logo
Consumer Trauma and the Ongoing Psychological Toll of Trumponomics on Americans

Consumer Trauma and the Ongoing Psychological Toll of Trumponomics on Americans

Newsweek30-05-2025
In his first inaugural address in 1933, former President Franklin D. Roosevelt laid out a political axiom that would come to shrewdly diagnose America's thorny brand of insularity. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," Roosevelt told an audience from the Capitol steps, as the nation stood with the Great Depression newly against its back—and little did they know—a second world war shortly ahead.
In recent times, the saying has become little more than lazy exposition in Hollywood hero monologues rather than a nugget of wisdom that American politicians and voters genuinely honor.
And what doesn't often get recited along with Roosevelt's signature proclamation are the immediate words that followed, where the revered president signaled out the "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
President Donald Trump departs after delivering the commencement address at the 2025 U.S. Military Academy Graduation Ceremony at West Point, N.Y., on May 24, 2025.
President Donald Trump departs after delivering the commencement address at the 2025 U.S. Military Academy Graduation Ceremony at West Point, N.Y., on May 24, 2025.
SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images
Just several months into his second term, President Donald Trump has shown that he's going to have a volatile hold on Americans' spending decisions over the next four years, and with it a shrewd grip on their mental health. As an epidemiologist who studies and designs interventions for mental health, I frequently see how concern over things like wages, taxes, and inflation emerge as major risk factors for depression. When this strain over finances becomes recurrent, it can become something even more complex and dangerous: trauma.
Saying that the present economic uncertainty could be traumatizing to Americans may seem like hyperbole. But consider how economists have long been fusing clinical terms into their terminology, like "consumer anxiety," to acutely describe the impact of financial markets on everyday people. The deep economic uncertainty that we're experiencing due to Trumponomics though is making consumer anxiety a deeply insufficient metric. With the U.S. Court of International Trade currently blocking the sweeping tariffs Trump announced in April, and deep uncertainty about what lies ahead, we're now at a point where we have to consider how quickly our nation's consumer anxiety is turning into consumer trauma.
The Trump administration's intentions to create dense, contagious pockets of trauma throughout America were clear early on. In 2023, the current director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought discussed wanting federal employees to be "traumatically affected" as part of a grand Trumpian vision to shrink the federal workforce. How would they go on to attempt that? By castigating federal employees' work and nudging them to resign via quixotic demands and hostile buyout offers.
Trauma occurs when we find ourselves exposed to something distressing and seemingly unpredictable (or uncontrollable), like a car accident or physical assault. When we experience a trauma, the part of our brain that's responsible for detecting personal threats, the amygdala, becomes hypersensitive. This means we become extra alert and responsive to things we perceive to be a potential threat. And we're then pushed to either fight, succumb, or retreat if that threat materializes. On the other end, when we want to avoid traumatizing others, we're generally expected to offer safety, grace, and reassurance.
Rather than that, Trump's initial response to Americans' concerns over his tariffs has come in the form of taunts—character insults and gaslighting that have included telling us on TruthSocial, "Don't be Weak! Don't be Stupid!"—and then several days later, to "BE COOL." But most American consumers believe they'll be the ones absorbing Trump's tariffs.
While Trump's negotiations have thus far consisted of a number of empty threats, last-second retreats, and fairly brief periods of implementation—which seems innocuous enough—it's precisely this kind of unevenness that characterizes traumatization. The power of trauma lies in its ability to diminish our sense of current safety and future stability. Analysts have dubbed Trump's bartering approach "TACO"—Trump Always Chickens Out. But his approach more acutely reflects the parable of the boy who cried wolf. Except in this strange universe, the boy retains his control and safety from beginning to end while everybody else is imperiled.
According to a Quinnipiac poll conducted in April, 72 percent of voters indicated that they believe tariffs will hurt the U.S. economy. Americans' fears over the consequences of tariffs, however, have yet to tame President Trump's unpredictable tendencies. His staccato approach to economic policy of promises to start, rescind, or pause tariffs—and other potentially economically distressing decisions—ensures we all stay on high alert. As people await Trump's response to the recent federal ruling, they're undoubtedly asking themselves: "Will the tariffs be re-introduced? How do I adjust?"
Already, many Americans have plans on precautionary saving and stockpiling goods, trauma-aligned behaviors, in response to increasing costs. Seventy-five percent of people in an April Harris poll said the current economy has negatively affected their decision to buy a home, and 65 percent in the same poll said it has negatively impacted their decision to have a child.
And we can't forget the interpersonal impacts. Trauma makes us less trusting and less connected with one another and the world. People who have experienced trauma express lower levels of relationship satisfaction, decreased motivation, and an overall lower quality of life. We shouldn't take this lightly. Unlike bad economic policy, which can generally be revived through good economic policy, a deep fraying of Americans' trust and connection to the country and its economic systems may not be something the nation can so easily recover from.
Jerel Ezell is a political epidemiologist and visiting scholar at the University of Chicago Medicine. He studies the cultural aspects of policy and health.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

China calls for the creation of a global AI organization
China calls for the creation of a global AI organization

Engadget

time15 minutes ago

  • Engadget

China calls for the creation of a global AI organization

China wants to work with other countries and has laid out its plans for the global governance of artificial intelligence at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai. Li Qiang, the country's premier, warned about "technological monopolies" and said that AI could become "an exclusive game for a few countries and companies." As such, he proposed the creation of a "world AI cooperation organization" during the event. Li didn't specifically mention the United States when he talked about monopolies, but the US restricts AI chip exports to his country. NVIDIA had to develop chips that are only meant for China and conform to export rules so it wouldn't lose the Chinese market completely. Meanwhile, Chinese companies like Huawei are developing their own AI systems to make up for China's lack of access to more advanced AI chips from American firms. Li also made the statement a few days after the Trump administration revealed its AI Action Plan, which seeks to limit state regulation of AI companies and which aims to ensure that the US can beat China in the AI race. The Chinese premier said his country would "actively promote" the development of open source artificial intelligence and that China is "willing to provide more Chinese solutions to the international community" when it comes to AI. He also said that his country was eager to share AI technologies with developing countries in the global south. "Currently, overall global AI governance is still fragmented. Countries have great differences, particularly in terms of areas such as regulatory concepts [and] institutional rules," Li said. "We should strengthen coordination to form a global AI governance framework that has broad consensus as soon as possible."

Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow
Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow

Time​ Magazine

time15 minutes ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow

Donald Trump has been dealt a significant setback in his ongoing battle over sanctuary cities, after a U.S. federal judge threw out the Administration's lawsuit which looked to block legislation in Illinois that limits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The Trump Administration argued that existing so-called 'sanctuary laws' in the state run counter to federal laws because they restrict local officials from sharing information with federal agents, stopping immigration officials from identifying people who 'may be subject to removal.' But those concerns were dismissed by Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who said finding sanctuary policies as 'impermissible regulation'would run counter to the Tenth Amendment. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,' said the judge. Jenkins, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, added: 'Because the Tenth Amendment protects defendants' sanctuary policies, those policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.' Trump's war with sanctuary cities began on day one in office, with an Executive Order, titled 'Protecting the American People Against Invasion.' In the Executive Order, Trump argues that sanctuary jurisdictions 'seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations,' and calls on the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to withhold federal funding from these cities. In April, Trump then signed an Executive Order asking Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identify cities and states that don't sufficiently comply with Trump's federal immigration laws within a month. It is a continuation of Trump's first term, during which he also signed an Executive Order that looked to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions did not receive federal funding. At the time, though, multiple cities sued Trump, and the courts subsequently upheld the legality of such provisions. Read More: What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why Is Trump Targeting Them? Though Trump's battle might be lost in Illinois, his Administration continues to fight across the country. The day before the lawsuit in Illinois failed, Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced new legal action against New York City for its sanctuary laws. Earlier this week, Louisville, Kentucky chose to acquiesce to the administration's immigration policies and cease its designation as a sanctuary city. As human rights organizations argue for the importance of sanctuary and some cities push back against what they view as federal government overreach, the question remains which cities are fighting back against the crackdown. Chicago's and Illinois leadership was very clear in its desire to challenge Trump's immigration policies. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker celebrated the ruling on X, saying that, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety,' Chicago's Mayor Brandon Johnson said in a statement responding to the ruling, saying he was 'pleased' with the decision. 'Chicago cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda.' Chicago's status as a sanctuary city is just one iteration of the term—though the long-time Democratic city has been designated as such cities that limit information shared with federal immigration officers. Though there is no specific definition for a sanctuary city, the term refers to jurisdictions with a wide range of laws in place to limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For Chicago in particular, their 'Welcoming City Ordinance,' argues that 'partnering with [Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] would go against our mission to make Chicago the most immigrant friendly city in the country and turn ours into a community of fear for immigrants.' The Trump Administration, though, also has ongoing suits against not just New York City but also Los Angeles, Denver, Rochester, and four cities in New Jersey. Tom Homan, President Trump's 'border czar,' also has laid out the administration's plans to continue combat sanctuary cities. Read More: Sanctuary Cities Are Not New 'Sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals—hard stop,' Homan said. 'And President Trump made a commitment a couple weeks ago that we're going to prioritize sanctuary cities.' Simultaneously, certain cities designated 'sanctuary cities' have been less strong in their pushback against the federal Government. Louisville's Department of Corrections will now notify the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at least 48 hours before an inmate with an immigration detainer is scheduled to be released from custody. The city's mayor, Craig Greenberg cited 'a terrifying increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids' on cities designated as sanctuary cities—claiming that by taking Louisville off the designated sanctuary city list, he prevents risking ' the safety of our broader immigrant community.' While New York City has remained the country's largest sanctuary city, its status as such and Mayor Eric Adams' desire to push back against the federal government has come into question. Even before the latest lawsuit issued by the Trump government, Adams' Administration had been embroiled in a battle with the New York City Council and court system to allow ICE agents into Rikers Island. Though he has said he will 'without a doubt' keep the city's sanctuary status. Adams has called for changes to the city's sanctuary laws after the Justice Department suit, saying that they 'go too far' in some places. 'I think we need to tweak the current laws to allow us to coordinate with the federal government when it comes down to removing those dangerous people from our streets," Adams told CBS New York. Back in February, Adams' cooperation with the federal government came under questioning after the Justice Department ordered federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against the Mayor, stating that the case was interfering with the Democratic mayor's ability to follow through with the President's agenda to crack down on illegal immigration. The move pushed Gov. Kathy Hochul to consider removing Adams from office.

Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it
Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it

The Hill

time15 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it

There is seemingly no worthwhile accomplishment or good deed authored by President Trump that the left will give him credit for achieving. That in and of itself speaks to the bottomless pits of partisanship and rhetorical poison some have eagerly embraced in the 'Age of Trump.' Unfortunately for the Democratic Party as a whole, such anger-fueled denial has a spillover effect that hurts the party's electoral chances. In speaking with former high-level Democrats, I am told that one of the main reasons Trump sailed to victory last November was because almost the entirety of the Democratic and far-left echo chamber mortgaged its energy and treasure seeking to demonize Trump rather than addressing the solvable real-world problems plaguing their constituents and fellow Americans. But at what cost is this coming to the Democratic Party or, more importantly, Americans looking to it for desperately needed help? Don't take my word for it. Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban recently laid into Democrats for having no policy or strategy beyond 'Trump sucks.' 'We picked the wrong pressure points,' said Cuban on 'Pod Save America.' 'It's just 'Trump sucks.' That's the underlying thought of everything the Democrats do. 'Trump sucks.' Trump says the sky is blue. 'Trump sucks.' That's not the way to win! It's just not! Because it's not about Trump — it's about the people of the United States of America — and what's good for them! And how do you get them to a place where they're in a better position, and it's less stressful for them.' Cuban — who a growing number of Democrats believe might make a credible presidential candidate in 2028 — is correct. When will it be peak 'theater of the absurd' for that echo chamber? When do working-class and disenfranchised Americans once again matter to it? When does national security once again matter to it? When does the performance art — aimed at literally just a few thousand entrenched elites living in bubbles — stop? If you only got yours information from that echo chamber, you would believe that Trump never accomplished anything; never built anything; was never successful; never made a correct decision; and never had a worthwhile instinct. Ever. And that was before he became president. Since Trump became president, inhabitants of that echo chamber have seemingly been in a constant state of rage. One of the issues that has most made them apoplectic is Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Over the last three decades or longer, the Nobel Prize Committee has become for many the poster child for a 'woke,' in-the-tank for the left organization. Especially when it comes to the Peace Prize. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that, if the committee members admit that they have morphed into a propaganda arm for the far left and its causes. But they won't. Instead, they — like the Pulitzer Prize Committee — proclaim their nonpartisanship while actively discriminating against conservatives or those they perceive to be on the right. In 2015, one of its members, Geir Lundestad — possibly suffering a pang of guilt — had the good grace to admit to a mistake. That mistake being the laughable and sycophantic decision to award President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for literally doing nothing. Obama had been in office for less than nine months when he got the award. Liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called it 'premature.' Obama himself felt so self-conscious about getting the award that he gave serious thought to skipping the ceremony. Years later, while giving that 2015 interview, Lundestad said, 'Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake. In that sense, the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for.' Well, the committee did achieve what it set out to do, which was to fawn over a far-left president by giving him an award he never earned. It just didn't anticipate the immense blowback and ridicule. Again, it seems that, for the left, Trump should never be given any credit for anything. No matter how patently obvious that he deserves it. Even about keeping the peace and saving lives. For years prior to him becoming president — when many powerful Democrats courted his friendship and money — Trump spoke out against the war in Iraq and the needless waste of lives, something he continued to do as president. Just as he has done about the war in Ukraine. Did those calls against war and to save hundreds of thousands of lives ever register with the Nobel Committee? What about in 2020 when Trump created the Abraham Accords, an agreement that normalized relations between Israel and Arab countries? Again, in 2009, the committee awarded Obama the award for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.' Except, that is not what he did — and yet, he still got the award. Trump established the Abraham Accords — and was ignored by the committee. In 1998, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to John Hume and David Trimble for 'their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.' Okay, let's compare. Just recently, Trump was instrumental in preventing all-out war between India and Pakistan. Two nuclear-armed nations. Is that more valuable to the world than finding a 'peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland?' Apparently not to the committee. In 2019, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to Abiy Ahmed 'for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea.' Again, earlier this year, Trump brokered a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. While much of the mainstream media sought to bury the accomplishment, surely the committee knew of it. Mark Cuban was correct to call out the Democrats for only having one failed campaign policy. Trump is correct to call out the Nobel Prize Committee for its obvious and shameful bias. Brokering peace and saving lives should always be recognized — no matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store