Buddy Carter, GOP rep from Georgia, on solar power, EVs, and nuclear
Julian Spector: Congressman Buddy Carter from Georgia — there he is. Let's give him a warm Canary Media welcome.
It's an honor to have you here. We're just kicking off our first live event in Washington, D.C. Everyone is into the energy scene — the technologies and the policies. I wanted to start by saying why we were so excited to have you here. You're the Republican congressman from Georgia's 1st district.
Buddy Carter: Thank you! My district is around Savannah. You've got the entire coast of pristine coastline and two major seaports: the Port of Savannah and No. 3 container port in the country, and the Port of Brunswick, the No. 1 roll-on, roll-off port in the country. A lot of military presence, Fort Stewart, Kings Bay, two Coast Guard stations. A strong forestry presence, a strong ag presence.
Spector: And recently, about an $8 billion EV factory, right?
Carter: Yes, a $7.6 billion investment by Hyundai, the largest single economic development project in the history of our state. And we're very, very proud of that.
As I say, $7.6 billion to generate about 8,500 jobs — it will probably be that much more investment and probably many more jobs and ancillary businesses. We're very excited about it. They've already geared up and have announced that they're even going to expand before they even got started.
Spector: And I think it's making the Ioniq 5 and Ioniq 9. So if you have one of those cars, it'll come from your district.
I'm from D.C., and I ended up going to college down in the South. (Go Blue Devils, figure that one out.) But sometimes, I think D.C. folks, we don't always keep up with all the things happening in the South. There's really a cluster of innovation and factories there. I was wondering if you could say, what has clean energy meant to the economy of Georgia, both in the manufacturing side and the installation of solar and battery projects?
Carter: First of all, Georgia is the No. 7 state in the nation in solar energy. We're very proud of that. We've worked very diligently to make that happen. I like to say in Georgia, we've got a lot of pine trees, a lot of sunshine, a lot of pretty girls. We've got a lot to be proud of, and certainly sunshine and solar is very important.
I also would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that Georgia is the first state to have nuclear reactors in the last 30 years — Plant Vogtle.
I'm a nuclear fan. Plant Vogtle is the largest clean energy plant in the United States. We added two reactors, reactors 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle. And now, in addition to Plant Vogtle, Plant Hatch, which is in my district, is delivering about 33% of the energy in the state of Georgia right now. I think that's very significant.
Spector: That's a lot more than the nation as a whole. It's about 18% or 19% of overall U.S. generation. So you're above the national average there.
Carter: We talk a lot about the small [modular] reactors, SMRs, and we're excited about them, too. But I think it's significant to note that Southern Co. has said that their next investment is going to be another [AP1000]; they like the big reactors. I thought that was pretty significant for them to say that.
We look forward to that because nuclear power is a big part of what we're doing. We also have battery plants in the state of Georgia.
Georgia, for 11 years in a row, has been the No. 1 state in which to do business, and there's a reason for that. We are under good leadership from our governor, from our legislature. We create a pro-business environment, but we've also had the availability and accessibility and affordability of energy, which is very important.
Now let's talk about affordability, because I think that's an important thing to talk about as well. Yes, nuclear power is more expensive at this point, but I think it's important to note that the difference between the cost of reactor No. 3 and reactor No. 4 was significant.
We learned a lot of things when we built reactor No. 3 that we were able to apply to reactor No. 4 that saved a lot of money.
Spector: So for full journalistic duty, there was quite a bit of going over budget on the total Vogtle project, but that's an interesting point about bringing the overruns down with the learning.
Speaking of the cost of energy, I think we can't ignore there's a little something going on in Washington this week, which is this big, beautiful budget. I was looking back over a letter you wrote with some of your colleagues from the Conservative Climate Caucus last summer, basically saying that prematurely repealing the energy tax credits, particularly those used to justify investments that already broke ground, could undermine private investment and stop development that's already ongoing. And I think that applies both to factories that are trying to make things in America, and power plants, solar plants.
So, you voted for the budget bill. What happened between the argument you were making in that letter last summer and the bill that you ultimately voted for?
Carter: Let's stay focused on what we're trying to do with one big, beautiful bill. If we do not pass that, Americans will be looking at the largest tax increase they've ever seen.
In fact, I've signed three letters saying that we should not take a sledgehammer to the Inflation Reduction Act. Instead, we should take a scalpel, because I've always said, and I continue to say, if these policies result in stabilizing our supply chain or if they result in domestic manufacturing, why wouldn't we look at them? Why wouldn't we keep them? That's Republican priorities anyway.
I want to share a quick story with you because I thought it was somewhat humorous. I was calling up a supporter. And, you know, I'm running statewide. I should have mentioned that I'm running for U.S. Senate in the next election.
I called up a potential supporter, and he was saying, 'Well, you signed that letter and you're not supporting the president because you're not doing away with the IRA.'
And I said, 'Well, wait a minute now, why would we?'
He responded: 'Well, if you want to keep some of those things, you ought to just do away with the IRA and then bring them back. So what's the difference?'
Give me a break. Republican ideas, Democratic ideas. We do it all the time — we take things that the Democrats did, we claim them to be ours, and they do the same thing. They're good ideas, and I think it's important to note that. Some of these things did result in stabilizing the supply chain and in domestic manufacturing. Why wouldn't we keep those things? Why wouldn't we look at that? The Republicans want that just as much as the Democrats.
Now, having said that, let me make one thing clear: The decision to make the $7.6 billion investment and to build that plant was made pre-IRA.
Now, would they like to have the tax credits? Of course they would; any business would. But I think it is significant that we understand that decision was made. Let me assure you, as I have assured them, they made a wise decision. There's going to be a market for EVs.
I'm one who strongly believes that the government shouldn't be choosing winners and losers, because when the government chooses winners and losers, consumers lose. There's going to be a market for EVs. It may not be in rural South Georgia, but eventually it will. I can assure you, in the urban areas, Hyundai is going to do great.
Spector: If the current budget gets enacted, it almost guarantees a lower demand for their product. Are you worried about the jobs in your district, or any kind of follow-on impacts from that?
Carter: I'm not naive enough to believe that it's not going to have some impact. But as I said, the decision that Hyundai made was before those tax credits were there. I think they're going to feel like they made a very wise decision in building this plant, making this investment.
I think it ought to be market-driven. I don't think the government should be telling people what kind of car to be driving or what kind of appliance you're going to be using. I just don't think that's the role of the government.
Spector: Do you see yourself having any role in trying to talk to your Senate colleagues and see if some of these credits could get back in on the Senate side in a way that ends up in the final package? Are you actively talking to anybody about that or trying to make that case?
Carter: Yes, yes. I do. I signed all three letters, and I didn't just sign them — I meant it. I truly feel that way. So yes, I have been talking to some of our Senate colleagues, although I quite honestly don't know how much difference it makes. I'm talking to these guys and trying to join them. I don't know why.
The main thing is we've got to get these tax cuts extended. We have to make sure that we don't have the largest tax increase in the history of the world.
We have companies coming into our office every day. They need stability. They need certainty in order to make investments. I understand that — I was in business for myself for 32 years. I ran three independent retail pharmacies — talk about swimming with sharks, I was up against the big boys.
The government's been run in the past few decades by executive orders. We've got to get away from that. Whether you're Republican or Democrat, you ought to feel, if you're a member of Congress, that the legislative branch has got to assert themselves and their authority as our forefathers intended for it to be.
I am trying to encourage some of these senators and, even still, some House members, because it's going to come back to us.
I'm not going to mislead you. It's a heavy lift. I think the biggest hurdle we're trying to get over is in the Senate, and some of those who, first of all, feel like, you know, we didn't address the debt. That's not what we were doing this for. Does it need to be addressed? Obviously. I'm on the budget committee. Obviously it needs to be addressed. And don't think that we can't do another reconciliation package. We can do another one, and I would submit to you that we need to do a budget reconciliation package for debt reduction.
I'm chair of the health subcommittee. I'm a pharmacist by profession. Medicaid, Medicare — we need reforms in that, but not here. Keep the main thing the main thing, and the main thing is to get these tax cuts extended, because if we don't, the impact it's going to have on our economy is going to be devastating.
Spector: And then another kind of impact that's been flagged recently in a tweet from Tesla's Elon Musk and his electric car company: It's about the changes to tax credits, jeopardizing the ability to build the new power production we need for the AI boom.
After decades of pretty much flat demand for electricity, we're now seeing pretty mind-blowing expectations of how much is going to be needed in the next few years. Solar is the thing that's getting built the most across the country right now, and if the credits sort of shake up the investment landscape there, they're saying it could jeopardize 60 gigawatts of annual deployment of clean energy.
Do you think your colleagues are grappling with that, a possibility that these cuts might actually undermine the president's AI agenda and the sort of economic vitality that's powered by electricity?
Carter: Look, I don't care what economic sector you're talking about. In Congress right now, the buzz at the Capitol is AI. Every committee is having a hearing on AI. Health subcommittee, we are having hearings on AI, and so is natural resources. Everything is AI right now.
We understand now, to your point, the demand for energy. That's why I'm an all-of-the-above type energy strategist, because we are going to need every electron we can get. We all know how much data centers in AI are going to demand.
To your point, yes, we're going to need solar, we're going to need wind, we're going to need nuclear and its baseload reliability. Yes, we're going to need it. We're going to need every available electron.
All of you understand how important this is. We cannot afford to lose this race to China. We cannot afford to lose the AI race to China. If we do, then God help us, and China's trying to do it.
Spector: Setting aside the current budget battle, are there any specific policies you would want to propose to ensure the U.S. can meet its electricity needs for AI and all the new factories? Are there any specific policies you'd like to pass once the budget discussions get taken care of?
Carter: Absolutely. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we're working on a number of different policies. I mentioned that I've signed three letters. The last letter was with [Rep.] Dan Newhouse on nuclear energy.
We had this tragedy in Fukushima, and I was able to go to Japan and see what happened there. Europe's kind of abandoned nuclear energy, but I think they're going back now. I know France, thank goodness, didn't abandon it; they're providing it for everyone. Nuclear is going to be a big part of it. We're going to need everything. I am encouraging my colleagues to look at everything.
Spector: I've been seeing in my reporting a lot of companies that used to talk a lot about climate, and nonprofits, NGOs, pulling back from using the word climate in today's Washington. You're still a leader of the Conservative Climate Caucus. So I wonder, can you get traction in President Trump's Washington, using that word climate? Does that generate some pushback from your colleagues? Or do you think it's important to keep using that language?
Carter: I know that some of you are not going to believe this, but Republicans are pro-environment. Being pro-growth and pro-environment are not mutually exclusive. You can be both, and we are both.
I have the honor and privilege of representing, as I said, the coast of Georgia. It's where I've lived all my life and where I intend to live the rest of my life. Some of my fondest memories growing up are going fishing with my dad. I want my sons, I want my grandchildren, to have that same opportunity to enjoy those memories.
I love the environment. I'm not going to ever do anything intentionally to hurt the environment. I tell you, environmentalists are tough — you can be with 99.9% of the time, but that 0.1% of the time you're not with them, oh boy, they will persecute you.
My point is, it is important for us as Republicans to acknowledge, and I do believe. I believe in climate change. I believe that man has an impact on the climate and that we need to address it.
I believe that we should be looking toward cleaner energy and renewable energy. I do believe that. That's why I'm cochair of the Conservative Climate Caucus. That's why I work. That's why I signed those three letters. That's why I'm working diligently on this. I want us to do that, but at the same time, we've got to be careful not to cut our nose off in spite of our face. It needs to be an approach that is sensible and logical.
Spector: Do you have any particular priorities regarding some sort of permitting reform or grid interconnection reform? Any dream goals you'd want to work on in the next session?
Carter: You know, I don't care what sector of our economy you're talking about, whether you're talking about health care, whether you're talking about communications technology, or whether you're talking about energy. When people and companies come into my office, it is always the same — permitting regulations, crushing us. And that's what we've got to address.
I'll give you an example. I think this is relevant. As I said, I represent the city of Savannah. The Savannah Harbor expansion project, where we deepened our harbor from 42 feet to 47 feet in order to accommodate the bigger ships that are coming through — that project was finished in March of 2022.
The permitting — this is true — the permitting for that project started in 1996.
In that period of time, China has started and completed three new ports. The point I'm trying to make here: We can do a better job than this without endangering our environment, and we need to do a better job. It doesn't matter what part of our economy you're talking about, there are people coming to my office and saying permitting is killing us.
Spector: Is there any other message you'd like to leave our crowd with here? You know, on the future of clean energy in America?
Carter: Well, again, I'm proud of the state of Georgia. I'm proud of what we've done. We've been a pro-business state, and again, we've led in clean energy, nuclear energy, solar energy, all of it. I know some of y'all don't like biomass, but I happen to like it, and if you look at the entire cycle, I think you agree that biomass, too, is something we should be looking at. And as I mentioned before, we've got a lot of pine trees in Georgia, so biomass is really big too.
Spector: Congressman, thank you for being here at Canary Live. Let's give him a show of appreciation. Thank you and have a great rest of your week.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Republicans are afraid of Mamdani in New York. That's a good thing.
Republicans think Zohran Mamdani will turn NYC into a socialist mecca because they forgot what a functioning government looks like. We're a few months out from New York City's municipal election, and Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani is still the frontrunner in the mayoral race. It's a positive sign for progressives who want to see democratic socialists transform the party. In a July poll by Zenith Research and Public Progress Solutions, Mamdani received 50% of support while the rest of the candidates trailed behind. Former Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo, who is now running as an independent, received 22% of support, followed by Republican Curtis Sliwa at 13%. Current Mayor Eric Adams, who is also running as an independent, received just 7% support. Mamdani may be polling well, but his path to victory in November is anything but smooth. There are already five anti-Mamdani PACs that have formed since the primary, backed by business moguls and real estate tycoons who warn that the Democratic nominee would be bad for the city's economy. He's also having to answer for some of his previous posts about 'defunding the police' and comments on Israel. Republicans criticizing Mamdani for 'defund police' comment are hypocritical The biggest criticism of Mamdani has come from his previous comments about the New York City Police Department. In the wake of George Floyd's murder in 2020, Mamdani posted to X that the NYPD was 'racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety' and called for defunding the force. Mamdani has also proposed creating a Department of Community Safety separate from the police department, which would respond to mental health calls. But the Democratic nominee is attempting to distance himself from these previous claims, calling the posts 'out of step' with his current stance on public safety. He recently met with the family of Officer Didarul Islam, one of the four people killed in a recent shooting in Midtown Manhattan. Republicans criticizing him seem more than willing to ignore the way President Donald Trump pardoned Jan. 6 rioters who attacked police officers, or his own criminal convictions. But he is the "law and order" president, for sure. And the GOP is the "law and order" party, right? Voters are increasingly agreeing with Mamdani on Gaza Another criticism from the right is that Mamdani is too critical of Israel. Fox News recently resurrected a clip of Mamdani from a 2024 panel where the mayoral candidate claimed, 'Israel is not a place, it is not a country.' Mamdani seems to be taking these attacks to heart. He recently said he would not use the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' and would also discourage others from using it. Mamdani had previously refused to condemn the phrase. On the other hand, Mamdani's criticisms of Israel proved to be popular with voters in the Democratic primary. A poll from Data for Progress and the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project found that his 'support for Palestinian rights' was important for 96% of his voters, while his 'willingness to criticize the Israeli government' was important to 88% of his voters. Opinion: People are starving in Gaza. Why are we so comfortable just letting that happen? While conservatives are trying to attack Mamdani for his previous stances on Israel and his sympathy for the Palestinian people, it doesn't seem like it'll work. Democrats should listen to their voters, not conservatives, to know how to approach this issue. Only 8% of Democrats support Israel's actions in Gaza, according to a recent Gallup poll, while 71% of Republicans support it. Some Republicans are even breaking with the party to denounce mass starvation in the region, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, who recently called the crisis a "genocide." Republicans are afraid of what Mamdani stands for. Good. Mamdani won the primary largely thanks to his mobilization of young voters. It worked out for him: voters under 40 made up 40% of early voting turnout. Now, the question is whether they'll turn out for the general election. I'm hopeful that they will. I have personally seen the way my generation has reacted to Mamdani's campaign. There is a palpable excitement reminiscent of Barack Obama's first run for the presidency, an excitement fueled by the idea that the Democratic Party can change, in spite of itself. Opinion: Zohran Mamdani rallied Gen Z voters. We can't abandon him now. The reasons conservatives are criticizing Mamdani are the reasons people my age voted for him. We believe in moving funding from the NYPD into areas like mental health care and community building. We support Palestinian rights. We want to see that working-class New Yorkers can remain in this city. We see taxing corporations and the wealthy as a good thing. Some may call these things unrealistic, and they may have a point. There's no way New York City becomes a socialist utopia if Mamdani is elected, since he must work with the city council, state and national governments to achieve many of his campaign priorities. But his very election could signal to the Democratic Party that they should run to, not from, progressive politics. Mamdani's path to victory is not an easy one. He will continue to face criticism from the right throughout the next few months. But if polling is any indication, he's still likely to be the next mayor of the largest city in the United States. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno

3 hours ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
It's Trump's economy now. The latest financial numbers offer some warning signs
WASHINGTON (AP) — For all of President Donald Trump's promises of an economic 'golden age,' a spate of weak indicators this week told a potentially worrisome story as the impacts of his policies are coming into focus. Job gains are dwindling. Inflation is ticking upward. Growth has slowed compared to last year. More than six months into his term, Trump's blitz of tariff hikes and his new tax and spending bill have remodeled America's trading, manufacturing, energy and tax systems to his own liking. He's eager to take credit for any wins that might occur and is hunting for someone else to blame if the financial situation starts to totter. But as of now, this is not the boom the Republican president promised, and his ability to blame his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, for any economic challenges has faded as the world economy hangs on his every word and social media post. When Friday's jobs report turned out to be decidedly bleak, Trump ignored the warnings in the data and fired the head of the agency that produces the monthly jobs figures. 'Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes,' Trump said on Truth Social, without offering evidence for his claim. 'The Economy is BOOMING.' It's possible that the disappointing numbers are growing pains from the rapid transformation caused by Trump and that stronger growth will return — or they may be a preview of even more disruption to come. Trump's economic plans are a political gamble Trump's aggressive use of tariffs, executive actions, spending cuts and tax code changes carries significant political risk if he is unable to deliver middle-class prosperity. The effects of his new tariffs are still several months away from rippling through the economy, right as many Trump allies in Congress will be campaigning in the midterm elections. 'Considering how early we are in his term, Trump's had an unusually big impact on the economy already,' said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist at Firehouse Strategies. 'The full inflationary impact of the tariffs won't be felt until 2026. Unfortunately for Republicans, that's also an election year.' The White House portrayed the blitz of trade frameworks leading up to Thursday's tariff announcement as proof of his negotiating prowess. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and other nations that the White House declined to name agreed that the U.S. could increase its tariffs on their goods without doing the same to American products. Trump simply set rates on other countries that lacked settlements. The costs of those tariffs — taxes paid on imports to the U.S. — will be most felt by many Americans in the form of higher prices, but to what extent remains uncertain. 'For the White House and their allies, a key part of managing the expectations and politics of the Trump economy is maintaining vigilance when it comes to public perceptions,' said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. Just 38% of adults approve of Trump's handling of the economy, according to a July poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. That's down from the end of Trump's first term when half of adults approved of his economic leadership. The White House paints a rosier image, seeing the economy emerging from a period of uncertainty after Trump's restructuring and repeating the economic gains seen in his first term before the pandemic struck. 'President Trump is implementing the very same policy mix of deregulation, fairer trade, and pro-growth tax cuts at an even bigger scale – as these policies take effect, the best is yet to come,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said. Recent economic reports suggest trouble ahead The economic numbers over the past week show the difficulties that Trump might face if the numbers continue on their current path: — Friday's jobs report showed that U.S. employers have shed 37,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump's tariff launch in April, undermining prior White House claims of a factory revival. — Net hiring has plummeted over the past three months with job gains of just 73,000 in July, 14,000 in June and 19,000 in May — a combined 258,000 jobs lower than previously indicated. On average last year, the economy added 168,000 jobs a month. — A Thursday inflation report showed that prices have risen 2.6% over the year that ended in June, an increase in the personal consumption expenditures price index from 2.2% in April. Prices of heavily imported items, such as appliances, furniture, and toys and games, jumped from May to June. — On Wednesday, a report on gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the U.S. economy — showed that it grew at an annual rate of less than 1.3% during the first half of the year, down sharply from 2.8% growth last year. 'The economy's just kind of slogging forward,' said Guy Berger, senior fellow at the Burning Glass Institute, which studies employment trends. 'Yes, the unemployment rate's not going up, but we're adding very few jobs. The economy's been growing very slowly. It just looks like a 'meh' economy is continuing.' Trump's Fed attacks could unleash more inflation Trump has sought to pin the blame for any economic troubles on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, saying the Fed should cut its benchmark interest rates even though doing so could generate more inflation. Trump has publicly backed two Fed governors, Christoper Waller and Michelle Bowman, for voting for rate cuts at Wednesday's meeting. But their logic is not what the president wants to hear: They were worried, in part, about a slowing job market. But this is a major economic gamble being undertaken by Trump and those pushing for lower rates under the belief that mortgages will also become more affordable as a result and boost homebuying activity. His tariff policy has changed repeatedly over the last six months, with the latest import tax numbers serving as a substitute for what the president announced in April, which provoked a stock market sell-off. It might not be a simple one-time adjustment as some Fed board members and Trump administration officials argue. Trump didn't listen to the warnings on 'universal' tariffs Of course, Trump can't say no one warned him about the possible consequences of his economic policies. Biden, then the outgoing president, did just that in a speech last December at the Brookings Institution, saying the cost of the tariffs would eventually hit American workers and businesses. 'He seems determined to impose steep, universal tariffs on all imported goods brought into this country on the mistaken belief that foreign countries will bear the cost of those tariffs rather than the American consumer,' Biden said. 'I believe this approach is a major mistake.' Josh Boak And Christopher Rugber, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data