
5 ways Trump has shaped the economy in 6 months
Here are the big economic hallmarks of the first six months of his second term, spanning taxes, tariffs, deficits, markets, and the dollar — and how they could affect regular Americans.
Trade war 2.0
Trump has massively scaled up the reset of U.S. trade policy that he started during his first term and that was left largely in place during the Biden administration.
While his country-specific tariffs have been pushed back to Aug. 1 and multiple sketches of bilateral trade deals have been announced, the overall U.S. tariff level is around its highest levels in a century, mostly due to tariffs on China.
The tariff rate on China is now about 50 percent, according to different estimates, This is sparking concerns about a broader ' decoupling ' of the world's two largest economies.
The Yale Budget Lab put the overall U.S. tariff level at 20.2 percent this week and Fitch Ratings put it at 14.1 percent last month. Total tariff rates have a large statistical range as they can be assembled and weighted in different ways.
Trump and the White House have announced trade deals with China, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia and the United Kingdom — but many specifics are still forthcoming.
Tariffs have likely started to show up in consumer prices. The consumer price index (CPI) ticked up to a 2.7-percent annual increase in June from 2.4 percent in May, and tariffs are expected to drive it higher.
Many economists — including those at the Federal Reserve — have cast the tariffs in stagflationary terms, meaning that they'll push prices higher while detracting from growth.
Gross domestic product (GDP) contracted in the first quarter as importers pulled orders in ahead of tariffs. The Atlanta Fed is forecasting 2.4-percent annualized growth for the second quarter, which would be solid.
Trump has pursued his trade war with the stated goal of bringing back outsourced jobs and boost household income, but there are few signs of this happening so far.
Wage growth has fallen under Trump from a 4.2-percent annual increase in February to 3.9 percent in June. U.S. wage growth has stagnated over the long term. Accounting for inflation, purchasing power of U.S. paychecks grew by just over $2 between 1964 and 2018, according to Pew Research.
The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs, which Trump has touted as getting a boost from tariffs, have been largely stagnant since February at 12.8 million.
Tax cuts 2.0
Earlier this month, Trump signed $4.5 trillion worth of tax cuts into law, most of which were an extension of the cuts he signed in 2017.
The passage of the president's tax-cut bill was a major win for Trump and the Republican Party, making it through Congress much faster than analysts had expected. Experts told The Hill they didn't think it would happen until the very end of this year, especially because the House and Senate were pursuing differing reconciliation strategies to get it done.
However, the tax cuts were expensive and are expected to add substantially to the national debt. Excluding interest, the law will cost $3.4 trillion through the next nine years. That will be added to the total U.S. debt stock of about $36 trillion.
Fights over the debt, which regularly require the acceptable limit to be raised by Congress, have resulted in a downgrade of U.S. credit worthiness by all the big credit agencies. Trump's tax law included a $4.1 trillion increase in the ceiling so the issue won't be a political one for the time being.
Debt costs could be paid for by future reductions to social programs. The tax law will kick 10 million Americans off of public health insurance in 2024.
While tax cuts are traditionally thought of as economically stimulative, the congressional tax scorer projected minimal growth resulting from the Senate's version of the bill at just 1.8 percent.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) found in 2019 that real wages increased following the 2017 tax law by 1.2 percent, an amount that smaller than the overall growth in compensation in those years.
'Ordinary workers had very little growth in wage rates' resulting from the cuts, CRS found.
Asked what the main point of the tax law is, University of Michigan tax law professor Reuven Avi-Yonah pointed to its overall redistributive effects, which Congressional Budget Office analyses show to take resources from the poor to give to the rich.
'From a policy perspective, the main point is reverse Robin Hood,' he said in an interview. 'That's fundamentally there.'
The decline of the dollar
The U.S. dollar has declined precipitously in value relative to other currencies since Trump has taken office, a move that has flouted conventional economic thinking.
Since inauguration day, the DXY dollar index has dropped 11 percent to 97.3 from 109.4 even as tariffs are now at near century-high levels.
This has flummoxed analysts, who are venturing guesses about what's going on.
While the dollar decline decreases the purchasing power of the dollar abroad, it could also bolster U.S. industrial production and the export sector in line with longer-term U.S. economic objectives.
'I'm a person that likes a strong dollar, but a weak dollar makes you a hell of a lot more money,' Trump said Friday.
'When we have a strong dollar, one thing happens: It sounds good. But you don't do any tourism, you can't sell tractors, you can't sell trucks, you can't sell anything,' he said.
Top White House economists have also talked up the benefits of a weaker dollar.
'The reserve function of the dollar has caused persistent currency distortions,' Council of Economic Advisers chair Stephen Miran said earlier this year.
Miran has argued in the past that 'persistent dollar overvaluation … prevents the balancing of international trade, and this overvaluation is driven by inelastic demand for reserve assets.'
In other words, scaring investors away from the dollar may work to the U.S.'s advantage.
Some analysts have compared the decline to the Plaza Accord, a 1985 currency agreement that devalued the dollar and reduced the trade deficit.
The financial world is starting to see results.
'With the dollar now firmly back within our estimated fair-value range, we view the risks as more balanced than at any time during the last three years,' analysts for Vanguard said Thursday.
Attacks on the Fed
Trump's first six months have also been marked by vociferous and repeated attacks from the president on the Federal Reserve and Chair Jerome Powell.
Trump reportedly went so far as to pitch the idea of firing Powell to GOP lawmakers last week before saying that it was 'highly unlikely.'
While the Fed seems content to maintain its pause on cuts for now, Trump's aggressions have shown up in financial markets. More substantially, they've also changed the conversation on monetary policy.
Economists have started to worry about a Fed that takes its cues from the White House, making it less independent and more susceptible to short-term political pressures.
They're worried that the Fed could become more tolerant of inflation, which could lead to financial repression — when the inflation rate surpasses the rate of interest, leading to negative long-term returns on capital.
Some supporters of the president have even questioned the 1951 accord between the Fed and the Treasury, whereby the Fed handles the money supply and the Treasury issues bonds.
Former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, who is often listed as a successor to Powell, floated 'a new accord' to replace the 1951 agreement. Warsh said the traditionally independent Fed and the Treasury Department could work together to communicate moves about the Fed's balance sheet.
Markets down, markets up
Stock markets took a dive at the outset of Trump's trade war and then rallied as different deals were announced, especially the one with China. The
The market narrative spurred by the tariffs has reversed, and the S&P 500 index is now at all-time highs.
Ownership of the stock market is heavily skewed toward the wealthiest Americans. The poorest half of Americans own just one percent of the stock.
Despite the sizzling rebound in stocks, the bond market is still jittery, following a yield spike in April that prompted a course-correction on tariffs from the White House.
Consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan has rebounded from lows hit during the height of the tariff rollout, but is still quite a bit lower than it was before the pandemic.
Business sentiment is still flagging in various polls, and the latest anecdotal survey of the economy by the Fed is filled with complaints about policy uncertainty.
Markets are also processing multiple new pieces of legislation on cryptocurrency, which have classified digital currencies as forms of payment rather than assets.
Hashtags

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

Los Angeles Times
29 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
European leaders rally behind Ukraine ahead of Trump-Putin meeting
KYIV, Ukraine — European nations have rallied behind Ukraine, saying peace in the war-torn nation can't be resolved without Kyiv, ahead of a planned meeting this week between President Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin. Trump had said Friday's meeting in Alaska with his Russian counterpart was to discuss ending the more than three-year war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded by thanking European allies and wrote on X on Sunday: 'The end of the war must be fair, and I am grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine and our people.' Saturday's statement by top European leaders came after the White House confirmed the U.S president was willing to grant Putin the one-on-one meeting Russia has long pushed for, and suggestions from Trump that a peace deal could include 'some swapping of territories.' That raised fears that Ukraine may be pressured into giving up land or accepting other curbs on its sovereignty. A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity as they aren't allowed to speak publicly, told the Associated Press that Trump remained open to a trilateral summit with both the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, but for now he will have the bilateral meeting requested by Putin. Trump had earlier said he would meet with Putin even if the Russian leader would not meet with Zelensky. On Saturday, U.S. Vice President JD Vance met with top European and Ukrainian officials at the British Foreign Secretary's weekend residence to discuss how to end the war. The Trump-Putin meeting could prove pivotal in a war that began when Russia invaded its smaller neighbor in 2022 and has led to tens of thousands of deaths, although Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace. Saturday's statement, signed by the president of the European Union and leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland and the U.K., stressed the need for a 'just and lasting peace' for Ukraine, including 'robust and credible' security guarantees. 'Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities,' the statement said. 'The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force,' the Europeans added. A monthlong U.S.-led push to achieve a truce in Ukraine has so far proved fruitless, with Kyiv agreeing in principle while the Kremlin has held out for terms more to its liking. Trump had also moved up an ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia and introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil if Moscow did not move toward a settlement. The deadline was Friday. The White House did not answer questions Saturday about possible sanctions. Russia last week reiterated demands that Ukraine give up territory, abandon its bid to join NATO and accept limits on its military in exchange for a withdrawal of Russian troops from the rest of the country. Particularly galling for Kyiv is Moscow's insistence that it cede pockets of eastern and southern Ukraine the Kremlin claims to have annexed, despite lacking full military control. Mark Galeotti, an expert in Russian politics who heads the Mayak Intelligence consultancy in the United Kingdom, says Moscow's tactic of encircling towns in eastern Ukraine has brought a string of territorial gains for Russia, and Putin 'seems to feel he is still winning.' 'Putin does not appear to feel under pressure,' Galeotti argued in an analysis published Sunday by Britain's Sunday Times newspaper. He said that for Putin, 'further delaying any more serious U.S. action and the optics of a meeting with the U.S. president will already be wins.' Zelensky said Saturday that Ukraine 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done' and that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' Ukrainian officials previously told the AP privately that Kyiv would be amenable to a peace deal that would de facto recognize Ukraine's inability to regain lost territories militarily. But Zelensky on Saturday insisted that formally ceding land was out of the question. Galeotti argued that any deal that involves Ukraine abandoning territory would be 'agonizing' and politically dangerous for Zelensky. Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelensky, noted on Sunday that Kyiv will strive to boost its position ahead of the planned Trump-Putin meeting. 'Ahead lies an important week of diplomacy,' he said. Kullab writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle L. Price in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.


New York Post
29 minutes ago
- New York Post
Goodbye to DEI, crushed by the weight of its own hypocrisies
President Donald Trump's executive orders banning diversity, equity and inclusion-related racial and gender preferencing have ostensibly doomed the DEI industry. But DEI was already on its last legs. Half of all Americans no longer approve of racial, ethnic or gender preferences. Advertisement DEI had enjoyed a surge following the death of George Floyd and the subsequent 120 days of nonstop rioting, arson, assaults, killings and attacks on law enforcement during the summer of 2020. In those chaotic years, DEI was seen as the answer to racial tensions. DEI had insidiously replaced the old notion of affirmative action — a 1960s-era government remedy for historical prejudices against black Americans, from the legacy of slavery to Jim Crow segregation. But during the Obama era, 'diversity' superseded affirmative action by offering preferences to many groups well beyond black Americans. Advertisement Quite abruptly, Americans began talking in Marxist binaries. On one side were the supposed 65 to 70% white majority 'oppressors' and 'victimizers' — often stereotyped as exuding 'white privilege,' 'white supremacy' or even 'white rage.' They were juxtaposed to the 30 to 35% of 'diverse' Americans, the so-called 'oppressed' and 'victimized.' Advertisement Yet almost immediately, contradictions and hypocrisies undermined DEI. First, how does one define 'diverse' in an increasingly multiracial, intermarried, assimilated and integrated society? DNA badges? The old one-drop rule of the antebellum South? Superficial appearance? To establish racial or ethnic proof of being one-sixteenth, one-fourth, or one-half 'non-white,' employers, corporations and universities would have to become racially obsessed genealogists. Advertisement Yet refusing to become racial auditors also would allow racial and ethnic fraudsters — like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the would-be mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani — to go unchecked. Warren falsely claimed Native American heritage to leverage a Harvard professorship. Mamdani, an immigrant son of wealthy Indian immigrants from Uganda, tried to game his way into college by claiming he was African American. Second, in 21st-century America, class became increasingly divergent from race. Mamdani, who promises to tax 'affluent' and 'whiter' neighborhoods at higher rates, is himself the child of Indian immigrants, the most affluent ethnic group in America. Why would the children of Barack Obama, Joy Reid or LeBron James need any special preferences, given the multimillionaire status of their parents? In other words, one's superficial appearance no longer necessarily determines one's income or wealth, nor defines 'privilege' or lack thereof. Third, DEI is often tied to questions of 'reparations.' The current white majority supposedly owes other particular groups financial or entitlement compensation for the sins of the past. Advertisement Yet in today's multiracial and multiethnic society, in which over 50 million residents were not born in the United States and many have only recently arrived, what are the particular historical or past grievances that would earn anyone special treatment? What injustices can recent arrivals from southern Mexico, South Korea or Chad claim, knowing little about, and experiencing no firsthand bias from, Americans, the United States, or its history? Is the DEI logic that when a Guatemalan steps one foot across the southern border, she is suddenly classified as a victim of white oppression and therefore entitled to preferences in hiring or employment? Fourth, does the word 'minority' still carry any currency? Advertisement In today's California, the demography breaks down as 40% Latino, 34% white, 16% Asian American or Pacific Islander, 6% black, and 3% Other — with no significant majority and fewer whites than the Latino 'minority.' Are Latinos the new de facto 'majority' and 'whites' just one of the four other 'minorities?' Do the other minorities, then, have grievances against Latinos, given that they are the dominant population in the state? Fifth, when does DEI 'proportional representation' apply, and when does it not? Are whites 'overrepresented' among the nation's university faculties, reportedly 75% white, when they comprise only about 70% of the population? Advertisement Or, are whites 'underrepresented' as college students, making up just 55% of them, and thus in need of DEI action to bump up their numbers? Black athletes are vastly overrepresented in lucrative and prestigious professional sports. To correct such asymmetries, should Asians and Hispanics be given mandated quotas for quarterback or point-guard positions to ensure proper athletic 'diversity, equity and inclusion'? Sixth, DEI determines good and bad prejudices, as well as correct and incorrect biases. 'Affinity' segregationist graduations — black, Hispanic, Asian and gay — are considered 'affirming'. Advertisement But would a similar affinity graduation ceremony for European-Americans or Jews be considered 'racist'? Is a Latino-themed, de facto segregated house on a California campus considered 'enlightened,' while a European-American dorm would be condemned as incendiary? In truth, DEI long ago became corrupt, falling apart under the weight of its own paradoxes and hypocrisies. It is a perniciously divisive idea — unable to define who qualifies for preference or why, who is overrepresented or not, or when bias is acceptable or unjust. And it is past time that it goes away. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.


Miami Herald
29 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Analyst expects gold to fall off the 'Wall of Worry'
Investors have been climbing the proverbial wall of worry to new record highs on the stock market this year, fearful with each step that the market is about to have a reversal. Meanwhile, gold's move to record highs has been far more impressive, and buyers seem to have no worry that the end of their rally is in sight. Stocks, as measured by the Standard & Poor's 500, were up roughly 9.4% through August 8 – though they were up nearly 28% since the market bottom on April 9, the day when President Donald Trump paused tariffs just days after announcing them. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Meanwhile, gold has soared by 29.5% this year, through August 8, standing at roughly $3,460 an ounce. Its gain since the post-tariff announcement low is roughly 18%, but gold also didn't suffer as much as stocks in the meltdown that accompanied the tariff news. The three-year annualized average return on gold, as measured by SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) , is 23.4%, well above its historic averages; from 1971 to 2024, the annualized return on the shiny stuff was just under 8%. Gold's rise hasn't been as a result of its traditional role as a hedge against inflation, because it normally takes a protracted time period with prices rising by more than 5% for gold to kick in that way. Instead, gold has been seen as an ideal hedge against geopolitical risk, the fighting in Ukraine and Gaza, the prospect of trade wars coming from the tariffs, and more. With no end in sight to those problems, plenty of investors have become gold bugs, looking to precious metals for protection and profits in times of uncertainty. More investing: Analyst says popular meme stock is worth less than zeroVeteran fund manager turns heads with Palantir stock price targetTop analyst sends Apple CEO bold message about its future And while buying gold now – or stocks, for that matter – can feel a bit like showing up late to the party, most industry watchers are suggesting that full-steam ahead is more likely than some reversion to the mean. While there is no shortage of caution and nervousness, there is no widespread call for recession even into 2025. Plenty of market observers saying that rate cuts (whenever they start) and the economic benefits of deregulation – the next big component of President Trump's economic plan – will offset the headwinds to keep things moving forward, albeit moderately. And plenty of gold analysts make a case for the gold rally to continue. "This gold bull market might be a little bit old in the tooth … it started in 2016," said Thomas Winmill, manager of the Midas Discovery Fund (MIDSX) , in an interview on the August 4 edition of "Money Life with Chuck Jaffe." "It's up over 300% in those nine years. That has not happened very often. The average bull market for gold is about 53 months, according to my research, and this is over 110, almost twice the normal length." Related: Veteran strategist unveils updated gold price forecast Still, Winmill insisted gold is not overpriced: "If you adjust the former high, which was reached back in 1988, for inflation, we're actually below that high, which inflation-adjusted would be about $3,500 an ounce." "The basket of gold stocks represented by the Gold Bugs Index hit a high of 600 in August of 2011 when the gold price hit 1800," Winmill added, "and that index is well below that now, in the 400 range, about 430. So, on that score, we've got 50% to go in gold stocks." On the other side of that trade is veteran commodities and futures analyst Carley Garner, senior strategist at DeCarley Trading, who said in an interview from the August 5 edition of "Money Life" that it's a "sell-the-rallies market in both gold and silver, and the reason I think that is I believe the U.S. dollar has bottomed, and I think it will continue to work its way higher." Garner said that move in the dollar changes the landscape for a lot of commodities, but particularly the metals, and especially in times when gold "is probably the most volatile it's ever been." It's not the volatility that concerns Garner so much as the price, especially because, she said, "A lot of people are putting money in gold just because it's going up." "But I've lived through 2011," she added, "and I remember all of the same stories that are circulating in gold, all the reasons to buy it. 'The central banks are buying this and that. You can't trust the dollar,' so on and so forth. "All of those things were narratives in 2011, and gold topped, and then took a 50% haircut, and it took a decade to get back." Garner added that a 50% haircut is not just a possible scenario, but also "might actually be what could be around the corner." Garner noted that she isn't trying to predict anything, but rather is reading the probabilities. While her take on gold is sour, her take on the stock market isn't much better, with a probability of being much lower than current levels before it can trade significantly above them. She noted a trend line in the monthly chart of the S&P 500 futures, looking at high points, that "comes in right around 6,000 [on the S&P index]. So can we go above 6500? Sure. But the odds that we see higher than that here in the next handful of months, are pretty slim. A more likely scenario is we get continuation of the consolidation or the pullback. But the problem is, I don't see any good support on a monthly chart until we get into the low 5000s." In her personal portfolio, Garner noted that she is heavily overweight Treasury securities. She has used this strategy before to ride out rough patches until the market made her more optimistic. "Treasuries, regardless of where you look at the curve, are paying 4% to 5%," Garner said. "And if you hold expiration, you get that money.…So I'm just playing the odds here. And the odds are Treasuries are [a] much better buy than stocks." Related: Legendary Wall Street forecaster Bob Doll is having his best year The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.