Latest news with #Mar-A-Lago
Black America Web
6 days ago
- Health
- Black America Web
Six More States Can Now Ban Junk Food Purchases With SNAP Benefits
Source: Nadiia Borovenko / Getty USDA officials approved waivers for six more states to restrict junk food purchases with SNAP benefits. Beginning in 2026, recipients in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Colorado will no longer use SNAP cards for soda, candy, prepared desserts, or energy drinks. The policy change expands an initiative first launched under Trump's 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign—aimed at curbing diet-related illnesses among low-income households. State Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins praised the move as a public health victory. With the new approvals, a total of 12 states now have USDA waivers in place. Earlier approvals covered Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, and Utah. Each state sets its own rules on restricted items. We care about your data. See our privacy policy. Supporters say the new rules help steer taxpayer funds toward nutritious foods. Critics argue they unfairly limit choices and do little to address food deserts. SNAP still covers staples like fruits, vegetables, dairy, grains, meats, and many non-processed foods. The move will impact more than 8.5 million Americans who rely on SNAP statewide. SNAP currently benefits over 40 million people nationwide. Retailers in impacted states will need to update item-level systems by 2026 to enforce the bans. This shift marks a growing trend toward state control of SNAP policy. As more states explore behavioral nutrition requirements, local communities and grocery programs may need to adjust quickly. Trump Demands Probe Into Beyoncé, Springsteen Campaign Appearances Trump's Tarriffs Force Stocks Into Freefall Donald Trump Claims Jeffrey Epstein 'Stole' His Young Mar-A-Lago Spa Workers SEE ALSO Six More States Can Now Ban Junk Food Purchases With SNAP Benefits was originally published on
Forbes
30-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Trump's First 100 Days Fuels An Economic Debate: Strategy Or Chaos
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 13: U.S. President Donald Trump, signing an executive order increasing ... More tariffs. (Photo by) The Trump administration's aggressive and wide-ranging economic policy changes during his first 100 days, especially historically high tariffs coupled with a confrontational negotiating stance towards trading partners, is fueling an intense debate among economists. Is there a master plan at work, and we just need to be patient? Or do Trump's policies lack a coherent strategy, and risk both short and long-term economic damage? President Trump, and his economic advisors, argue there's a strategy. This is the so-called 'Mar-A-Lago' agreement, and it has four key elements. First, high tariffs will reduce the US trade deficit by making imports more expensive. Second, higher import prices will shift investment and production—especially manufacturing—back home. Third, the dollar's exchange value will fall, helping US export competitiveness and also financing of US debt. And finally, tariffs will generate significant new revenue, taking pressure off the budget and perhaps financing tax cuts or changes in the income tax. Wall Street economist Stephen Miran, a Harvard Ph.D heading Trump's Council of Economic Advisers, is the strategy's principal architect. Miran's 2024 paper, 'A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System,' laid out how Trump could change 'the terms of trade, currency values, and the structure of international economic relations.' Miran saw the dollar as 'persistently overvalued, in large part because dollar assets function as the world's reserve currency.' This was viewed as the main cause of China's export success that flooded the US with cheap goods and caused special damage to communities reliant on manufacturing jobs. Tariffs are Miran's primary tool for correcting this, seeing them as a general negotiating lever, and a direct blow to China. Miran outlined a gradual policy, 'a 2% monthly increase on tariffs on China…until demands are met.' Miran had other elements, but higher tariffs are the centerpiece. He also advocated getting other countries to reduce their holdings of US debt, by using the President's emergency powers to reduce or withhold interest payments or charge additional fees on Treasuries. He also advocated using tariffs and military security policy to force debt holders to restructure into 'ultra-long duration' bonds, perhaps even 'perpetuals rather than century (100 year) bonds.' (36) Gillian Tett of the Financial Times saw Trump's strategy (really Miran's paper) as 'extraordinarily bold,' conceived by 'people who do want to re-engineer the global financial and economic system' with 'a coherent plan.' They want to keep the US as the dominant military power with the world's reserve currency, while lowering the dollar's value to advantage US manufacturing and exports. Recently, Bloomberg's John Authers also gave credit to Miran's overall vision. But he says Trump has implemented it 'more abruptly and aggressively than the architects of the policy wanted.' Economists have attacked Trump's policies on two fronts, not seeing it as a coherent plan. Many view the tariffs as having broadly negative economic effects, with internally logical contradictions. And they see a chaotic process that could further hurt the US in both the short and long term, possibly threatening the dollar's international role. Most economists, see tariffs as a simple tax paid by consumers on imported goods. This view spans the political spectrum from Gregory Mankiw (chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers), to Nobel laureate Joe Stiglitz ( Council chair under Bill Clinton). Economists see several negatives from Trump's tariffs. First, by raising prices, they will feed inflation. Second, by disrupting international supply chains, they will damage American companies that rely on imported goods; a 2019 study by the San Francisco Fed found that 'about 45% of U.S. imports reflect intermediate inputs to the production of American goods.' Economists see little hope for significant reshoring of manufacturing, which only accounts for about 8 percent of total US employment. And they fear any reshoring will be swamped by the overall negative impact of the tariffs, for two reasons. First, Trump's tariffs could induce a recession by raising prices and reducing overall investment, demand and employment. Second, many American companies rely on complex global supply chains, which tariffs will disrupt while making goods more expensive. For example, taconite rock for iron ore mined in Minnesota is used to make steel for U.S. automakers. Trump's tariffs on cars and auto parts caused an immediate slump in demand for vehicles because they raised the prices on imported intermediate goods for car production. And that in turn caused a major mining company in Minnesota to lay off over 600 US workers, due to falling demand for iron ore to make steel. In addition to the macroeconomic concerns over inflation and recession, another issue worries economists—will Trump's policies undermine the US dollar's long-standing role as the world's reserve currency? Since the end of World War II, the dollar has anchored global financial markets and trade. That dominance has helped the US finance its trade and budget deficits for decades. Other nations—especially China and Japan—hold significant amounts of dollar assets, stemming from America's large and ongoing trade deficit. We pay them in dollars, and as they accumulate them, they buy US treasuries. That's helped the US finance its ongoing budget deficits. The dollar's role as a reserve currency rests on the belief that US debt is an exceptionally safe asset. But Trump's policy moves have shaken that belief. The Bloomberg Dollar Index, which measures the dollar against a basket of international currencies, has fallen by 9% since Trump took office, and is on track for 'the worst first 100 days' of a presidency since Richard Nixon. Miran's strategy paper recognized risks to dollar supremacy, especially given our ongoing need to finance the 'twin' trade and budget deficits, and he hoped the Federal Reserve would help by lowering interest rates. But the Fed has held steady so far. In addition, Republicans plan to finance over $4 trillion in tax cuts in the coming budget, and most of that will be paid for by additional borrowing, putting further upward pressure on interest rates. The dollar remains the key international currency, but some economists see Trump generating long-term risks. New School economist William Millberg (my colleague), points out the dollar is falling in value while Treasury bond yields are rising, an unusual combination that signals a lack of investor confidence in US assets generally and an increased risk of a run on the dollar. And Berkeley economist Barry Eichengreen says 'the dollar has not lost its safe-haven status…but we must seriously contemplate the possibility.' Overall, economists of many different political stripes argue Trump's policies are harmful and not well thought out. High tariffs are viewed as a tax that will suppress demand and cause inflation, harming US consumers but also the many US companies that rely on international supply chains. And Trump's volatile and uncertain policy steps could threaten the US dollar's dominant postwar role as a reserve currency. But it isn't just the internal economic logic of Trump's policies—or the lack of it-- that is failing to convince economists. It's also the erratic and volatile nature of implementation that is seen adding to confusion and uncertainty. My next blog will examine Trump's economic policy implementation in his first 100 days, discussing the many criticisms from across the economic and political spectrums.
