Trump is knowingly steering the economy off the cliff with tariffs
Over the weekend, Donald Trump's reassurance of a more generous approach to tariffs was reversed again, apparently returning to draconian across-the-board 20% tariffs. The president's imminent Rose Garden 'Liberation Day' announcement of universal tariffs on everything coming into the U.S. from everyone—accompanied by the Trump-driven 10% decline in the stock market over the last month—is just the latest example of how Trump's capricious tariff tantrums are steering the U.S. economy straight off the cliff. Given the near unanimous chorus of business leaders and economists, one must wonder what motivates Trump's destructive decrees. As Trump himself confessed this weekend on NBC, 'I couldn't care less if car prices go up!'
The problem is not tariffs—the problem is Donald Trump, plain and simple. Per our Yale CEO Caucus survey results, 90% of CEOs actually support tariffs, when they are used strategically and selectively. These business leaders support the use of selective tariffs to rectify genuine trade imbalances and constrain foreign dumping into the U.S., undermining U.S. producers in sectors such as steel.
But these worthy goals often seem to be subjugated to Trump's personality-driven vendettas, such as punishing longtime nemesis Justin Trudeau; and even more importantly, Trump's idiosyncratic, capricious rollout of tariffs has made it all but impossible for companies to invest at all, hampering Trump's own stated goal of bringing investment and jobs back to the U.S.
Already, there is a confusing array of 12,500 tariff categories across 200 trading partners. We tallied up Trump's tariff pronouncements over the last two months and found no less than a head-spinning 107 instances of paradoxical flip-flops on tariff policy, often with same-day reversals. That does not even account for often contradictory guidance from Trump's deputies, which are then subsequently overruled by Trump himself.
Businesses need predictability and stability; no company can authorize billions in capital spending to build new plants or hire new workers when trade policy changes not day by day, not hour by hour, but in some cases, literally minute by minute. During our Yale CEO Caucus this month, CEOs groaned and cringed each time CNBC's Eamon Javers read off a new tariff policy reversal, with seven flip-flops over our three-hour event.
Trump's defenders argue this is all part of his 'art of the deal'—to punch counterparties in the face so hard that they are knocked off balance and are all but begging for a deal. But the reality is, Trump is getting snookered in these deals, as companies merely repackage existing and preplanned capex spending into gauzy, headline-drawing 'announcements' of 'new investments' in the U.S. The veneer of glitz and glamour of fawning Oval Office press conferences announcing these new investments hides a much seamier reality, as much-ballyhooed new 'investments' such as Foxconn's planned $10 billion electronics factory in Wisconsin turn into abandoned shadows and idled plants. Meanwhile, foreign leaders and companies offer token concessions with little genuine benefit to the U.S., while racing to evade tariffs by rerouting supply chains through neutral countries, brazenly and openly defying Trump while paying lip service to his whims. That is why 90% of CEOs polled at our Yale CEO Caucus said that Trump's tariffs are backfiring on the U.S.
These CEOs, like everyone else, are looking at ample data pointing to the widespread havoc wrought by Trump's tariff tantrums. Not only have Trump's botched tariff tantrums helped chop about $7 trillion in value off the stock market since his inauguration—enough to fund the government for an entire year—but the costs are being felt in the real economy. Far from bringing manufacturing and jobs back to the U.S., Trump is killing American manufacturing, hurting U.S. workers, and bringing the entire U.S. economy down with him. Inflation expectations have jumped to 32-year highs; consumer confidence has plunged 25% across both the University of Michigan and Conference Board surveys as consumer spending falls the most in five years; NFIB Small Business confidence has plunged 50%; the labor market is deteriorating as the number of new layoffs quadrupled over the last three months; capital spending and investments have come to a standstill; and GDP growth forecasts have come down by 1%—a head-spinning reversal of economic fortune as the initial euphoria of Trump's pledges of tax cuts and deregulation morphed into the Frankenstein monster of all tariffs, all the time.
Of course, many business leaders wonder what motivates Trump's destructive tariff tantrums. On one hand, Trump has obsessed over tariffs since at least the 1980s; and he has long, reductionistically viewed the U.S. balance of trade as if he were still running the Trump Organization, which tries to sell more than it buys every year. But the sheer, avoidable, intentional chaos of Trump's tariff rollout, and his willingness to ignore significant stock market drawdowns, suggest there may be other explanatory factors. Some CEOs have privately suggested that Trump may be trying to induce a recession early in his term to 'clear the deck' well before midterm elections—though that assumes a greater facility for long-term strategic foresight than is usually associated with Trump. More likely, perhaps Trump has no plan and is just making things up on the fly, with arbitrary megalomaniacal impulses unconstrained by yes-men staff.
In Trump's tantrums, psychoanalysts might find strong resemblance to what Sigmund Freud called the 'death drive' pathology of entrepreneurs, or what psychiatrists term the self-destructive impulse—akin to a child on the beach who builds a beautiful castle and kicks it down.
Forty-two years ago, Abraham Zaleznik, a psychoanalyst management scholar at the Harvard Business School, explained that many times, such entrepreneurial leaders as Trump and Musk are driven by an ultimately self-destructive megalomania, rooted in a bad relationship with a parent who disparaged them but is no longer around to be proven wrong. Zaleznik stated, 'In their climb to the top, they have certain fantasies having to do with creating a new world. There is a search for restitution—to remake the world, remake their childhood, remake a relationship with a parent. They fall prey to the Midas theory. Everything they touch will turn to gold, and if it doesn't they go bonkers. I think if we want to understand the entrepreneur we should look at the juvenile delinquent. I think there are a lot of similarities. They both have an under-developed super-ego. And so they don't understand right from wrong.'
Trump's 'Liberation Day' has turned into a nightmare for U.S. businesses. The real liberation the U.S. economy needs is a more orderly, strategic approach to tariffs, liberated from Trump's idiosyncratic whims.
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is the Lester Crown Professor in Management Practice and president and founder of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute. Steven Tian is the director of research at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute. Stephen Henriques is a senior research fellow at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute and a former McKinsey & Co. consultant.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
Read more:
Trump's trade and tariffs policies are flawed and contradictory—and the 'Mar-a-Lago accord' is suited for the trash bin
Trump tariffs: Stealing from the China playbook—to boost car making in America
Tariffs won't make America great again: Export-Import Bank's former chairman and president
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
18 minutes ago
- UPI
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
President Donald Trump congratulates a cadet at the United States Military Academy graduation ceremony in Michie Stadium at West Point, New York, on May 24, and will review the Army's 250th birthday parade on June 14. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."
Fox News
18 minutes ago
- Fox News
Drama Between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk
The failed friendship between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk continues, Bill Maher has some advice for the Democratic party, and social media drama between gold medalist Simone Biles and Riley Gaines. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Politico
21 minutes ago
- Politico
Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.
President Donald Trump's campaign against two of the planet's best-known universities is laying bare just how unprepared academia was to confront a hostile White House. Schools never imagined facing an administration so willing to exercise government power so quickly — targeting the research funding, tax-exempt status, foreign student enrollment and financial aid eligibility schools need to function. That's left them right where the president wants them. Even as Ivy League schools, research institutions, and college trade associations try to resist Trump's attacks in court, campus leaders are starting to accept they face only difficult choices: negotiate with the government, mount a painful legal and political fight — or simply try to stay out of sight. Groundbreaking scientific research, financial aid for lower-income students and soft power as an economic engine once shielded schools' access to federal funds. Trump has now transformed those financial lifelines into leverage. And the diversity and independence of U.S. colleges and universities — something they've seen as a source of strength and competition — is straining efforts to form a singular response to the president. 'Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on the part of universities,' said Lee Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University. 'It feels now like there has been a naïveté on the part of universities. There's been no planning for this kind of thing.' Schools are accustomed to tension with their faculty, governing boards, legislatures and governors. But punishments for resisting the Trump administration plumbed untested levels of severity this week when the president issued an executive order to bar foreign students from entering the country to study at Harvard University as his administration threatened Columbia's academic accreditation. Even though Project 2025 — The Heritage Foundation's roadmap for a second Trump administration — previewed some of the tactics the administration would use, many school leaders may have underestimated the president's determination. 'It just seemed inconceivable that we would be in this position of having massive amounts of federal funding withheld, threats to have legislation that attacks your tax status, and now these new issues with international students,' Bollinger said. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday night that blocked Trump's directive to restrict Harvard's access to international students. But the administration is brandishing its response to Harvard's resistance as a warning to other schools who might resist, as federal officials pressure schools to negotiate the terms of a truce over the administration's complaints about campus antisemitism, foreign government influence and its opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. 'We've held back funding from Columbia, we've also done the same thing with Harvard,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon told House lawmakers this past week. 'We are asking, as Columbia has done, to come to the table for negotiations,' she said, just hours before telling the school's accreditor it was violating federal anti-discrimination laws. 'We've also asked Harvard. Their answer was a lawsuit.' A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. 'What we've seen so far when it comes to Harvard is the playbook for holding these radical schools accountable is way deeper than anyone anticipated or expected,' a senior White House official told POLITICO. 'You're starting to get to the bone, so to speak, of holding these people accountable,' said the official, who was granted anonymity to freely discuss White House strategy. 'Harvard knows they cannot endure this for long, they just can't. They're going to have to come to the table, and we'll always be there to meet them. But this was a test case of what to do.' The university described Trump's latest foreign student order this week as 'yet another illegal retaliatory step.' A federal judge in May blocked a separate administration attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students. Harvard is still locked in a legal fight over more than $2 billion in federal grants the White House blocked after the school refused to comply with demands to overhaul its admissions and disciplinary policies. Trump announced plans to cancel Harvard's tax-exempt status in early May, then later floated redistributing billions of dollars in university grants to trade schools. 'It is not our desire to bring these schools to their knees. The president reveres our higher educational facilities. He's a product of one,' the White House official said. 'But in order to hold these people accountable, we will be unrelenting in our enforcement of the law and hitting them where it hurts, which is their pocketbook.' Many institutions have chosen a more muted response following months of conflict, including major public institutions in states that have also grown reliant on the full-freight tuition paid by international students. 'Universities don't have as many degrees of freedom, at least in the public sector, as you might think they do,' said Teresa Sullivan, the former president of the University of Virginia. 'One reason they seem to be relatively slow to act is there's a certain disbelief — can this really be happening?' 'We seem to be in uncharted territory, at least in my experience,' Sullivan said. 'All of a sudden, the rules don't seem to apply. I think that's disconcerting. It shakes the ground beneath you, and you don't necessarily know what to do next.' Still, some higher education leaders are trying to confront the government. More than 650 campus officials have so far signed onto a joint statement that opposes 'the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Sullivan and a group of other former presidents used an op-ed in The Washington Post to argue the Trump administration's offensive 'won't be confined to Harvard University.' Trade associations including the American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities have joined schools in a lawsuit to block some of Trump's research funding cuts. The Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a collective of school leaders, has also sued to challenge the Trump administration's attempts to target the legal status of thousands of foreign students. 'Your first obligation as president is you don't want to hurt the institution you represent,' Sullivan said of the relative silence coming from non-Ivy League institutions. 'These days it's hard to tell what hurts and what doesn't. I think that's the motive. The motive is not cowardice.' Schools still face a choice between negotiating with the government — and risk compromising on their principles — or inviting Trump's rage by putting up a fight. 'Every school has had an option to correct course and work with the administration, or stand firm in their violations of the law,' the administration official said. 'They have an option, they know very well what to do.' The real question, according to Bollinger, the former Columbia president, is how far the White House will go and how much resistance the schools are willing to put up. 'The power of government is so immense that if they want to destroy institutions, they can,' he said. 'What you do in that kind of environment is you stand on principle.'
