Trump’s announced 25% tariff on all Mexican imports is largely viewed as a strategic maneuver, potentially designed to pressure Mexico on immigration. The threat hinges on a false premise: that Mexico is inactive in curbing migration. This deception highlights a pattern of misleading voters regarding Trump’s policies on both tariffs and immigration. Ultimately, the tactic aims to portray any future concessions from Mexico as a personal triumph.
Read More
Stay informed on the 2024 US Presidential election with the FT’s comprehensive coverage, including news, analysis, and data. Access exclusive insights and policy plans through the White House Watch newsletter. Gain deeper perspectives on the election’s impact on democracy through the Democracy 2024 section. These resources offer a complete understanding of the election and its implications.
Read More
Republicans suddenly think the economy’s great, a remarkable shift considering their previous pronouncements. This newfound optimism appears strikingly convenient, coinciding with their current political advantage. It’s a stark contrast to the dire warnings and criticisms they levied just months ago. This rapid change of heart raises questions about the sincerity of their earlier concerns and suggests a potential prioritization of political expediency over genuine economic analysis.
The abrupt change in Republican rhetoric surrounding the economy also raises concerns about their susceptibility to partisan influence. Their opinions seem heavily swayed by whoever occupies the White House, a pattern that underscores a lack of consistent, principled assessment of economic realities.… Continue reading
Following the announcement of a key political appointment, Novavax and BioNTech experienced significant stock drops exceeding 7%, while Moderna reached its 2024 low. Pfizer saw more moderate losses. This market reaction follows the pharmaceutical industry’s substantial campaign donations to both parties, albeit with a greater contribution to Republicans. However, growing investor concern over the potential long-term economic costs of certain policies is contributing to broader market declines.
Read More
While President-elect Trump’s proposed tariffs are unwise, they are not unconstitutional, as federal law grants the president significant power to impose them. The Supreme Court, however, has established a “major questions doctrine” that allows it to veto executive branch actions deemed too ambitious. Given the Court’s recent history of using this doctrine to strike down Biden administration policies, it remains unclear whether they will apply it to Trump’s tariffs, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents. The upcoming legal battle over tariffs presents a dilemma: a ruling against them would further empower an already powerful Court, while a ruling in favor would cause economic hardship for many Americans.
Read More
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, a vocal supporter of President-elect Donald Trump, has endorsed the idea of allowing presidents to influence Federal Reserve policy, reflecting a growing pressure campaign against the central bank’s independence. This follows President-elect Trump’s repeated calls during his campaign to have a say in Fed policy, a departure from the traditional practice of maintaining the Fed’s autonomy to focus solely on the economic health of the United States. Musk’s agreement with Senator Mike Lee’s call to “#EndtheFed” suggests a potential shift in the relationship between the White House and the Federal Reserve under the new administration, echoing the contentious relationship that existed during Trump’s first term.
Read More
Despite President-elect Trump’s campaign promises for tax reform, his true focus remains on delivering massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, his signature legislative achievement, exemplifies this, significantly reducing corporate taxes and providing substantial tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The upcoming expiration of these tax cuts presents an opportunity for Trump to further his agenda by extending these benefits and potentially slashing corporate taxes even lower. These policies would further exacerbate income inequality, inflate the deficit, and strengthen the influence of corporations and wealthy individuals on American politics, ultimately hindering efforts to address pressing issues facing working families.
Read More
Kamala Harris’s Wall Street-approved economic pitch, heavily influenced by corporate donors and elites, fell flat with the American public. This disconnect between her campaign’s focus on economic opportunity and the everyday struggles of Americans was a significant contributing factor to her underwhelming performance. While Harris presented a macroeconomic plan aimed at boosting growth and stability, many voters felt disconnected from its potential impact on their lives, especially amidst rising costs of living, stagnant wages, and a sense of economic insecurity.
The core issue was the lack of tangible, relatable solutions that directly addressed the everyday concerns of the working class. Harris’s campaign focused on policies favored by Wall Street, such as tax cuts and deregulation, which were seen as disconnected from the needs of ordinary Americans struggling to make ends meet.… Continue reading
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has stated he will not resign from his position, even if asked to do so by President-Elect Donald Trump. This declaration came during a press conference following a meeting of the Federal Reserve, where a reporter pointed out that some of Trump’s advisors have suggested Powell should step down. Powell’s firm “No” response to this question was followed by a clarification that he does not believe he is legally obligated to resign.
Further inquiries from journalists focused on the President’s authority to dismiss or demote Powell. The Fed Chair definitively stated that such actions are “not permitted under the law”.… Continue reading
The Federal Reserve’s recent decision to cut interest rates has sparked a wave of commentary, much of it focused on the timing of the announcement, just days after Donald Trump’s election victory. Many believe the headline is misleading, suggesting a connection between the two events that simply doesn’t exist.
The truth is, the Fed’s rate cut was anticipated and planned for months, long before the election. The decision was based on economic indicators and projections, not on the outcome of a political race. The rate cut was a pre-determined action, and it would have happened regardless of who won the election.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood