
Trump is calling Wall Street's bluff on tariffs
Donald Trump
Investing
StocksFacebookTweetLink
Follow
Wall Street traders embraced the term TACO — Trump always chickens out — earlier this year to describe President Donald Trump's on-again, off-again position on tariffs. Trump liked to impose hefty import taxes but would inevitably back off when markets plunged, analysts said.
Now Trump is calling the market's bluff.
Yet another round of new tariffs went effect on Thursday, lifting the average tax on US imports to the highest level since the 1930s.
Trump bet markets would absorb this latest news, adapt and move on — and so far he appears to have been right.
Stocks still closed higher on the week, with the Nasdaq hitting a record high on Friday and the S&P 500 notching its best week in over one month.
It's a remarkable shift from early April, when the president's 'Liberation Day' tariffs caused stocks across the globe to plunge.
But with economists saying tariff effects could take weeks or months to play out, it's too soon to declare victory just yet.
'He is succeeding in implementing major tariffs without shocking the stock market,' said Ethan Harris, former head of global economics at Bank of America. 'It's surprising, and you could call it an accomplishment if you're in favor of tariffs.'
Trump may be winning the hand, but Wall Street has lots of cards left. The game isn't over.
Investors in recent months have embraced the 'TACO' trade.
A better description would be, 'Trump always tries again,' according to Harris.
With the latest import taxes, Trump is pushing forward with an average tariff rate just slightly slower than what he tried to impose on April 2, according to the Budget Lab at Yale.
While stocks are hovering near record highs, Harris said he expects tariffs will inflict 'real damage' on the economy, and it remains to be seen if investors will stay complacent.
The inclusion of carveouts has softened the blow of tariffs, according to Kurt Reiman, head of fixed income at UBS. That has helped temper investors' concerns.
Apple (AAPL), for example, is exempt from tariffs on some imports from India and tariffs on semiconductors because of its pledge to develop production in the United States. Apple stock last week soared 13% and had its best week since 2020.
'The tariff wall being built by the administration also has many holes because of numerous product exemptions, carveouts and delayed implementation dates,' Reiman said.
Enthusiasm about the AI boom in the United States is also driving market momentum and drawing attention away from tariffs.
While investors have been concerned about trade, blowout earnings from big tech companies like Nvidia (NVDA) and Meta (META) have helped buoy the market.
In addition, trading partners have largely not retaliated, avoiding a global trade war that would have had worse outcomes for the US economy, according to David Doyle, head of economics at Macquarie.
'What's really struck me is how little Trump has had to chicken out from,' Robert Armstrong, the Financial Times columnist who coined the term 'TACO,' told CNN's Richard Quest in an August 1 interview.
Wall Street's fear gauge, the CBOE Volatility index, spiked in early April above 50 points — a historic level not seen since the Covid pandemic or the 2008 financial crisis.
The VIX in August just briefly breached 20 points — a level associated with slightly noticeable volatility — before retreating.
Investors are maintaining faith in a 'Trump put,' or the notion that if the markets do plummet, the president will refine his approach.
The 'Trump put' is different from chickening out, analysts say, as the president might back down just enough to satisfy markets before pushing forward again with his tariffs when he is able to.
'He always tries again until the equity market punishes the policy,' Harris said. 'That's the old 'Trump put' idea, which is the way people used to talk about it, and is still the correct way to think about the trade war.'
While Trump has implemented his tariffs, it might be too soon to call victory. Investors are awaiting data on inflation and the labor market in upcoming months to get a better sense of how tariffs are impacting the economy.
'As an investor, you can talk yourself into not worrying about tariffs, but if you're a company trying to make business plans, you can't afford to ignore the tariffs,' Harris said. 'The stock market and the economy are not the same thing.'
Arun Sai, senior multi-asset strategist at Pictet Asset Management, said investors are taking two leaps of faith in believing in the resilience of the US economy and that 'the stagflationary impulse of tariffs' — slower growth and stickier inflation — won't be as bad as initially feared.
Markets are a 'little too complacent,' Sai said, and he will be watching the next two inflation reports ahead of the Federal Reserve's September policy meeting for any sign of tariff-induced increases in prices.
'By no means are we out of the woods,' Sai said. ' We are priced for nothing to go wrong, and yet we still have a very important inflection point ahead of us.'
Hashtags

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

Business Insider
2 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Elon Musk is trying to pit ChatGPT against its owner as his feud with Sam Altman escalates
Elon Musk is turning to ChatGPT to adjudicate his long-running feud with Sam Altman. Musk posted a screenshot of a query to ChatGPT 5 Pro on Tuesday, asking if he or Altman was "more trustworthy." ChatGPT chose Musk. "There you have it," Musk wrote. Business Insider posed the same query as Musk to ChatGPT eight times, testing it across the GPT 5 Pro, GPT 5 Thinking, and GPT 5 models. ChatGPT picked Musk once, while it was set to GPT-5 Thinking. The rest of the attempts returned Altman, including when it was toggled to GPT-5 Thinking again. Musk and OpenAI did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. Later, Musk posted the screenshot in response to an X post from OpenAI's ChatGPT account. The account had shared a query to Musk's chatbot, Grok, asking if Musk was right to say Apple had committed antitrust violations. Musk threatened to sue Apple on Monday over what he said was its bias toward OpenAI on the App Store. But Grok — in a response reposted by the official ChatGPT X account — disagreed with Musk's opinion of the Apple rankings. "Good bot," the OpenAI-affiliated account said of Grok's response, adding that Grok was very "truth-seeking." "You too," Musk replied. You too — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 12, 2025 Musk cofounded OpenAI with Altman in 2015 but left its board in 2018. Since then, Musk has publicly criticized Altman's leadership of OpenAI. Last year, Musk filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, accusing the company of violating its nonprofit mission when it partnered with Microsoft. Musk launched his AI startup, xAI, in July 2023. Grok, its first chatbot, was released in the same year. Musk isn't the only one who has tried to pit a chatbot against its creator. In May, Altman asked Grok if it would pick him or Musk to lead the AI arms race if the fate of humanity was at stake. "If forced, I'd lean toward Musk for his safety emphasis, critical for humanity's survival, though Altman's accessibility is vital. Ideally, their strengths should combine with regulation to ensure AI benefits all," Grok said in response to Altman's query.


Bloomberg
2 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Modi Champions Farmers in Trump Rift as State Election Looms
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ruling party have seized on growing friction with US President Donald Trump to bolster support from farmers ahead of a crucial state election. A day after Trump stunned New Delhi by slapping 50% tariffs on the nation's exports to the US, Modi promised supporters he'd protect the interests of farmers, even if it means he pays a personal price for it. Modi's top aides, including his trade minister, have signaled India won't give in to US pressure to open up its agriculture and dairy markets to American imports. On Tuesday, leading farmer groups met with India's agriculture minister in New Delhi to pledge support to the government.


CBS News
2 minutes ago
- CBS News
California says Trump's L.A. military deployment was illegal and caused "anxiety and fear"; Feds say president had authority
Lawyers for the state of California and the federal government faced off in court Tuesday over President Trump's deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles. The attorney for the state, Meghan Strong, argued that having what she called a "standing army" in Los Angeles is "unprecedented" and goes against a "deep-rooted policy against military involvement in civilian life." She said that Mr. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth "think that they can disregard that policy on a whim." Californians "have been forced to endure anxiety and fear caused by the pervasive presence of this standing army," said Strong. Mr. Trump sent in around 700 Marines and 4,000 California National Guard troops to protect federal property and law enforcement agents during a series of protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in early June. The deployment prompted a lawsuit from Gov. Gavin Newsom, who did not approve of the use of his state's Guard forces and called the move an illegal "power grab." At issue in the three-day bench trial pitting Newsom against the Trump administration is whether the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits military personnel from carrying out domestic law enforcement. Strong alleged that the federal government acted in violation of that 1878 law, saying troops were used to provide armed security for federal agents, set roadblocks and perimeters that restricted civilian movement, and detained civilians. California asked U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer for an injunction that would let the military protect federal property — like courthouses and ICE facilities — but block it from continuing the support for immigration enforcement operations, which the state's lawyer called an "unlawful military crusade." Meanwhile, Eric Hamilton, a lawyer for the Justice Department, argued that the military deployment is legal, with the purpose of protecting federal property and personnel. He said that no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act exists. The federal government's only witness — Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who was at one point commanding general of the Guard task force in Los Angeles — said he was instructed "that we were not conducting law enforcement operations and that we were there to serve the United States." "We took our duty very seriously, and care and professionalism was always exhibited," he said. Mr. Trump justified the deployment using a law called Title 10, which allows the president to call up Guard forces during a "rebellion," or if he is unable "with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." In an early June memo, Mr. Trump said the protests in Los Angeles "constitute a form of rebellion" and endangered federal agents. Breyer had previously ruled that Mr. Trump used Title 10 unlawfully, but he was overruled by an appellate court that said Mr. Trump had discretion to decide if that law applied. Since then, most of the troops have left Los Angeles, with roughly 300 Guard forces remaining. But the issue has drawn more attention in recent days, as the Trump administration deploys National Guard forces to Washington, D.C. The administration says that deployment is necessary to support law enforcement and crack down on violent crime, but local leaders have condemned the federal government's intervention. Strong cautioned that "Los Angeles is only the beginning," citing recent comments from Mr. Trump that she said indicated he may deploy the National Guard to other cities, including Oakland and New York. A "constitutional exception?" Parts of Tuesday's testimony hinged on an alleged "constitutional exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act. At one point, Sherman referred to a "constitutional exception." He testified that he was advised federal troops were allowed to do "four things" that would normally be barred under the law — security patrols, traffic control, crowd control and riot control — "because it was in line with what the President was directing" and "what the Secretary of Defense was directing." But Judge Breyer was unaware of such an exception and pressed Sherman on the issue. "I'm not a lawyer," said Sherman. "That may be to your credit," responded Breyer. Breyer later asked if Sherman ever received legal advice that if the Guard task force engaged in certain activities, it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Sherman testified that he was told, since Mr. Trump's memo said the Los Angeles protests were a form of rebellion that prevented federal agents from doing their jobs, that triggered the constitutional exception. "This is all the way from the top of DOD down to Task Force 51," he said. California's attorney, Strong, disputed this "mysterious constitutional exception," arguing that neither the president nor the secretary of defense "can create an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act." "That means all the directives we've seen the past two days are wrong and what they told soldiers to do was illegal," she said. "Those directives are based on a constitutional exception that doesn't exist." One exception to the Posse Comitatus Act is the Insurrection Act, which lets the president use the military to enforce the law during an insurrection. Mr. Trump has not invoked that law. "If he calls something a rebellion, it is a rebellion?" Mr. Trump's description of the Los Angeles protests as a "rebellion" was raised again in court on Tuesday, after Sherman testified Monday that he didn't hear the term used to describe the demonstrations. Sherman clarified on Tuesday that he knew Mr. Trump's memo called the protests a rebellion. The judge later pushed back against the idea that Mr. Trump has the discretion to decide if a "rebellion" is occurring. "If he calls something a rebellion, it is a rebellion?" Breyer asked, repeatedly. The federal government's attorney, Hamilton, said that the president is commander in chief, and he's entitled to deference in that judgment. But when asked by the judge multiple times, he acknowledged that it doesn't make it a rebellion. Breyer further questioned Mr. Trump's ability to dictate what the law allows, when Hamilton argued that there was no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act because the military was serving a protective function in Los Angeles. "Are you saying that because the president says it, therefore it is?" said Breyer. "If the president says you can do X," he continued, "because the president has said it, that's sufficient to take it out of the Posse Comitatus Act?" The trial will conclude on Wednesday.