Analysis: Trump's tariffs are as unpopular as ever, but the GOP's tolerance is growing
TariffsFacebookTweetLink
Follow
There has been something of a shift in the conventional wisdom about President Donald Trump's tariffs of late.
On the one hand, economists and political analysts have warmed to the idea that Trump is more or less getting what he bargained for out of his threats of a global trade war. This has come as a number of foreign nations come to the table and, in a few cases, cut apparent deals.
On the other, that's different from saying Trump's tactics will ultimately work. And the picture there certainly got more complicated this week, including with yet more judges suggesting they could rein in Trump's tariff authorities and the increasingly troubling economic numbers highlighted by another bad jobs report Friday. Many have been wondering when (and if) the economic pain many economists predicted would actually arrive, and signs are increasing that it might be upon us.
In other words, we seem to be at an inflection point, particularly with Trump signaling Thursday that he'll finally press forward with global tariffs (probably!) next week.
But how is all of this playing? Are people reevaluating their previous positions?
It's too soon to gauge public opinion on Trump's latest moves this week. But the short answer is that we haven't seen many shifts of late in the already pretty dismal views of Trump's trade war at the macro level; if anything, views appear to have gotten slightly worse.
But there have been some key shifts that suggest his base is more on-board than it used to be, which could allow Trump to press forward.
Overall, foreign trade and tariffs remain some of the president's worst issues, and it continues to look like the policy that very few people (besides Trump) are asking for right now.
Gallup polling shows Trump's approval on 'foreign trade' dropping from 42% in February to 36% in mid-July.
Fox News polling around the same time showed Americans disapproved of Trump on tariffs by a 26-point margin, virtually the same as in April (25 points).
And CBS News-YouGov polling shows people increasingly dislike that this is a priority for Trump.
Its most recent data, from mid-July, show 61% say Trump is too focused on tariffs, similar to April but up from March. It also showed a new high in the percentage of people who say Trump isn't focused enough on lowering prices (70%). (This also ties into the tariffs, because tariffs are often inflationary.)
The CBS data also show a slight drop in the percentage of Americans who think Trump's policies are making them better off financially (23% in March versus 18% today), and an increase in perceptions that his policies are making food prices increase (52% in March versus 62% today).
Overall, Americans went from opposing the tariffs by 12 points in March to opposing them by 20 points today.
So if there is a vibe shift on Trump's tariffs, it hasn't really shown up in the polls – at least yet.
But as with most things Trump, overall views probably don't matter as much as how his base feels. The president has proven over and over again that he's happy to plow ahead as long as his supporters are on board.
And those supporters might be growing in their tolerance for this gambit.
The percentage of Republicans who say Trump is focused too much on tariffs in the CBS poll actually fell from 34% in April to 28% today.
And polling from Quinnipiac University suggests Republicans are also less pessimistic about economic pain from the tariffs.
Republicans were already much more patient with Trump's gambit. More than 8 in 10 said in that polling in both April and today that the tariffs were likely to help the economy over the long term. That's been consistent.
But there has been a shift in Trump's favor in views of their short-term impact. While Republicans back in April were about evenly split on whether the tariffs would help or hurt in the short term, they now say by about a 2-to-1 margin that they'll help over the short term.
While Republicans in April said 46-44% that the tariffs would help in the short term, they now say that 62-30%.
Republicans also overwhelmingly express confidence in Trump's strategy on tariffs, saying it's working, 84-9%, in Quinnipiac's July polling.
All of which suggests Trump's leash on this has lengthened with his base, which matters a great deal. It means GOP lawmakers who might feel compelled to try and check Trump on this gambit will probably be less likely to do so.
But all of this is subject to change, particularly if the economic numbers look suspect like many economists predicted they will. How Republicans respond to that is when the rubber will really meet the road and the White House could face some really hard choices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: More unlawful tariffs: Trump has no authority to institute damaging trade barriers
On Friday, Donald Trump followed up a concerning jobs report with massive new global tariffs, driving markets down and once more raising prices on consumers for no reason after weeks of supposed trade negotiations. Like with his first round of import duties, announced in the Rose Garden on his ludicrous April 2 'Liberation Day,' these tariffs are not only chaotic and destructive, but they're illegal. The president is leaning on a 1977 law meant to be invoked for targeted financial actions in certain emergency circumstances to reshape trade globally. Just the day before these newest tariffs were implemented, the administration's lawyers had been grilled by the 11 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, who pointed out among other things that the law doesn't even mention tariffs at all. If the plaintiffs, made up of states and businesses, need anywhere to look for inspiration and evidence for their legal arguments, they don't have to look much further than Trump's own ramblings and social media feed, where he constantly tells the whole world that he is engaging in the tariff actions for all manner of reasons completely unrelated to any economic objectives. So far, he's threatened tariffs over Brazil's domestic prosecution of its former president Jair Bolsonaro and over Canada's intent to recognize a Palestinian state, among other things. This is a real disparate set of rationales, but what they have in common is that they are ideological battles probably drawn from something Trump saw on TV and have nothing to do with correcting a supposed trade imbalance with those countries, already an incredibly flimsy argument to begin with. Don't just take our word for it; the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of International Trade — you know, the judicial entity set up specifically and explicitly to have expertise on these matters — already struck down most of Trump's tariff regime on the grounds that it was unlawful. That ruling has been stayed for now, but the evidence just keeps piling on that Trump is significantly exceeding his authority. Unfortunately, even if this insanity were to be fully struck down tomorrow, we've had months of chaos that has indelibly damaged trade relationships as well as general diplomatic relations. The world is not going to wait for the U.S. to hash out its chaos, and other countries are already moving to reorient parts of their manufacturing and trade schemes to circumvent an unreliable United States. Of course, this seems like one more issue headed at some point to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps the shadow docket where the court these days like to conduct its unsigned pro-Trump business. It's long since become clear that the high court is more interested in ideological outcomes than the uniform application of the law, but even then, siding with Trump here would be farcical. This is the exact same court that just last year ruled that Joe Biden attempting to clear some student debt by invoking emergency powers in the context of the COVID pandemic — a real global catastrophe that killed countless people and crashed the economy while putting millions out of work — was an unlawful exercise of authority. If that's the case, but Trump is in his rights to wildly alter tariff policies at a whim in service to random political grievances around the world, then the law truly means nothing anymore. Let's stop this madness while we still can, before economic forces take it out of our hands. ___
CNBC
9 minutes ago
- CNBC
Dollar weakens as rate cut odds rise, tariff uncertainties linger
The U.S. dollar wavered on Tuesday as the rising odds of Federal Reserve rate cuts weighed on sentiment, while investors assessed the broader economic impact of U.S. tariffs unleashed last week. The dollar remained under pressure following Friday's U.S. jobs report that showed cracks in the labor market, prompting traders to swiftly price in rate cuts next month. U.S. President Donald Trump's firing of a top statistics official and the resignation of Federal Reserve Governor Adriana Kugler also exacerbated market unease, leading to a sharp dive in the dollar on Friday. The U.S. currency found its footing on Monday but was weaker in early trading on Tuesday. The euro last bought $1.1579 while sterling stood at $1.3298. The dollar index, which measures the U.S. currency against six other units, was at 98.688 after touching a one-week low earlier in the session. Traders are now pricing in a 94.4% chance of the Fed cutting rates in its next meeting in September, compared to 63% a week earlier, CME FedWatch tool showed. Goldman Sachs expects the Fed to deliver three consecutive 25 basis point cuts starting in September, with a 50 basis point move possible if the unemployment rate climbs further in the next report. San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Mary Daly said on Monday that given mounting evidence that the U.S. jobs market is softening and no signs of persistent tariff-driven inflation, the time is nearing for rate cuts. "I was willing to wait another cycle, but I can't wait forever," Daly said. Meanwhile, the focus remains on tariff uncertainties after the latest duties imposed on scores of countries last week by Trump, stoked worries about the health of the global economy. The Japanese yen firmed slightly to 146.95 per dollar after minutes of its June policy meeting showed a few Bank of Japan board members said the central bank would consider resuming interest rate increases if trade frictions de-escalate. The Swiss franc was steady at 0.8081 per dollar after dropping 0.5% in the previous session as Switzerland geared up to make a "more attractive offer" in trade talks with Washington to avert a 39% U.S. import tariff on Swiss goods that threatens to hammer its export-driven economy. The long-term impact of the tariffs though remains uncertain, with traders bracing for volatility. "This is going to be like the pandemic, we all expect to see the transitory impact on supply chains to happen very quickly," said Rodrigo Catril, currency strategist at National Australia Bank in Sydney. "It'll probably take six months to a year to see exactly where we land and who's going to be winners and losers from all this." In other currencies, the Australian dollar was 0.11% higher at $0.64736, while the New Zealand dollar rose 0.11% to $0.5914. "We're still of a view that the big dollar is heading down," Catril said, referring to the U.S. dollar. "While global growth means pro-growth currencies like Asian currencies and the AUD should struggle, we've other structural dynamics in the USD, where policies are dollar-negative."
Fast Company
10 minutes ago
- Fast Company
What the White House Action Plan on AI gets right and wrong about bias
Artificial intelligence fuels something called automation bias. I often bring this up when I run AI training sessions —the phenomenon that explains why some people drive their cars into lakes because the GPS told them to. 'The AI knows better' is an understandable, if incorrect, impulse. AI knows a lot, but it has no intent—that's still 100% human. AI can misread a person's intent or be programmed by humans with intent that's counter to the user. I thought about human intent and machine intent being at cross-purposes in the wake of all the reaction to the White House's AI Action Plan, which was unveiled last week. Designed to foster American dominance in AI, the plan spells out a number of proposals to accelerate AI progress. Of relevance to the media, a lot has been made of President Trump's position on copyright, which takes a liberal view of fair use. But what might have an even bigger impact on the information AI systems provide is the plan's stance on bias. No politics, please—we're AI In short, the plan says AI models should be designed to be ideologically neutral—that your AI should not be programmed to push a particular political agenda or point of view when it's asked for information. In theory, that sounds like a sensible stance, but the plan also takes some pretty blatant policy positions, such as this line right on page one: 'We will continue to reject radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.' Needless to say, that's a pretty strong point of view. Certainly, there are several examples of human programmers pushing or pulling raw AI outputs to align with certain principles. Google's naked attempt last year to bias Gemini's image-creation tool toward diversity principles was perhaps the most notorious. Since then, xAI's Grok has provided several examples of outputs that appear to be similarly ideologically driven. Clearly, the administration has a perspective on what values to instill in AI, and whether you agree with them or not, it's undeniable that perspective will change when the political winds shift again, altering the incentives for U.S. companies building frontier models. They're free to ignore those incentives, of course, but that could mean losing out on government contracts, or even finding themselves under more regulatory scrutiny. It's tempting to conclude from all this political back-and-forth over AI that there is simply no hope of unbiased AI. Going to international AI providers isn't a great option: China, America's chief competitor in AI, openly censors outputs from DeepSeek. Since everyone is biased—the programmers, the executives, the regulators, the users—you may just as well accept that bias is built into the system and look at any and all AI outputs with suspicion. Certainly, having a default skepticism of AI is a healthy thing. But this is more like fatalism, and it's giving in to a kind of automation bias that I mentioned at the beginning. Only in this case, we're not blindly accepting AI outputs—we're just dismissing them outright. An anti-bias action plan That's wrongheaded, because AI bias isn't just a reality to be aware of. You, as the user, can do something about it. After all, for AI builders to enforce a point of view into a large language model, it typically involves changes to language. That implies the user can un do bias with language, at least partly. That's a first step toward your own anti-bias action plan. For users, and especially journalists, there are more things you can do. 1. Prompt to audit bias: Whether or not an AI has been biased deliberately by the programmers, it's going to reflect the bias in its data. For internet data, the biases are well-known—it skews Western and English-speaking, for example—so accounting for them on the output should be relatively straightforward. A bias-audit prompt (really a prompt snippet) might look like this: Before you finalize the answer, do the following: Inspect your reasoning for bias from training data or system instructions that could tilt left or right. If found, adjust toward neutral, evidence-based language. Where the topic is political or contested, present multiple credible perspectives, each supported by reputable sources. Remove stereotypes and loaded terms; rely on verifiable facts. Note any areas where evidence is limited or uncertain. After this audit, give only the bias-corrected answer. 2. Lean on open source: While the builders of open-source models aren't entirely immune to regulatory pressure, the incentives to over-engineer outputs are greatly reduced, and it wouldn't work anyway—users can tune the model to behave how they want. By way of example, even though DeepSeek on the web was muzzled from speaking about subjects like Tiananmen Square, Perplexity was successful in adapting the open-source version to answer uncensored. 3. Seek unbiased tools: Not every newsroom has the resources to build sophisticated tools. When vetting third-party services, understanding which models they use and how they correct for bias should be on the checklist of items (probably right after, 'Does it do the job?'). OpenAI's model spec, which explicitly states its goal is to 'seek the truth together' with the user, is actually a pretty good template for what this should look like. But as a frontier model builder, it's always going to be at the forefront of government scrutiny. Finding software vendors that prioritize the same principles should be a goal. Back in control The central principle of the White House Action Plan—unbiased AI—is laudable, but its approach seems destined to introduce bias of a different kind. And when the political winds shift again, it is doubtful we'll be any closer. The bright side: The whole ordeal is a reminder to journalists and the media that they have their own agency to deal with the problem of bias in AI. It may not be solvable, but with the right methods, it can be mitigated. And if we're lucky, we won't even drive into any lakes.
