Is Trump winning on economic policy?
For starters, Trump got his One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed, despite a razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives and credible projections that his signature tax and spending package will add more than $3 trillion to the federal deficit over the coming decade (barring a miraculous AI-driven economic boom). And the southern US border is now more tightly controlled than it has been in decades.
On tariffs in particular, Trump got what he wanted. Europe and Japan effectively capitulated – agreeing to eliminate their own trade barriers while accepting a 15 per cent US tariff on their exports. Given these humiliating terms, it was more than a little absurd to see European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hail the deal as a success simply because Trump backed down from his initial threat of a 30 per cent tariff.
Both the European Union and Japan also committed to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the US economy, with Trump exerting significant influence over where that money would be directed. His self-styled 'Tariff Man' persona clearly rattled world leaders, many of whom failed to recognise that his threats were unsustainable in the long run. In retrospect, they would have been better off calling his bluff. Instead, last Thursday, an emboldened Trump announced new tariffs on nearly every country in the world.
While European policymakers were busy mitigating the impact of American tariff threats, Trump pushed through legislation aimed at bringing cryptocurrencies into the mainstream financial system with minimal oversight. Astonishingly, despite the Trump family's multi-billion-dollar crypto holdings, Congress has shown little interest in investigating the president's glaring conflict of interest. In fact, Trump has faced more public scrutiny for withholding the Jeffrey Epstein files than for his crypto dealings.
Trump has faced more public scrutiny for withholding the Jeffrey Epstein files than for his crypto dealings.
To be sure, the GENIUS Act does contain some worthwhile ideas. One provision, for example, requires that stablecoins – cryptocurrencies pegged to a traditional currency or commodity, usually the dollar – be backed by safe, liquid assets. But overall, instead of laying out clear guidelines for taming the crypto Wild West, the GENIUS Act amounts to little more than a regulatory skeleton.
As several critics have noted, Trump's stablecoin framework bears striking similarities to the free-banking era of the 1800s, when the United States did not have a central bank. At the time, private banks issued their own dollar-backed currencies, often with disastrous consequences such as fraud, instability, and frequent bank runs. With thousands of stablecoins expected to flood the market, similar problems are bound to emerge. That said, some criticisms may be overstated, as today's leading issuers are generally more transparent and better capitalised than their nineteenth-century counterparts.
A more urgent and underappreciated problem is that the new legislation will make it far easier to use dollar-based stablecoins for tax evasion. While large-denomination paper currency presents similar challenges, the scale of the threat posed by stablecoins is much greater. And yet, despite these risks, Trump once again got exactly the legislation he wanted.
Fortunately, the US economy has remained resilient amid the uncertainty and chaos unleashed by Trump's tariff war. Although growth appears to be slowing, and the July jobs report was soft – a hard reality that Trump's firing of the technocrat in charge of producing the data will not change – second-quarter data show that the country is not yet in a recession.
Likewise, higher tariffs have not yet triggered a surge in domestic inflation, and the US is on track to collect $300 billion in tariff revenue in 2025. So far, importers have been reluctant to pass those costs on to consumers, but that could change if the current tariff war ever winds down. Some analysts have even argued that the apparent success of Trump's heterodox policies proves that conventional economic models are wrong. I doubt that, though the jury is still out.
This short-term optimism, however, overlooks long-term consequences. While some of former President Joe Biden's policies were damaging, numerous economists have warned that Trump's actions could prove devastating to American institutions and the global economic order. Most critically, the rule of law would be severely weakened if the expanded presidential powers Trump has claimed are allowed to become permanent. A big test is coming if the Supreme Court ultimately decides that he lacks the authority to impose tariffs without Congress's approval.
If they stand, Trump's sweeping tariffs may have long-term effects on US growth. The rest of the world is unlikely to tolerate Trump's protectionist policies indefinitely. If he starts to look weak for any reason, expect foreign governments to retaliate with sweeping tariffs of their own. The Big Beautiful Bill could compound the damage, triggering a cycle of higher interest rates, rising inflation, and financial repression.
Still, we should give Trump his due and acknowledge that his second presidency is off to a far stronger start than almost anyone – aside from Trump himself and his most fervent acolytes – could imagine six months ago. We should not be surprised by whatever comes next – and that might be the scariest part. @Project Syndicate, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
8 hours ago
- Observer
Climate security is energy security
For all the uncertainties generated by Donald Trump's administration over the past six months, one thing is clear: 'climate' technologies are out and 'energy' technologies are in. But while going along with this rhetorical shift may appease some, it should be recognised for what it is: a change in wording. The fundamental economic and technological forces that are pushing the world away from oil, coal and gas and towards low-carbon, high-efficiency technologies have not abated. Over the past two decades, climate change has been a leading item on the global agenda, driving efforts to deploy technologies that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Those efforts are now facing headwinds and not just in the United States. Geopolitical developments elsewhere, like Russia's war in Ukraine, have called attention to the importance of energy affordability and security over other considerations. Policymakers in the US, Europe and elsewhere initially responded to the war by doubling down on the shift from fossil fuels and for good reason. Oil, coal and gas are commodities whose prices will always be linked to geopolitical vagaries (that goes for not only global oil markets but also regional gas markets, which are increasingly linked by trade in liquefied natural gas). As a case in point, the summer of 2022 brought massive inflation, largely driven by fossil-fuel price spikes. Europe's gas prices peaked at ten times their long-term average and US gas prices at around triple their long-term average. While the US Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is widely considered a misnomer, history will judge the name kindly: The only permanent way to address such bouts with 'fossilflation' is to stop using fossil fuels. Though the blowback against climate policies has been particularly strong at the federal level in the US, Europe, too, has undergone a retrenchment. This is somewhat understandable, even if it is shortsighted. Germany, Europe's largest economy, has been in a recession for more than two years, with high energy prices a chief culprit. Climate technologies that are already commercially viable could help, of course. But taking full advantage of the lower prices of solar, wind and (increasingly) batteries requires a willingness to reform power markets and pass these savings to households and industrial consumers. It also calls for more upfront public investment, an area where climate priorities compete with other priorities like national security that are often perceived to be more immediate. In grappling with these tradeoffs, the European Union delivered the kinds of efficiency measures that Trump's 'Department of Government Efficiency' (DOGE) had promised but failed to achieve. For example, Europe dialed back its carbon border adjustment mechanism by requiring 90 per cent fewer companies to comply. On the surface, this seems like a decisive blow to the goal of establishing a carbon tariff for imports, commensurate with Trump's DOGE hatchet. But unlike Trump and Elon Musk, the EU ensured that the remaining 10 per cent of importers still accounted for over 90 per cent of emissions. This outcome is far from ideal when viewed solely through a climate lens. But viewed from a broader climate-economic perspective, it is exactly the kind of surgical intervention that DOGE promised but never delivered. The summer of 2022 brought massive inflation, largely driven by fossil-fuel price spikes. Still, fiddling at the climate-policy margins ignores the bigger picture. While Europe and America are taking steps back, China is leaping forward. It alone accounted for over 40 per cent of the record $2.1 trillion of global investment in the energy transition last year — more than the EU, the United Kingdom and the US combined. The balance is even more lopsided for specific clean-energy technologies. China produces around 75 per cent of the world's solar panels and 80 per cent of its lithium-ion batteries. That dominance is the result of a concerted green industrial policy, in which innovation plays a key role. The claim that China only manufactures and assembles is woefully outdated. China's electric vehicles, for example, are second to none. BYD, the country's leading carmaker, recently unveiled a groundbreaking charging system capable of adding 470 km of range in just five minutes, putting the company in a league of its own globally. China's dominance extends to technologies that are not yet competitive without price support. LONGi, one of the world's top solar manufacturers, formed LONGi Hydrogen in 2021 to pursue green hydrogen production. It now leads the world in electrolyser manufacturing capacity. These are not isolated examples. China's ambitious industrial policy has helped lift five other Chinese hydrogen companies into the global top ten. Have Europe and the US already lost this race for the future? While the US now seems hellbent on turning itself into a petrostate, the EU has a chance to revive its clean-energy fortunes. It is even starting with a significant policy advantage: a CO2 price hovering around $100 per metric tonne means that most low-carbon technologies — from clean electrons and electrification to clean molecules like biofuels — are already economically viable. Others, like green hydrogen, will need further support to help climb the learning curve and slide down the cost curve. According to Bernd Heid, a senior partner at McKinsey & Company who leads its Platform for Climate Technologies, around 90 per cent of climate technologies will be in the money by 2030 with a $100 carbon price. While China dominates with six top-ten global players, three of the others are European. The Swedish startup Stegra is building the world's first low-carbon steel plant using electrolysers made by ThyssenKrupp Nucera, in which the German steelmaker has a majority stake. Despite recent political developments, the US, too, has shown that rapid change is possible. Although breaking China's solar manufacturing dominance will be difficult, the US has made significant inroads just over the past three years. Earlier this year, it exceeded 50 gigawatts of panel manufacturing capacity, a fivefold increase since 2022. These 50 GW in panel supply roughly matched US demand. True, onshoring the solar supply chain comes with costs that can be justified only by priorities other than the climate, such as national security or promoting domestic manufacturing. But that is the point. If political conditions require stronger emphasis on technologies like geothermal and nuclear; and if technologies formerly known as 'climate tech' must be relabelled as more neutral-sounding 'energy tech', so be it. The larger forces propelling us towards decarbonisation remain the same. @Project Syndicate, 2025
Observer
8 hours ago
- Observer
Lee, Trump to hold summit on security alliance, economy
SEOUL: South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and US President Donald Trump will hold their first summit meeting on August 25 in Washington to discuss strengthening the countries' alliance and economic security partnership, Lee's office said on Tuesday. Lee, who was elected president in a snap election in June, has made it a top priority to help his export-dependent country navigate the dramatic changes in the global trading environment triggered by Trump's tariff policies. "The two leaders will discuss ways to develop the US-South Korea alliance into a comprehensive strategic alliance of the future in response to the changing international security and economic environment," presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung told a briefing. Based on the tariff deal reached last month, the two leaders will advance partnership in the manufacturing sector, including in semiconductors, batteries and shipbuilding, as well as critical minerals and technology, Kang said. A White House official also confirmed the meeting. Trump announced on July 30 that the countries had reached a trade deal that would subject South Korean goods to 15% import duties, lowering the tariff he had initially set against one of America's top trading partners. In return, Trump has said that South Korea will announce investment plans at the upcoming summit and that Seoul had committed to making $350 billion of investments to be "selected" by him. South Korean officials have offered differing details, however, and topics left unresolved by the deal — which has yet to be committed to writing - provide scope for more disputes between the allies. Trump may use the summit to seek more concessions on defence costs and corporate investments, left out of the deal, while non-tariff barriers and currency could prove thorny issues, experts said. Defence costs are expected to emerge as a key issue during the upcoming summit, with Trump having long said South Korea needed to pay more for the roughly 28,500 American troops based there as a legacy of the 1950-1953 Korean War. The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration wanted Seoul to boost defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP, up from 2.6 per cent last year, and to increase its $1 billion-plus contribution toward the troops. Jeremy Chan, a senior analyst at the Eurasia Group, said it was unclear if such issues will be raised directly by Trump, but he said he expected that at least at the working level, discussions are going to move beyond trade and investment to the broader alliance. "I think it is more likely that Trump and his team are going to raise at least quietly, issues related to the security alliance," he said. "So that could be putting pressure on President Lee to increase the defence share of government spending." — Reuters
Observer
14 hours ago
- Observer
Markets rise as Trump extends China tariff truce
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday extending a trade truce between the United States and China for another three months, providing a reprieve from the threat of escalating tariffs and export controls that have rocked the global economy. The extension, until Nov. 10, provides the two countries more time to work out their differences and sets the stage for a potential summit between Trump and President Xi Jinping, China's leader, later this year. Trump suggested Monday that negotiations were making progress. 'They've been dealing quite nicely — the relationship is very good with President Xi and me,' Trump said at the White House. Top economic officials had been working to finalize a provisional agreement to extend the truce that was reached during meetings in Sweden last month. The deadline for the truce to expire was Tuesday. After the Sweden talks, U.S. officials were optimistic that the president would sign off on the arrangement, though in dramatic fashion, Trump waited until the final hours before the deadline to extend the pause. Had the tariffs snapped back into place, they risked escalating a trade war between the world's two largest economies that rattled global markets this year. With the clock ticking, Trump on Sunday night called on China to quadruple its purchases of American soybeans and noted that doing so would help reduce America's trade deficit with China. 'China is worried about its shortage of soybeans,' Trump wrote on Truth Social in a message directed to Xi. 'Our great farmers produce the most robust soybeans.' The United States and China have held three formal rounds of trade talks this year, after Trump started ratcheting up tariffs on Chinese imports. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods ultimately reached 145%, and China curbed the exports of rare earth magnets that are critical to American manufacturers. To de-escalate the tension, a 90-day truce was reached under which the U.S. reduced its China tariffs to 30% while China lowered its tariffs on U.S. goods to 10% and agreed to export the magnets. After talks in Sweden in late July, Trump's economic advisers exuded optimism that another 90-day extension would be granted. Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, said U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports could increase to 80% in the absence of an agreement, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed that possibility, suggesting that only technical details needed to be addressed. The scope of the talks has broadened beyond tariffs. Bessent has said he was pressing his Chinese counterparts on U.S. concerns about China's excess manufacturing capacity and its purchases of oil from Russia and Iran. U.S. and Chinese officials have been negotiating over U.S. export controls of microchips that China needs to power artificial intelligence systems. Despite the Trump administration's national security concerns over the trade in semiconductors and other products, it has taken a transactional approach to negotiations. Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices are expected to pay the United States 15% of the money they generate from selling AI chips to China, as part of a highly unusual financial agreement with the Trump administration. The trade talks with China have been on a separate track from the negotiations that the Trump administration has been having with other trading partners. This month, the United States announced a flurry of trade deals, with Japan, South Korea, and the European Union making big U.S. investment commitments in exchange for lower tariff rates. At the same time, Trump continues to deploy tariffs as a tool to address virtually any diplomatic issue. Last week, he doubled tariffs on goods from India to 50%, in part because India refused to curb purchases of Russian oil. The Trump administration has so far refrained from imposing such tariffs on China, which also buys Russian crude. Vice President JD Vance said on Fox News on Sunday that tariffs on China linked to Russian oil purchases are 'on the table' but that Trump has yet to decide on the matter because of the complexity of the relationship. Washington and Beijing reached a broad trade agreement during Trump's first term that included commitments from China to buy billions of dollars' worth of U.S. farm products. However, China didn't follow through on that agreement as the COVID-19 pandemic set in, and relations between the two countries frayed. Trump has maintained that he is open to meeting with Xi but said last week that he would only do so if the two countries reached a trade pact. 'He asked for a meeting, and I'll end up having a meeting before the end of the year most likely, if we make a deal,' Trump said of Xi on CNBC last week. 'If we don't make a deal, I'm not going to have a meeting.' This article originally appeared in Asian markets mostly rose Tuesday, with Tokyo hitting a record, as investors welcomed the extension of a China-US tariff truce but looked ahead apprehensively to the release of key US inflation data later in the day. Donald Trump's widely expected trade announcement avoids the reimposition of sky-high levies and allows officials from Washington and Beijing to continue talking into November to settle their standoff. In an executive order, the White House reiterated its position that there are "large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits" and they "constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States". However, William Yang, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, said: "Beijing will be happy to keep the US-China negotiation going, but it is unlikely to make concessions."
