
Trade war: What a weakening dollar means for Trump
The weakening of the US dollar has arguably been the story of the year for financial markets.
The mighty greenback is the world's reserve currency by virtue of the fact that so many nations and investors hold it.
But it has taken a mighty tumble under the Donald Trump 2.0 presidency - to the point this week that the dollar index, which measures it against six other major currencies, is down 9% this year and on course for its worst annual performance since 2017.
It is no coincidence that that decline also took place under a Trump-controlled White House.
The reasons for it are similar but against a far weaker domestic and global economic backdrop than seen last time round.
Why is the dollar falling?
It all forms part of the wider investor turmoil over the president's trade war, its implications for the US economy and, crucially, the impact of his agenda on the public finances.
The main cause for concern recently had been the potential for recession in the world's largest economy due to trade war import duties - tariffs - stoking inflation.
The fallout has damaged the potential for interest rate cuts by the US central bank - a scenario that would normally be supportive of a currency.
But attention has increasingly turned towards the US budget deficit and total debt pile, given Mr Trump's controversial tax cut and spending hike plans.
Independent figures suggest they will add about $2.4trn to the $36.2trn total for US government debt - a debt pile that has become more expensive to service.
1:00
It's fair to say weaker stock markets, bond sell-offs and a weaker dollar are not the reactions the president wants to see at the start of his second term.
For all the headline-seeking slogans of "America First" and "Make America Great Again", the on-off trade war designed to restore US manufacturing might and jobs is taking a toll.
It explains the tax cut push but the president cannot escape the fact that federal, corporate and personal finances - such as investments and pension values - have taken a hit.
Despite that, YouGov poll data this week showed that for the first time in two months, less than half of US adult citizens strongly or somewhat disapproved of how he was handling the job.
What does it all mean for Americans?
If you strip out the short-term hits to pensions and asset values, a weaker dollar will offset some of additional tariff-related costs paid by importers to the US, as a dollar will go further when buying goods in a currency that has strengthened.
In theory, it will help limit the impact of any rising costs paid by consumers once goods have made their way down the supply chain.
Conversely, Americans heading abroad will find their buck doesn't get them as much.
How about for us Brits?
5:08
We have not been immune from the market turmoil - with pension and fund holdings (especially those containing US interests) taking a knock.
The weaker dollar is bad news for UK-based firms booking dollar earnings back home as they won't go as far when recorded in pounds.
But a weaker dollar means a pound will go further if you're travelling to the US.
Sterling is more than 8% up versus the dollar in the year to date and the spot rate currently stands at $1.3566 - around levels last seen in 2022.
Travel money sites suggested that UK tourists heading stateside would get a conversion around the $1.3230 level.
What about the outlook?
9:28
Much will depend on how the Trump trade war plays out in the months ahead.
These values say more about the dollar weakness than pound strength because the UK has many similar challenges to the US - sticky inflation, worries about the sustainability of government debt and weak growth.
The currency shift MAY help to further reduce UK inflationary pressure.
It is hoped, for example, that the weakening dollar will continue to help drive down oil costs.
Brent crude - priced in dollars, crucially, - struck a four-year low in April and a barrel is currently $1 above that level at $64.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump looks to close 105-year-old department that supports women workers despite insinuating it would stay
The Department of Labor said it would 'eliminate' the Women 's Bureau, a century-old department that focuses on advocating for economic equality and safe working environments for women, despite the secretary insinuating it was here to stay. When pressed with questions about the Department of Government Efficiency cutting grants administered by the Women's Bureau at a House Appropriations Committee meeting on May 15, Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer responded by emphasizing its history. 'Statutorily, the Women's Bureau is in statute,' Chavez-DeRemer said in response to Representative Rosa DeLauro's concerns. While Chavez-DeRemer's comment stopped short of a promise, she did not elaborate on the future of Women's Bureau, but insinuated the 105-year-old department was here to stay. Yet the Department of Labor's 2026 fiscal year budget in brief anticipates eliminating the Women's Bureau, calling it a 'relic of the past' and 'an ineffective policy.' 'The Department will work with Congress to craft a repeal package of WB's organic statutes, including the Women in Apprenticeship in Non-Traditional Occupations grant authorization. Apprenticeship work will be handled by the Employment and Training Administration,' the Bureau of Labor wrote. The Independent has asked the Department of Labor and the White House for comment. The elimination of the bureau, by giving it no funding in 2026, is the latest move by the Trump administration to override Congress's authority and get rid of previously appropriated funds for what it believes is unnecessary or does not align with the president's policies. During his presidential campaign, Trump promised to be women's 'protector' and insisted they would be 'happy, healthy, confident and free' under his administration. However, the Trump administration believes the Women's Bureau 'has struggled to find a role' in advancing the interests of women in the workforce, according to the budget brief. 'The Bureau works on a wide range of issues and its work is not always closely coordinated with, or informed by, the agencies that actually have the resources to address the issues at hand,' the Department wrote in its FY 2026 budget in brief. Established by Congress in 1920, the Women's Bureau is the only federal agency mandated to represent the needs of wage-earning women. It conducts research and policy analysis to advocate for policies that improve working conditions and increase profitable opportunities for women in the workforce. That includes getting more women to high-paying jobs, expanding access to paid leave and affordable child care, eliminating pay inequality, as well as harassment in the workplace. Part of its role includes grant-making and managing the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations grant program. The Women's Bureau also has the authority to investigate and report on matters about the welfare of women in industry to the Department of Labor. Nine current or former Department of Labor staffers told Mother Jones they believe shuttering the Women's Bureau aligns with the administration's desire to have women stop working and stay home to raise children. 'It really feels like a specific [effort] to get women out of the workplace,' Gayle Goldin, the former deputy director of the Women's Bureau under the Biden administration, told Mother Jones. 'We really still need the Women's Bureau, because we need to be able to identify what the problems are, see where the barriers are for women in the workplace, and ensure that women have full capacity to enter the workplace in whatever job they want.'


The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
A banana a day to keep the tariffs away? Howard Lutnick mocked during congressional hearing over plan to make more products in America
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was ridiculed in the House of Representatives over his proposed solution if Donald Trump's tariffs hit banana imports. Lutnick, one of the loudest cheerleaders for Trump's aggressive trade strategy, was testifying before the House Appropriations Committee when he found himself up against Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean. The congresswoman put it to Lutnick that the Trump administration lacked a fundamental understanding of how a trade deficit works, pointing out that the last time the United States had a trade surplus was during the Great Depression of the 1930s, a return to which is 'a direction none of us wants to go,' she said. Dean rebuked the secretary over the chaotic implementation of Trump's tariff policy after the president was forced to row back his imposition of steep levies on 100 countries on 'Liberation Day' (April 2) when they spooked the stock markets, forcing him to swiftly introduce a 90-day pause to allow for dealmaking. 'We are in the midst of negotiations with dozens of countries,' Lutnick raced to reassure her. 'We could sign deals but they're only going to get better as we negotiate them.' Dean then pivoted to her true subject, the cost of living, saying that residents of her suburban Philadelphia district were facing $2,000 a year increases to their grocery bills as a result of inflation, noting that Walmart, for one, had already raised the price of bananas by eight percent. 'Mr Trump promised to bring down the cost of goods, day one. And what he has done through his trade deficit fixation and his tariff chaos has nakedly increased the cost of goods,' she said. Brandishing a banana, Dean asked the secretary: 'What's the tariff on bananas? Americans, by the way, love bananas. We buy billions of them a year. I love bananas. What's the tariff on bananas?' 'The tariff on bananas would be representative of the countries that produce them,' Lutnick answered, estimating the rate at 10 percent when pushed. 'But the cost is on the American consumer now and on the businesses with the confusion now,' she hit back. 'Mr Secretary, I believe you know better. I believe you recognize that a trade deficit is not something to fear. I believe you know that predictability, stability is essential for businesses. I wish you would show that truth to this administration.' When Dean yielded her time, Lutnick asked for permission to respond to her and said: 'There's no uncertainty if you build in America and you produce your product in America. There will be no tariff.' 'We can't produce bananas in America,' she responded, incredulously. 'The concept of building in America and paying no tariffs is very, very clear,' said Lutnick. 'We cannot build bananas in America,' Dean repeated. 'Fighting for imports is not the same,' the secretary tried again. 'We cannot build bananas in America,' the representative repeated. While it is true that the United States cannot 'build' its own bananas and most are imported from Central American nations like Guatemala, Ecuador and Costa Rica, southern states like California, Florida, Arizona, Louisiana and Texas have the necessary climate to grow them but currently only do so in small quantities. Hawaii also grows bananas, as do the American territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands but, again, not currently on a scale sufficient to meet domestic demand.


BreakingNews.ie
8 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
US Supreme Court asked to pause order reinstating Education Department staff
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to pause a court order to reinstate Education Department employees who were fired in mass lay-offs as part of President Donald Trump's plan to dismantle the agency. The Justice Department's emergency appeal to the high court on Friday said US District Judge Myong Joun in Boston exceeded his authority last month when he issued a preliminary injunction reversing the lay-offs of nearly 1,400 people and putting the broader plan on hold. Advertisement Mr Joun's order has blocked one of Mr Trump's biggest campaign promises and effectively stalled the effort to wind down the department. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed.