Trump scores major own goal with labor official firing: McGeever
ORLANDO, Florida - U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to fire a top labor official following weak jobs data obviously sends ominous signals about political interference in independent institutions, but it is also a major strategic own goal.
Trump has spent six months attacking the Federal Reserve, and Chair Jerome Powell in particular, for not cutting interest rates. The barbs culminated in Trump branding Powell a "stubborn MORON" in a social media post on Friday before the July jobs report was released.
The numbers, especially the net downward revision of 258,000 for May and June payrolls growth, were much weaker than expected. In fact, this was "the largest two-month revision since 1968 outside of NBER-defined recessions (assuming the economy is not in recession now)," according to Goldman Sachs.
This release sparked a dramatic reaction in financial markets. Fed rate cut expectations soared, the two-year Treasury yield had its steepest fall in a year, and the dollar tumbled.
A quarter-point rate cut next month and another by December were suddenly nailed-on certainties, according to rate futures market pricing. This was a huge U-turn from only 48 hours before when Powell's hawkish steer in his post-FOMC meeting press conference raised the prospect of no easing at all this year.
Trump's constant lambasting of "Too Late" Powell suddenly appeared to have a bit more substance behind it. The Fed chair's rate cut caution centers on the labor market, which now appears nowhere near as "solid" as he thought.
Trump could have responded by saying: "I was right, and Powell was wrong."
Instead, on Friday afternoon he said he was firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, for faking the jobs numbers. Trump provided no evidence of data manipulation.
So rather than point out that markets were finally coming around to his way of thinking on the need for lower interest rates, Trump has united economists, analysts and investors in condemnation of what they say is brazen political interference typically associated with underdeveloped and unstable nations rather than the self-proclaimed 'leader of the free world'.
"A dark day in, and for, the U.S.," economist Phil Suttle wrote on Friday. "This is the sort of thing only the worst populists do in the worst emerging economies and, to use the style of President Trump, IT NEVER ENDS WELL."
UNCERTAINTY PREMIUM
It's important to note that major – even historic – revisions to jobs growth figures are not necessarily indicative of underlying data collection flaws. As Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Budget Lab at Yale, argued on X over the weekend: "BLS's first-release estimates of nonfarm payroll employment have gotten more, not less, accurate over time."
It should also be noted that the BLS compiles inflation as well as employment data, so, moving forward, significant doubt could surround the credibility of the two most important economic indicators for the U.S. - and perhaps the world.
Part of what constitutes "U.S. exceptionalism" is the assumption that the experts leading the country's independent institutions are exactly that, independent, meaning their actions and output can be trusted, whatever the results.
Baseless accusations from the U.S. president that the BLS, the Fed and other agencies are making politically motivated decisions to undermine his administration only undermine trust in the U.S. itself.
"If doubts are sustained, it will lead investors to demand more of a risk premium to own U.S. assets," says Rebecca Patterson, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "While only one of many forces driving asset valuations, it will limit returns across markets."
This furor comes as Fed Governor Adriana Kugler's resignation on Friday gives Trump the chance to put a third nominee on the seven-person Fed board, maybe a potential future chair to fill that slot as a holding place until Powell's term expires in May. Whoever that person is will likely be more of a policy dove than a hawk.
Policy uncertainty, which had been gradually subsiding since the April 2 'Liberation Day' tariff turmoil, is now very much back on investors' radar.
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters)
(Editing by Mark Potter)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
44 minutes ago
- The National
Apple stock jumps 5% after $100 billion US manufacturing pledge
Apple shares rallied more than 5 per cent on Wednesday after it committed $100 billion in US manufacturing, in a move that would help the company avoid President Donald Trump's upcoming 100 per cent tariffs on semiconductors. The world's third most valuable company settled 5.1 per cent higher at $213.28, after the pledge, which would bring its total investment in the US to $600 billion in the next four years, following a $500 billion commitment in February that also included hiring 20,000 workers. That helped Wall Street rally at the close. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite led gains, settling 1.21 per cent higher. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 0.18 per cent, while the S&P 500 climbed 0.73 per cent. The White House announced on Wednesday that it will impose tariffs on "all chips and semiconductors coming into the United States", although they would not apply to companies that have made commitments to manufacture in the US, or, at least, are in the process of doing so. Apple's decision was a "good strategic poker move for [chief executive Tim] Cook and Cupertino", where Apple is based, said Wedbush managing director Dan Ives. The announcement came a day before Mr Trump's broader and sweeping tariffs, aimed at encouraging companies to bring their manufacturing to the US, came into effect on Thursday.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
The Middle East must get ready for a US-China digital arms race
A starting gun fired this summer, but many of us didn't hear it. On July 18, when the US unveiled its National AI Action Plan, it wasn't just another policy document. It was a declaration, signalling the start of what could be humanity's ultimate race: a global contest to build the digital foundations of the 21st century and, in the process, redefine the very meaning of national power. For centuries, nations have vied for territory, resources and influence. This new competition is of a different order entirely. It is a sprint to embed artificial intelligence into every sector, every institution and every decision-making layer of society. AI is no longer a far-off concept from science fiction; it has become the invisible infrastructure of our present, the operating system of modern life. With its plan, the US has made its intentions clear: it is mobilising to win. The American strategy is breath-taking in its scale and speed. This is not a cautious roadmap but a full-scale mobilisation of capital, talent and government will. The plan accelerates the National AI Research Resource, a flagship initiative backed by an initial $110 million to arm the nation's researchers with the raw computing power needed to innovate. Yet this public push is dwarfed by the staggering ambitions of the private sector. Elon Musk's xAI is building a $10 billion 'Gigafactory of Compute', a cathedral of processing power designed to run on 100,000 of Nvidia 's most advanced chips. Not to be outdone, Microsoft and OpenAI are reportedly planning a $100 billion data centre project codenamed 'Stargate'. These are the moonshots of our time. And their impact is already filtering down into the machinery of government, where AI is being used to slash medical backlogs for veterans and help reduce the nearly 43,000 annual roadway deaths. This isn't just automation; it's a fundamental rewiring of the state into an entity that can learn and adapt in real-time. But America is not running this race alone. For every move the US makes, China has a powerful and increasingly sophisticated countermove, often executed with a different philosophy. While the US champions a public-private partnership model, China's state-led industrial policy delivers breakthroughs with stunning speed. Consider the shockwave sent through the robotics world this year by Unitree, a Chinese firm that launched a sophisticated humanoid robot for just $16,000. It was a watershed moment, transforming advanced robotics from a high-cost industrial tool into something approaching a mass-market product. This focus on tangible, real-world applications is complemented by a brilliant software strategy. While American giants often keep their most powerful models proprietary, Beijing-based DeepSeek AI recently released its powerhouse DeepSeek-V2 model completely open-source. In doing so, it invited the world's developers to build on its technology, a clever play to win the hearts and minds of the global tech community. In this global digital race, there may be no prize for second place However, this digital arms race is running headfirst into a very physical wall: energy. AI is insatiably power-hungry. By 2030, Nvidia's AI servers alone are projected to consume more electricity annually than the entire country of Finland. Mr Musk predicts that within a year, the primary constraint on AI development will shift from a shortage of chips to a shortage of electricity. Here, the competition becomes one of concrete and power grids. The US AI sector is projected to require 50 gigawatts of new power capacity by 2028. In 2023 alone, China added more than 400 gigawatts of new capacity, more than the rest of the world combined. The lesson is stark: winning the AI race isn't just about designing algorithms in the cloud; it's about having the industrial might to power them on the ground. For those of us in the Middle East, the sound of this starting gun should echo with a particular urgency. Regional ambitions are high. The UAE has pioneered world-class Arabic language models and the use of AI in government applications, while Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund is reportedly planning a $40 billion fund to invest in AI. But the actions of the US and China reveal a new truth: ambition is no longer enough. Success now demands execution at a national scale, requiring the sovereign capabilities – computation, talent and especially energy – to sustain it. The global race has begun. It is a contest not just for technological dominance, but for the right to shape the future of trade, security and society itself. And in this race, there may be no prize for second place.
Zawya
an hour ago
- Zawya
Markets' tariff resilience challenges long-standing economic orthodoxy: McGeever
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.) ORLANDO, Florida - Investors have been living in a real-time economic experiment ever since U.S. President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January. Whether it's tariffs, "America First" isolationism, overt politicization of independent economic institutions, or upended global economic norms, markets are having to deal with challenges few investors have faced before. So how are they reacting to the leader of the free world ripping up the economic playbook that has shaped the global financial system for 40 years? Wall Street and world stocks are at record highs, U.S. high yield corporate bond spreads are the tightest since before the 2007-08 global financial crisis, and Treasuries are remarkably calm, with the 10-year yield below its average of the last two years. It's not all serene, of course. The U.S. "term premium" - a measure of the extra compensation investors demand for holding long-dated Treasuries over short-term debt - is the highest in over a decade. Inflation expectations and long-dated yields have shot up too. And one needs to acknowledge that the full impact of Trump's tariffs has yet to be fully felt. But, at this point there has been no U.S. recession, even if growth is slowing. And the market plunge on the back of Trump's April 2 "Liberation Day" tariff debacle lasted a few weeks. The powerful stock market recovery since then suggests investors were less bothered by the actual tariffs than the shock of the initial announcement, the chaotic way it was delivered, and the amateurish way the levies were calculated. This outcome is not what economic textbooks would have predicted. ONE FOR YOU, 19 FOR ME Tariffs are a tax. And the overall U.S. average effective tariff rate looks likely to be around 18%, according to the Budget Lab at Yale. That's down from an estimated 28% in May but still nearly eight times higher than the level in December. Who will ultimately pay this tax is up for debate, but if sustained at that level, the president of the United States will have effectively imposed a tax hike worth around 1.8% of GDP, one of the largest in U.S. history. But wait. Aren't higher taxes bad for business, markets and growth? Don't higher taxes sap consumers' spending power, stunt investment and hiring, and crush the private sector's entrepreneurial spirit? Markets' relatively speedy acceptance raises the question: What happened to the last 40 years of economic orthodoxy, symbolized by the so-called "Washington Consensus"? This was the set of principles drawn up in the late 1980s that broadly mirrored the views of the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, World Bank and U.S. Treasury, ostensibly to help direct policy in Latin America but which ultimately served as the economic framework for Western liberal democracies and global markets. They included support for privatization, deregulation, the free flow of capital, fiscal discipline, and lower taxes. They also entailed lower barriers to trade, a cornerstone of globalization. For years these tenets were regarded by policymakers, business leaders and investors as sacrosanct. Some, like rigid adherence to tight fiscal policy, were put to the test - and shown to be flimsy, at best - during the GFC and pandemic. So now that the tariff line has been crossed, what about other economic commandments? Could governments look to raise tax revenue from other sources, such as wealth taxes on the super rich, a "Tobin tax" on foreign exchange transactions, or other "soft" capital controls? These are obviously anathema to the doctrine of free market capitalism. But then so were tariffs. To be fair, we are just entering this new era. And as my colleague Mike Dolan observed earlier this week, even if tariffs don't send the economy or markets into a tailspin, they may still lead to a "slow burn," with many years of lost economic potential, elevated volatility and lower investment returns. But investors aren't looking that far ahead. What they see right now is a pretty resilient U.S. economy, solid earnings growth, and red-hot optimism around U.S. tech and AI. And some of the old orthodoxies may be in the rear-view mirror. (The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters) (By Jamie McGeever; editing by Mark Heinrich)
