logo
‘Few of Us Ever Imagined He Would Go This Far'

‘Few of Us Ever Imagined He Would Go This Far'

New York Times05-04-2025

In the past, the one constituency President Trump has sometimes listened to has been our stock market. Well, it has spoken, falling 10.5 percent in one of the largest two-day stock market swoons in decades.
In the 50 years I have been immersed in markets and economic policy, I have never before witnessed a signature economic policy initiative that was met with such unalloyed criticism. What's worse, the damage was entirely self-inflicted.
Why such a reaction? One reason the S&P 500 fell was that the tariffs Mr. Trump rolled out were so much greater than investors anticipated. (Give the White House an F for failing to prepare the market for what to expect.) Then on Friday, China announced its own 34 percent tariff on our goods, making it clear that our trading partners were not going to simply give in to Mr. Trump's demands, as he had suggested they would.
As Mr. Trump was doubling down, asserting that 'my policies will never change,' the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell, was delivering his own bombshell: Given the higher-than-predicted tariffs, higher inflation and slower growth were likely to ensue, he said. That's drastically different from just a couple of weeks ago, when Mr. Powell called the potential impact of new tariffs on prices 'transitory.'
The business community, which by my count heavily supported Mr. Trump in the election five months ago, seems stunned. Few have spoken publicly, but the Business Roundtable, the premier corporate trade association, on Wednesday warned that universal tariffs run 'the risk of causing major harm to American manufacturers, workers, families and exporters.'
Privately, several chief executives told me that they recognized that imposing the tariffs, as well as Mr. Trump's intractable support of them, was a potentially cataclysmic mistake. 'Few of us ever imagined he would go this far,' one told me. 'He could well bring down the economy and himself.'
The Trump-supporting business leaders I've spoken to in the last two days don't yet regret their votes, mostly because of their intense distaste (if not hatred) for the Biden-Harris administration. And they remain broadly supportive of the efforts by the tech billionaire Elon Musk to reform the federal government, even if they acknowledge that his DOGE team may be going too far in its slashing of spending and personnel.
But I wonder how some other major Trump-supporting leaders whose stock prices have been particularly hard hit now feel, like Stephen Schwarzman, chief executive of Blackstone, the investment group (down 15 percent in two days), and Safra Catz, chief executive of Oracle, the database company (down 12 percent).
Mr. Trump's actions aren't the only problem. Almost as important is the lack of clarity as to what policies he is pursuing and why. At times, Mr. Trump implies that the purpose of the tariffs is to bring back manufacturing, which suggests that they will stay in place indefinitely. At other times, he suggests that the goal is to negotiate tariff reductions by other countries (even though much of what Mr. Trump asserts about their tariffs is inaccurate).
The dithering takes a real toll. I see this from my role as a professional investor. How do we evaluate a company that imports goods or engages in international commerce? We seek a lower price, or we grit our teeth, or we pass on the opportunity. As a result, our pace of investing has slowed sharply this year.
And it's not just us. In the year's first quarter, the number of newly announced mergers and acquisitions dropped to its lowest level since the financial crisis. 'Folks are looking but not pulling the trigger,' one leading investment banker told me. Equity offerings have become similarly challenged; multiple companies planning to go public have postponed their fund-raising since Wednesday.
Even experts inside the Trump bubble are flummoxed. In a recent private call with investors, one senior official in the first Trump administration confidently predicted that autos coming from Mexico would get more favorable treatment than those originating in Canada. The following day, Mr. Trump imposed the same duties on vehicles coming from the two countries.
The outlook is bleak. Prediction markets put the odds of a recession at 50 percent or even a bit higher. And while the jobs figures that were released Friday were sound, the Conference Board recently reported that consumer expectations for the economy hit their lowest level in 12 years, while anticipated inflation over the next year (measured before the tariff announcement) has jumped to 6.2 percent. Domestic manufacturing production is now contracting. Stagflation — that particularly painful combination of inflation and economic stagnation — has become the least harm that we are likely to experience.
In a normal world, when an economy falters, eyes turn to the central bank for help, in the form of reductions in interest rates. But progress on inflation has stalled, making it more difficult for the Fed to come to the rescue. And the new tariffs will only make inflation worse.
Many business people and investors are still hoping Mr. Trump will recognize the havoc he is creating and ease off his tariffs. But so far, he doesn't seem concerned. And that may be our biggest worry of all.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

American tourists can't quite quit Europe
American tourists can't quite quit Europe

Business Insider

time29 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

American tourists can't quite quit Europe

The American dream may be struggling, but for many, the Euro summer dream is alive and well. Jimin Shim, a millennial copywriter who lives in Denver, has plenty of concerns about the economy, from stock market volatility that she feels has been brought on by the current administration to a tough job market. Still, she's vacationing in Portugal later this month, and treating her mom to the trip too. "Traveling is very important to me. I try to do at least one international trip a year and then maybe a couple of domestic trips," she told Business Insider. "And because I know that that is a priority for me, it's something that I budget for and am saving up for all year round." While there's been some softening in leisure travel demand this year, data and surveys suggest Shim is one of many Americans who are weighing their international travel plans against their worries about the economy and saying, "book it." The extent to which Americans are pulling back on international trips this summer is not fully clear. An analysis from Cirium, an aviation analytics company, found summer bookings from the US to Europe were down nearly 10% from January to May compared to last year. Meanwhile, a summer travel survey from Deloitte, released in May, found more Americans were traveling internationally this summer compared to 2024, with most headed to Europe. And a recent data analysis by Allianz Partners, a travel insurance and assistance company, found summer travel from the US to Europe would increase by 10% in 2025. The economy isn't the only reason Americans might rethink travel to Europe this summer. The weakening US dollar doesn't go as far as it used to, and some Americans are worried about their safety or not feeling welcomed abroad due to the current administration's approach to foreign policy. Americans are also waiting longer to book their trips, which could complicate the picture. Still, it's clear that many Americans are traveling abroad despite the downturn in consumer sentiment. "I think you're seeing a hesitancy," Amir Eylon, president and CEO of Longwoods International, a market research consultancy that specializes in the travel tourism industry, told BI. "I still believe a majority of American travelers who were planning to go abroad are still going to go abroad." The enduring appeal of Euro summer Eylon said that while there are indications of a slowdown, it does not look like a "game-changing" shift. His firm's monthly consumer sentiment survey of 1,000 travelers found the number of American travelers who said they were very likely to take an international trip in the next 12 months declined from 25% in January to 19% in May. He noted travelers seemed to be in a "wait and see" mode this spring, echoing what other industry experts have said and previously told BI — that travelers are booking closer to travel dates, in part as they search for good deals. Eylon said it is possible there will be an overall decline in Americans visiting Europe this year, but it's too soon to tell the full picture. He thinks those canceling or ditching trip plans will be in the minority. "American travelers view it as a need more than a want," he said of travel, adding that many see it as a "right." Meredith Pierce, a travel content creator based in Atlanta, said that's exactly how she and many other millennials and Gen Zers view travel, including to Europe. Pierce posts a lot of popular "Euro summer" content and sees it as a persistent and lasting travel trend, even when folks have financial concerns. "Everyone loves the idea of sipping an Aperol spritz and looking at the Mediterranean," Pierce said, "especially if maybe you are stressed in your day-to-day life because of politics or the economy or budgets, or anything like that. A bit of escapism I think comes into play there as well." The hesitancy fueled by economic uncertainty could also make it a bit more affordable to travel to Europe this summer. Eylon noted the slowdown in leisure travel led to some declines in airfare prices, which may have pushed some hesitant Americans to take the plunge. When economic concerns, largely fueled by Trump's tariff policy, intensified in March and April, some airlines suspended their forecasts for the year, and flight prices declined. Rather than get spooked by the economic uncertainty, Pierce believes plenty of people pounced. Her "Euro summer" content from last year started going viral, and she was getting flooded with DMs and questions from people who found a cheap flight to Europe and were suddenly planning their trips. Pierce said some budget-conscious travelers are opting for more affordable and under-the-radar destinations in Europe, such as Albania or Poland, which feature similarly picturesque scenes but at a lower cost than Italy or Paris. More frugal spending once they get to their destination Deloitte's summer travel survey noted that many American travelers already had their big summer trips partially or even fully booked by April, when concerns around tariffs and the economy intensified. The survey also found that while consumers' sense of financial well-being was down year-over-year in April, slightly more Americans planned to take leisure vacations this summer compared to 2024. Deloitte found travelers looking to save were cutting back on in-destination spending as well as opting for more affordable lodging and flight classes. The survey also found that while some are being more frugal, many Americans are prioritizing bucket list trips and international travel, or trips that are otherwise special in some way. Deloitte found 42% of air travelers were flying internationally on their longest summer trip, compared to 38% in 2024. Those traveling internationally were also more likely to increase their travel budget compared to last year. Shim, the copywriter from Denver, also has a special reason for making her Portugal trip work this year, despite her financial concerns. Her family has been going through a tough time after her grandfather's death last year. This vacation is a way to spend quality time with and treat her mom, who has never been to Europe, and take the first trip that's just the two of them. "I also think that sometimes in these times of uncertainty and tumultuousness and a lot of tension and division, traveling and spending quality time with family who loves you is a great way to just take care of your mental and emotional health too," she said, "which I think is also very important to do."

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests

CNBC

time30 minutes ago

  • CNBC

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests

President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors who refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who, under normal circumstances, would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to "address the lawlessness" in California, the Democratic governor said the move was "purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity serving state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to "execute the laws of the United States," with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes "shall be issued through the governors of the States." It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could use force while filling that "protection" role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for various emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreement of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors agreed to send troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis — an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked "only in the most urgent and dire of situations." Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, "I'm not waiting." Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on "The Charlie Kirk Show," in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized "if violence continues."

The Stock Market Is in Ultra-Rarified Territory and Doing Something for Only the 3rd Time in 154 Years -- and History Is Crystal Clear What Happens Next
The Stock Market Is in Ultra-Rarified Territory and Doing Something for Only the 3rd Time in 154 Years -- and History Is Crystal Clear What Happens Next

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The Stock Market Is in Ultra-Rarified Territory and Doing Something for Only the 3rd Time in 154 Years -- and History Is Crystal Clear What Happens Next

Outsized volatility in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite has investors looking to history for guidance. An encompassing valuation tool with a perfect track record of predicting the future when back-tested to 1871 offers a warning to Wall Street. The stock market is a simple numbers game that rewards long-term investors who maintain perspective. 10 stocks we like better than S&P 500 Index › There are a lot of ways for investors to grow their wealth, including purchasing Treasury bonds, buying certificates of deposit from their local bank or credit union, acquiring real estate, or investing in commodities such as gold, silver, and oil. But none of these other asset classes has held a candle to the annualized return of stocks over the last century. However, there's a catch to putting your money to work in the greatest wealth creator on the planet: Stocks are inherently volatile. Although the ageless Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJINDICES: ^DJI), benchmark S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC), and innovation-inspired Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX: ^IXIC) have all decisively risen over multiple decades, their performance over shorter timelines is no more certain than a coin flip. Through the first five months of 2025, we've observed the broad-based S&P 500 launch to a fresh record closing high, which was followed by corrections in the Dow Jones and S&P 500 and the first bear market in three years for the Nasdaq Composite. In fact, a one-week period in April produced the fifth-biggest two-day percentage slide for the S&P 500 in 75 years, as well as the largest single-day nominal point gain in the index's history. When the stock market swings wildly, investors commonly look to history for guidance. Even though no specific data point or event can guarantee with concrete accuracy what's to come next, some of these metrics and events correlate very strongly with directional moves in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite throughout history. One such ultra-rare indicator, which has surfaced only three times for the S&P 500 when back-tested over the last 154 years, has foreshadowed what happens next for stocks with pristine accuracy. Historical data has uncovered a number of stock market correlations in recent weeks, many of which point to strong upside for equities over the next year. However, one of the rarest indicators, which is focused on stock valuations, suggests quite the opposite. To preface the following discussion, "value" is a subjective term. What you perceive as expensive may be viewed as a phenomenal bargain by another investor. Nevertheless, one valuation tool has a knack for cutting through this subjectivity: the S&P 500's Shiller price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio, which is also known as the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio, or CAPE ratio. The valuation tool investors are probably most comfortable and familiar with is the traditional P/E ratio, which divides a company's share price by its trailing-12-month earnings. While the P/E ratio is a fantastic measuring stick for mature businesses, it often gets tripped up by growth stocks and during periods of economic turbulence (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic). In contrast, the Shiller P/E ratio is based on average inflation-adjusted earnings over the previous 10 years. Accounting for a decade's worth of earnings history and adjusting it for inflation offers the most apples-to-apples valuation comparison for investors. As of the closing bell on June 5, the S&P 500's Shiller P/E clocked in at a multiple of 36.52. For some context, this is more than double its historical average reading of 17.24 and slightly below its peak reading of 38.89 in December 2024 during the current bull market cycle. When back-tested to January 1871, there have been only three instances where the Shiller P/E has ever neared or surpassed 40: In December 1999, before the bursting of the dot-com bubble, the Shiller P/E peaked at its all-time high of 44.19. During the first week of January 2022, immediately prior to the start of the 2022 bear market, the S&P 500's Shiller P/E briefly touched 40. In recent months, the Shiller P/E has prominently vacillated between 35 and almost 39. The reason these specific figures are mentioned has to do with the correlation between Shiller P/E readings above 30 and the subsequent performance of equities. Including the above three instances, there have been six total occurrences since 1871 where the Shiller P/E has surpassed 30 and maintained this level for at least two months. Eventually (the keyword!), the Dow, S&P 500, and/or Nasdaq Composite lost between 20% and 89% of their value following these peaks. Even though the Shiller P/E is in no way a timing tool, it has foreshadowed the inability of the stock market to sustain an extended valuation over a long period, 100% of the time, spanning 154 years. Based on the current multiple of 36.52, significant downside in the major stock indexes is the expectation. Considering how strongly the Dow Jones, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite have bounced back from their mini-crash in April, the prospect of a meaningful pullback in all three indexes probably isn't what investors want to hear. Thankfully, history is a two-sided and completely disproportionate coin that overwhelmingly favors optimistic, long-term investors. As much as we might dislike the unpredictability and velocity of moves lower in one or more of Wall Street's major stock indexes, corrections, bear markets, and even crashes are perfectly normal, healthy, and inevitable aspects of the investing cycle. No specific fiscal or monetary policy changes can prevent these largely emotion-driven events from occurring. What's important to recognize is that these cycles aren't linear. In June 2023, shortly after the broad-based S&P 500 officially entered a new bull market, the analysts at Bespoke Investment Group published a data set to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) where they calculated and compared the calendar day length of every S&P 500 bull and bear market since the start of the Great Depression (September 1929). On one end of the spectrum, the benchmark index's 27 bear markets have lasted an average of 286 calendar days (about 9.5 months) since September 1929. Further, the longest bear market on record for the S&P 500 endured for only 630 days in the mid-1970s. Flipping the proverbial coin shows the average S&P 500 bull market stuck around for 1,011 calendar days, or approximately 3.5 times as long as the typical bear market. Additionally, if the current bull market were extrapolated to the present day, more than half (14 out of 27) of all S&P 500 bull markets have lasted longer than the lengthiest bear market. Regardless of how dire any specific data set or correlative event might appear, downturns have consistently been short-lived and have, eventually, always given way to new all-time highs. Maintaining perspective and being optimistic is a formula that consistently grows stock investment portfolios on Wall Street. Before you buy stock in S&P 500 Index, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and S&P 500 Index wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Sean Williams has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Stock Market Is in Ultra-Rarified Territory and Doing Something for Only the 3rd Time in 154 Years -- and History Is Crystal Clear What Happens Next was originally published by The Motley Fool

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store