logo
US Recession Seems Likely, Nobel-Winning Economist Says

US Recession Seems Likely, Nobel-Winning Economist Says

Newsweek25-04-2025

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman warns that President Donald Trump's unpredictable tariff policies—including imposing and pausing various tariffs as well as changing rates—make a U.S. recession seem "likely."
Newsweek has reached out to Krugman for further comment via email on Friday.
Why It Matters
President Donald Trump largely campaigned on economic and immigration policies, pledging to levy numerous tariffs and increase U.S. manufacturing, as well as cracking down on illegal immigration.
Trump's tariffs and shakeup of global trade has rattled global and domestic markets, with Wall Street tanking over the past month, marking the worst days for the U.S. stock markets since 2020. Markets later surged after Trump paused a broad set of retaliatory tariffs, but many businesses and consumers remain in limbo as the current economic policy remain uncertain.
Krugman's latest warning, which has been echoed by leading financial institutes, highlights the risk that policy volatility could tip the country into an economic downturn. Many economists, financial firms, Democrats, and some Republicans have warned that Trump's tariff policy would spark a recession, while the Trump administration has not ruled out the possibility, noting the transition period will be marked with some market "disruption."
What To Know
Krugman, who won the Nobel Prize in economic sciences in 2008, said during an April 23 episode of a Goldman Sachs podcast that Trump's tariff policy, and the way it has been delivered, is introducing severe uncertainty into the business environment.
"There has been nothing like this," Krugman said, adding "the story keeps changing."
Krugman has been critical of Trump's policies in the past and warned ahead of the 2024 election that the Republican nominee's economic policies would cause "economic chaos."
The economist noted that what's ironic about his prediction of a likely recession is "this is not the tariff," as a "stable tariff rate would not cause a recession, but an unpredictable tariff rate that can change the next day is really a depressing effect on demand."
Krugman further noted "the secret sauce of the Trump tariffs is that they are extremely uncertain. Nobody knows what they will be. Nobody knows what comes next."
Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in Economics, Distinguished Professor at the Graduate Center, CUNY, and New York Times columnist discussion with Mayor de Blasio participates (not seen) on social and economic inequality with in
Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in Economics, Distinguished Professor at the Graduate Center, CUNY, and New York Times columnist discussion with Mayor de Blasio participates (not seen) on social and economic inequality with in
Louise Wateridge / Pacific Press/SIPA/ AP Images
Trump has repeatedly announced, imposed, paused and reimposed a series of blanket, sectoral and retaliatory tariffs. Notably, just hours after sweeping, retaliatory tariffs went into effect on April 9, he paused the majority of them.
Krugman noted that these conditions are impacting business investment, consumers, and homebuilders, among others, which "is the reason why a recession seems likely."
He later noted that he doesn't expect the recession to be "severe," however he noted that "if consumer spending falls off a cliff, yeah, then it can become a severe recession."
Trump has urged Americans to "hang tough" amid market volatility and the announcement of reciprocal tariffs by other countries, including China.
What People Are Saying
Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates said during a recent NBC interview: "I think that right now we are at a decision-making point and very close to a recession, and I'm worried about something worse than a recession if this isn't handled well."
"Such times are very much like the 1930s. I've studied history, and history repeats over and over again," Dalio added. "If you take tariffs, if you take debt, and the rising power challenging an existing power, and those factors—those changes in the orders, the systems—are very, very disruptive. How that's handled could produce something that's much worse than a recession, or it can be handled well."
Economist Torsten Slok said in a Monday appearance on CNBC that there will "absolutely" be a recession in 2025 if tariffs "stay at these levels."
President Donald Trump said in an April Truth Social post: "THIS IS AN ECONOMIC REVOLUTION, AND WE WILL WIN. HANG TOUGH, it won't be easy, but the end result will be historic. We will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!"
Vice President JD Vance said in an X post earlier in April: "There is a category of DC insider who wants to fight an actual war with China but also wants China to manufacture much of our critical supply. This is insane. President Trump wants peace, but also wants fair trade and more self-reliance for the American economy."
Lin Jian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, told reporters earlier in this month: "Tariff and trade wars have no winner. China does not want to fight these wars but is not scared of them. We will not sit idly by when the Chinese people's legitimate rights and interests are denied...If the U.S. is determined to fight a tariff and trade war, China's response will continue to the end."
Cato Institute Vice President of General Economics Scott Lincicome told CNN: "Markets are relieved a bit, but I don't know how you could possibly think the U.S. is a sound, safe and stable place to invest when the president is flipping tariffs on and off like a light switch and there could be more of these things in a mere 90 days. So a bit of a reprieve, but we're definitely not out of the woods."
What Happens Next
Trump placed a 90-day pause on dozens of retaliatory tariffs that briefly took effect earlier in April. The administration has said dozens of countries are seeking negotiations with the U.S. Tariffs on China remain intact amid growing tensions.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Ready to Ditch His Tesla Car amid Musk Fallout: 'I Might Just Get Rid of It'
Trump Ready to Ditch His Tesla Car amid Musk Fallout: 'I Might Just Get Rid of It'

Business Insider

time38 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Trump Ready to Ditch His Tesla Car amid Musk Fallout: 'I Might Just Get Rid of It'

WASHINGTON — June 7, 2025 President Donald Trump is distancing himself from Elon Musk—publicly and materially. According to The Washington Post, Trump has told aides in recent days that he is considering selling or giving away the red Tesla (TSLA) Model S he purchased in March, a gesture that once symbolized his support for Musk. Confident Investing Starts Here: 'I might just get rid of it,' Trump told aides, according to a senior White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The car, still parked near the White House as of this week, has become a visible casualty of the rapidly souring relationship between Trump and Musk. The split followed Musk's harsh criticism of the administration's latest domestic policy bill, which he publicly called a 'disgusting abomination.' That comment triggered a sharp response from the president, both publicly and privately. On Air Force One, when asked by a reporter about Musk's alleged drug use, Trump replied: 'I don't want to comment on his drug use. I don't know what his status is.' 'I read an article in The New York Times. I thought it was, frankly, it sounded very unfair to me.' But privately, Trump has reportedly told associates that Musk is 'crazy' and blamed his behavior on drug use, according to The New York Times. Musk Gave No Public Comment on the Car—But a Hint at Peace? As of Saturday afternoon, Elon Musk has not issued any public statement specifically addressing Trump's decision to unload the Tesla. However, he did respond to a suggestion from investor Bill Ackman on X that the two men should reconcile for the good of the country. 'You're not wrong,' Musk replied—his only recent public comment that could be interpreted as a gesture toward de-escalation. Beyond that, Musk has been active on X in recent days, directing criticisms at others, including Steve Bannon and critics of Tesla, but has avoided commenting directly on Trump's actions regarding the car or federal contracts. Trump Weighs Tesla Breakup The sale—or symbolic disposal—of the Tesla would mark a final, visual severing of a political and personal alliance that once had significant policy weight. Musk had been one of Trump's most prominent business backers, and the March purchase of the Model S was, at the time, framed by aides as a nod of approval to the entrepreneur's role in the administration. Now, according to officials, the car is being referred to inside the West Wing as a political relic. And while no final decision has been made, staff say it's become a quiet but pointed symbol of Trump's intent to distance himself from Musk for good. Trump himself, speaking about Musk during a press gaggle on June 6, said: 'I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Whether the car is sold, donated, or simply removed from view, it now stands as a monument to one of the most dramatic falling-outs in recent political history. Is Tesla Stock Still a Buy? Meanwhile, Wall Street isn't exactly bullish on Musk's flagship automaker. According to TipRanks, Tesla currently holds a 'Hold' rating based on 37 analyst reviews over the past three months. It's a split camp: 16 analysts rate it a Buy, 10 say Hold, and 11 recommend Sell — a clear reflection of the uncertainty swirling around the company. The market seems just as cautious. The average 12-month price target for TSLA is $284.37, suggesting a 3.7% downside from its current level.

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

timean hour ago

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'

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