
One Big Beautiful Mistake
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The story of great powers is not only one of conquest and competition. It is also one of self-inflicted decline—of states that once held commanding leads in technology or economic dynamism, only to squander them through complacency, ideology or short-sighted policy.
History is replete with examples. In the 15th century, China deployed fleets that dwarfed anything possessed by European powers, sailing as far as East Africa. But fearing instability and obsessed with internal control, its rulers dismantled their maritime power, ceding the seas—and the future—to Europe. In the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire, once a vital transmission mechanism bringing science and medicine to the West, clung to tradition and resisted industrialization. The result was stagnation and irrelevance.
The 20th century offers similar lessons. The Soviet Union launched the first satellite but crushed its nascent internet revolution, fearing the openness that innovation demands. The United States offshored its semiconductor manufacturing capabilities in the name of cost efficiency. Today, Taiwan leads the global chip supply and Washington is scrambling.
President Donald Trump answers questions during a press conference on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
President Donald Trump answers questions during a press conference on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C.Now, with the passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, history threatens to repeat itself—this time through a distinctly American form of self-sabotage.
President Trump's signature legislative achievement is billed as a national renewal project. But in substance, it represents a sweeping repudiation of the very policies that have begun to reorient the United States for long-term strategic competition with China. The bill eliminates more than $180 billion in clean energy tax credits over the next decade—including the 45X advanced manufacturing credit, which was catalyzing domestic battery, solar, and EV supply chains. It slashes over $60 billion earmarked for EV charging infrastructure, and sidelines efforts to modernize an antiquated grid system and scale carbon capture, hydrogen, and storage technologies.
It rescinds over $20 billion from the CHIPS and Science Act's R&D budget, neutering long-term U.S. innovation in semiconductors, and cuts the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) budget by 70 percent , stalling high-risk, high-reward technology programs critical to future global energy competitiveness. Programs to support workforce development in strategic and emerging sectors—including NSF fellowships and community college grants—have been zeroed out.
Rather than investments for global leadership, the legislation diverts funds toward politically symbolic priorities: expanded fossil fuel subsidies, funding for non-productive border infrastructure, and ideologically driven restrictions on ESG-aligned investment programs.
Combined with the Trump administration's broader attacks on flagship research universities and core funding in basic science and research, the message is clear: the U.S. is slowing down just as the global race to define the 21st century reaches a sprint.
This is not how great nations endure. It is how they fall.
And while the United States pulls back, China is gathering momentum. Beijing is investing state capital at scale in clean energy technologies, EVs, advanced batteries, grid storage, and the critical mineral supply chains on which all of these depend. It is not just competing—it is shaping global standards and opening new global markets in Latin America, Africa, and Europe, and securing long-term economic advantage. In 2023 alone, China added over $130 billion in new clean tech manufacturing subsidies, locked in new partnerships for lithium and cobalt supplies across Africa and Latin America, and deployed more EVs domestically than the rest of the world combined.
But the story is broader than China. In Europe and Asia, governments are ramping up public investment and targeted tax incentives in battery manufacturing, clean energy technology, EV supply chains, AI and chips, carbon storage and grid resilience, and next-generation industrial capacity. Even India, once overlooked in the tech race, has pledged $10 billion in production-linked incentives for semiconductors as well as for advanced clean energy manufacturing.
This is not merely a matter of climate policy or economic direction. It is about geopolitical positioning. The nations that lead in new energy, infrastructure, and core technologies will determine global rules and capital flows. Those that fall behind will become dependent on systems they did not design and cannot control.
Some insist that market forces will eventually adjust. But history rarely offers second chances. Great powers rise by investing in the future. They fall when they fight the future and mistake regression for resurgence.
This is not a bold reimagining of American greatness but rather a retreat from responsibility and opportunity. Like China burning their ships. Like Ottomans rejecting the factory. Like Soviet bureaucrats fearing the microchip. The One Big Beautiful Bill may claim to restore American leadership—but, in practice, it dismantles the foundations of U.S. competitiveness.
The bill is now law, but its effects are not yet destiny. There remains time for Congress, states, the private sector and—most importantly—the American people to choose differently. History's lesson is clear: greatness is not a birthright. It is a wager on the future. And it demands the courage to build.
Michael Schiffer, a partner at Scalare Advisors, served as assistant administrator for Asia at USAID in the Biden administration, senior advisor and counselor at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and prior to that, at the Department of Defense in the Obama administration.
Dewardric L. McNeal is managing director and senior policy analyst at Longview Global, LLC, a former Obama administration appointee to the U.S. Department of Defense, and served as assistant director for international programs at the Brookings Institution's John L. Thornton China Center.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DigitalBridge CEO on Surging Demand for Data Centers
Marc Ganzi, DigitalBridge CEO, says the company has been running power banks for the last ten years, currently delivering over 21 gigawatts of on-demand power for customers.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 things you need to know about Trump's nominee for the Fed
President Donald Trump's nominee to the Federal Reserve Board has implications for the central bank's monetary policy decisions. The president nominated Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Stephen Miran to the Fed to replace Fed governor Adriana Kugler, who is stepping down Friday. Miran will hold that seat for a few months until the Jan. 31 term expires while the president looks for a different candidate to nominate for a full 14-year term as Fed governor. But how will the nomination impact the central bank and the decisions it makes on setting interest rates? Here are three things you need to know about Miran's views and what they could mean for the Fed. Miran wants lower interest rates Miran, who criticized the Fed last fall for cutting rates, warning that lower rates could perpetuate inflation further, is now in favor of cutting rates. Miran, who holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University, believes that the Trump administration's policies, from immigration to trade and deregulation, which he has helped create, are disinflationary. This contrasts with many on the Fed who believe the president's tariffs could lead to higher inflation. If the Senate were to confirm Miran in time for the Sept. 16-17 policy meeting and the full committee is not convinced to lower rates at that time, Miran would likely dissent in favor of cutting rates. That would mark three on the committee who could dissent: Fed governors Chris Waller and Michelle Bowman both dissented at the July policy meeting, preferring to lower rates by 25 basis points. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments Miran's 'Mar-a-Lago Accord' favors a weaker dollar Miran favors a weaker dollar as a way to offset higher inflation from tariffs while also increasing exports, narrowing the trade deficit, and boosting growth. He is the author of what he dubbed the "Mar-a-Lago Accord," a reference to the 1985 Plaza Accord that succeeded in depreciating the dollar's value. The Mar-a-Lago Accord seeks to devalue the dollar while retaining the greenback as the world's reserve currency. As one who favors a weaker dollar, Miran favors lower interest rates, which could lead to a weaker dollar if US rates are lower than the interest rates of other central banks around the world. The president has pushed for a 3 percentage point drop in the Fed's benchmark policy rate. Investors will watch for how much Miran will push for the policy rate to drop if confirmed. Miran wants a less independent Fed Miran has advocated for major changes to the Fed. In a paper co-authored in 2024 with the now chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Miran called for an overhaul of the central bank by Congress that would give the White House more control over firing Fed governors, as well as not allowing Fed governors to serve in the executive branch for four years following their term as governor. He also argued for subjecting the Fed's independent budget to congressional appropriations. The proposals for allowing the president to dismiss Fed officials at will have stirred fears that the move could politicize the central bank and push the Fed to make policy according to the whims of the political cycle and not the economic cycle. Read more: How jobs, inflation, and the Fed are all related Still, as only one governor on the Fed, and possibly a temporary one, Miran himself isn't expected to tip the scales all that much. Any major changes to the structure of the central bank would have to come from Congress, and there's still a 19-member committee that will make decisions on rates led by Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who, like the majority of the Fed, remains in a "wait-and-see" mode for the impact of tariffs on inflation. Jennifer Schonberger is a veteran financial journalist covering markets, the economy, and investing. At Yahoo Finance she covers the Federal Reserve, Congress, the White House, the Treasury, the SEC, the economy, cryptocurrencies, and the intersection of Washington policy with finance. Follow her on X @Jenniferisms and on Instagram. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


UPI
23 minutes ago
- UPI
Appeals court dismisses contempt order against Trump admin. officials
U.S. President Donald Trump met with Prime Minister of the Republic of El Salvador Nayib Bukele in April. Trump secured a court victory Friday that said he was not in contempt of court by allegedly ignoring a district court judge's order. Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo Aug. 8 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday dismissed a lower court's order that Trump administration officials could be held in contempt for efforts related to deporting hundreds of Venezuelans. The case stems from a district judge's order finding probable cause that federal officials committed criminal contempt by violating an order to turn around planes full of detainees on their way to El Salvador. Two of the three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with the administration. Trump has denounced U.S. District Judge James Boasberg for overstepping his authority by beginning criminal contempt proceedings in April. The opinion issued Friday was unsigned. Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao -- who were both appointed by Trump -- agreed to toss out Boasberg's order. Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented. She was appointed by President Barack Obama. "The district court's order raises troubling questions about judicial control over core executive functions like the conduct of foreign policy and the prosecution of criminal offenses," Katsas wrote in an opinion. "And it implicates an unsettled issue whether the judiciary may impose criminal contempt for violating injunctions entered without jurisdiction." In her dissent, Pillard wrote that the administration should have dealt with the contempt charges instead of ignoring them. "Our system of courts cannot long endure if disappointed litigants defy court orders with impunity rather than legally challenge them," Pillard wrote. "That is why willful disobedience of a court order is punishable as criminal contempt." Boasberg's order to stop the deportation planes comes from immigration officials trying to deport Venezuelans that the administration said were members of the Tren de Aragua gang. In March, Trump used the Alien Enemies Act to remove the Venezuelans quickly. A group of migrants challenged the deportations in court, and Boasberg temporarily blocked the deportations, issuing an oral order to return them. Then he issued a written order to prevent the administration from conducting deportations under the Alien Enemies act. On July 28, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that a misconduct complaint was filed against Boasberg "for making improper public comments" about Trump amid his administration's targeting of the U.S. judicial system. The complaint focused on comments made by Boasberg to Chief Justice John Roberts and some two dozen other judges who attended a March 11 judicial conference. According to the document, Boasberg said he believed that the Trump administration would "disregard rulings of federal courts," which would trigger "a constitutional crisis." Boasberg ruled on June 4 that at least 137 migrants sent to El Salvador on flights in mid-March must be allowed to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. He issued a 69-page ruling that the Department of Homeland Security had "improperly" sent migrants on flights from Texas to El Salvador's maximum security prison without giving them a chance to challenge their designation as "alien enemies."