lived through it: stagflation. 'The combination of policies that we are seeing right now has a real risk of bringing that on,' says Erica Groshen, senior economic adviser at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, who was the former commissioner of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and vice president of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Even St. Louis Fed President Alberto Musalem, who has a vote on interest rates this year, said in public remarks on Feb. 20 that a scenario where inflation rises at the same time the labour market weakens 'must also be considered.' In those circumstances, the Fed's choices — rescuing the labor market or focusing on inflation — aren't easy.
Even as forecasts suggest Trump's tariffs could lift prices, though, investors have upped their projections for rate cuts this year. They're currently expecting that the U.S. central bank will reduce borrowing costs by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2025, moves that would bring the Fed's key borrowing benchmark to 3.5%-3.75%, according to CME Group's FedWatch tool. The 30-year fixed mortgage rate has already plummeted as Treasury yields reflect the possibility of lower rates, according to Bankrate's weekly survey of interest rates.
Tariffs could weigh on economic growth because they often lead to supply shortages, as companies attempt to reroute their supply changes. They also make production more expensive, weakening company profitability.
Case in point: The Fed reduced borrowing costs three times in 2019, in part because Trump's smaller-scale, first-term trade war injected a new layer of uncertainty about the pace of future economic growth. Even if Trump stands down on some of his toughest tariff hikes, some damage might already be done, according to Mike Skordeles, head of U.S. economics at Truist. Unsure of what the future may hold, Skordeles' business contacts have been telling him that they're hesitant to make new investments or hire more workers right now. 'When they don't know from day to day whether this tariff is being delayed or that one is definitely going to happen, tomorrow it gets delayed again, it causes a lot of uncertainty, much like for the Fed,' Skordeles says. 'Businesses say, 'I might as well sit and wait.' Sitting and waiting is not pro-growth.'
One indication of extra uncertainty: Businesses stockpiling on imports to get ahead of tariffs caused a key model predicting economic growth from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta to plunge in late February. Another reason to err on the side of rescuing the economy, federal layoffs — which hit almost 63,000 last month, according to the latest data from Challenger, Gray & Christmas — could lead to job losses in the private sector, Groshen says. That could also weigh on consumer spending, keeping downward pressure on inflation, too. 'It can affect whole neighborhoods where you have concentrations of government workers,' Groshen says. 'Some of the laid-off people are going to find other jobs quickly and others won't.'
Typically, economists say tariff hikes are a one-time price increase — not an inflationary spiral. Trump's 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, as well as 20% tariffs on goods from China, could increase price levels by 1%-1.2%, translating to an average cost per household of $1,600 and $2,000, according to the Yale Budget Lab's latest estimates. 'A tariff-induced bump in inflation, which is at the root of the concern for consumers and businesses, isn't by itself going to produce the type of trend that the Fed is most concerned about,' McBride says. 'It probably does more to slow growth than it does to contribute to persistent acceleration of inflation pressures.'
Even so, Fed officials might find it troubling if tariffs become ingrained in the psychology of investors and everyday people. Guided by their experiences in the '70s and '80s, Fed Chair Jerome Powell & Co. subscribe to an economic theory that expectations of sharper inflation can often become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Medicaid work requirements won't work
Why Medicaid work requirements won't work

Gulf Today

time9 hours ago

  • Gulf Today

Why Medicaid work requirements won't work

Kathryn Anne Edwards, Tribune News Service The US labour market is a truly astonishing thing to behold. It includes 171 million Americans, as young as 14 and older than 90, some who never finished elementary school and others with PhDs. It is resilient and dynamic, shrinking during recessions but growing again after. It provides the majority of Americans with the majority of their income. All of which is to say: It is common to look to the labor market as a kind of salve for all economic wounds. Whatever the problem is, the solution is to get people working. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. For all its strength, the labor market is encumbered by the low-wage labor market — where work doesn't support a stable living, and where jobs are so bad they're more salt than salve. This is a reality that Republicans in Congress, in their current push to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, ignore. They are making policy for a labor market that doesn't exist. The 'low-wage labor market' is a vague designation. It's typically defined as those workers who have relatively or absolutely low hourly earnings, such as the bottom quintile or quarter of wage earners, or earners below some nominal wage cutoff. Whatever the definition, however, there are some aspects of the low-wage labor market that are obvious: The low-wage labor market is large. At least 39 million workers in the US earn less than $17 an hour, which is the equivalent of $35,360 annually. That is just below 138% of the poverty threshold for a family of three — the income needed for parents to be eligible for Medicaid in states that expanded it under the Affordable Care Act. Earnings in the low-wage labor market are volatile. Earnings volatility measures change in wage income from one month to the next. Instability at both the very top and very bottom is so great that economists have a term for it: the 'wild ride.' Recent research from the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project shows that low-wage earners see more spikes and dips in income than any other group, with the dips being especially large. They have the most volatile earnings when measured by the coefficient of variation, regardless of whether the household has a single or multiple earners. That volatility can be partly attributed to unpredictable hours. Many low-wage earners are employed in shift work, in which their hours and schedule can vary week to week, often with little notice. According to Harvard's Shift Project, two-thirds of workers in retail and food service get less than two weeks' notice of their schedule, half get less than one week's notice, and 70% report that the timing of their scheduled shifts changes at least once a month. This flexibility is more likely to be imposed by employers rather than requested by employees; the more volatile the hours, the fewer hours typically worked. Low-wage jobs usually also have low-quality benefits. Of private-sector workers in the bottom 25% of the wage distribution, 30% do not have access to any type of leave, whether it is sick, holiday, vacation or personal. Some 56% do not have access to an employer-sponsored health-care plan, while 84% do not have access to an employer-sponsored dental plan. And 50% do not have access to a defined-contribution retirement plan. The bottom line is clear. Working Americans are eligible for social benefits such as Medicaid not only because their pay isn't high enough, but also because it isn't reliable enough. Classic labour theory holds that workers are balancing two conflicting goals: the consumption of purchased goods, and the consumption of leisure time. The former requires time at work; the latter requires time away from work. It is up to the worker to calibrate how much of each they want. Of course, economists will try to predict how workers and consumers will react to any change in their earnings. If a worker gets a wage increase, the 'income effect' would push them to work less: They can still consume the same amount of purchased goods but also have more leisure time. Alternatively, a wage increase could trigger the 'substitution effect,' pushing them to work more: The price of leisure (foregone wages) is now more expensive. But what if that worker gets a non-wage increase from a public benefit? There is no substitution effect, just the income effect — that is, they would work less. This is the economic foundation for the idea that public benefits discourage work. Work requirements are meant to counter this incentive. It sounds reasonable. But for at least 39 million Americans, work brings low wages, unstable earnings, unpredictable hours and few benefits.

Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced

Gulf Today

time9 hours ago

  • Gulf Today

Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced

Ashley Nunes, Tribune News Service Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in US history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed US automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidise their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognising its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it.

Trump-Musk fight creates unprecedented elite power struggle in the US
Trump-Musk fight creates unprecedented elite power struggle in the US

Middle East Eye

time10 hours ago

  • Middle East Eye

Trump-Musk fight creates unprecedented elite power struggle in the US

It is hard to find a historic or contemporary precedent for the battle raging between Donald Trump, the president of the United States, and Elon Musk, the world's richest man. There may be a couple of examples that come close, but nothing that quite captures the current moment. For instance, in 2017, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman rounded up his profligate cousins and businessmen at the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton for a royal shakedown. They got into line quickly. And almost two decades before, Russian President Vladimir Putin managed to bend the oligarchs who got rich off post-Soviet capitalism to his will. On its surface, the Trump-Musk feud seems to be over policy. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The Tesla chief and former head of DOGE attacked Trump's tax bill this week as a 'disgusting abomination'. Musk was channelling the concerns of deficit hawks in the US, who worry the bill will add trillions to the US debt pile at a time when the dollar has weakened and demand for more US debt is looking stretched. Trump, who has positioned the bill as a do-or-die piece of legislation, said on Thursday during a meeting in the Oval Office with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, that 'I'd rather have Elon criticise me than the bill,' adding later, 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore.' Then it got nasty. Within hours, Musk was on X calling for Trump's impeachment, to be replaced by Vice President JD Vance. The vice president himself was catapulted to power in part by Peter Thiel, a billionaire tech entrepreneur who mentored and groomed Vance's career in politics. He threatened to form a new political party and stop ferrying Nasa astronauts into space. He said Trump would have lost the US presidential election without his endorsement. And for good measure, insinuated that Trump was linked to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Trump fired back. He suggested Musk was attacking the bill, not out of patriotic fervour, but because he had snatched away perks for electric vehicles from which Tesla benefits. 'Elon was wearing thin,' Trump said. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump said in another post on Thursday night, threatening to leverage the power of the presidency against Musk's business empire, which includes Tesla and SpaceX. Tesla shares dropped about 14 percent on Thursday amid the spat. According to Bloomberg's billionaires index, Musk's net worth plunged $34bn that day. Tesla was trading up around five percent on Friday. Silicon Valley vs 'America First' nationalists The Trump-Musk feud is a decidedly American affair - partly performative, very populist, and made for social media. And on that note, Musk has been posting on X, the social media platform he bought before the US election, and Trump has been posting on Truth Social - owned by Trump Media & Technology Group - that was purposely built as a right-leaning competitor to X before Musk bought it. Of course, the US is no stranger to elite power struggles capturing the public's attention, particularly during its rambunctious, early years as a republic. Aaron Burr, a former vice president, famously killed Alexander Hamilton, the one-time treasury secretary, in a dual in 1804. A century later, Teddy Roosevelt rode a populist 'trust busting' wave that pitted him against the gilded elite, making men like JD Rockefeller his foe. But the Trump-Musk feud has key differences. JD Vance's mentor co-founded company that helps Israel generate 'kill lists' of Palestinians in Gaza Read More » The two men had forged an unprecedented alliance that, to a point, symbolised a broader one between Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs and crypto bros on one side, and working-class "America First" nationalists on the other. While some media reports say that allies of the two men are urging both to reconcile, the standard bearers of "America First" nationalism appear to be egging Trump on and savouring Musk's fall from grace. Steve Bannon, a former Trump advisor whose podcast WarRoom advocates for "America First" positions, called on Trump to seize Musk's company SpaceX and examine the billionaire's immigration status. Musk was born in South Africa. Bannon himself was critical of Trump's tax bill, but he was one of the few supporters who called for tax hikes on the wealthy. 'You're going to have a few of the tech bros and the crypto crowd stick with Elon because you have the cult of Elon. But MAGA will 100% back Trump. You aren't going to have a person in MAGA who will buy a Tesla,' Bannon said. But Musk donated over $250m to Trump's 2024 campaign and has made clear he has no qualms about deploying his cash against those who turn on him within the Republican Party. On Thursday night, Musk wrote, 'some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years…' Do Musk and Trump have options? Trump has a history of engaging in brutal public spats, only to mend fences later. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vance both lambasted Trump during his 2016 run for the White House. But the key difference here is that neither of these men had the deep pockets of the world's richest man to endure a battle with the president. To an extent, Musk is a country unto himself. His technology, like Starlink, is hovering over battlefields in Ukraine, while his company ferries Nasa astronauts into space. The knowledge he has gained of Trump's family and the inner workings of the White House would make him a valuable catch for any foreign leader, including US allies. More broadly speaking, the feud is likely to reaffirm a perception among American friends and foes that something within the US system is cracking. In less than one day, the president of the US threatened on social media to use the power of his office against a comrade-turned-foe, while the world's richest man called for his impeachment. Elon Musk: How a tech nerd became Trump's 'first buddy' Read More » Many observers said the bonhomie between Trump and his former 'first buddy' was bound to implode eventually, given both men's power and outsized egos. Musk also felt his investment in Trump's campaign wasn't paying off, reports suggest. In May, The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk tried to block OpenAI from building one of the world's largest artificial intelligence data centres in Abu Dhabi. Trump and his aides rejected Musk's bid to cancel the deal in favour of his AI company. On Wednesday, Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire friend of Musk, suggested Trump pulled his nomination to run Nasa because of his ties to Musk. Things could get ugly if the feud refuses to die down, and the president has several institutions that could be weaponised against Musk and his businesses. Trump has not been shy about using state leverage to settle old scores since his return to power. However, Musk has pockets deep enough to make mid-term elections an uphill battle for Trump and his loyalists. If the gloves come off, the world will have a front row seat to an unprecedented battle between the world's most powerful politician and the world's richest man, as it all plays out in real time on social media.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store