The Scared Stiff Economy
"Lol, short answer is no!"
Given how complicated major transactions can be, there are plenty of caveats and counterexamples. On the whole, however, it is a particularly bad time for many major moves financially. Given everything that's going on right now, economists and personal finance gurus say that if you're treading water or feeling extra uneasy, you're not alone.
" Uncertainty" is the word of the moment. America's tariff policies have shifted dozens of times since President Donald Trump took office. The stock market has been all over the place. The volatility emanating from the White House on immigration, government spending, and the federal workforce is palpable. There are rumblings of a recession and a return of high inflation. Consumer sentiment is in the basement.
Across the economy, people feel like they're stuck in place. It's not a great time to change jobs, given the cooling labor market. The housing market isn't terrible — there's a growing amount of inventory out there — but if you're looking to buy now, you're probably lamenting having missed the dirt-cheap mortgage rates of a few years back. People thinking about retiring soon are doing some rethinking, given the current economic and financial market precarity.
"It's not that when there's uncertainty or more uncertainty that people stop and don't act, don't make the big purchase, don't make the investment," says Claudia Sahm, the chief economist at New Century Advisors, an investment management firm. "It's often that the bar is higher."
The issue at the moment is that while it may be appealing to adopt a wait-and-see approach, later is not synonymous with better. That's the calculation many Americans are facing now: Do I hold out on making a move now while things settle down, or do I take the risk that things will take a turn for the worse?
"All we can do now is kind of read tea leaves on the future," says Chris Woods, a financial advisor who founded Silvis Financial.
There's that old Wayne Gretzky quote about skating "to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." The issue is that it's hard to guess where things are headed.
When you're building up to a major financial leap, you typically sit on it until some level of certainty hits. That's especially true in scenarios where there are serious penalties for changing your mind. I mean, sure, you can offload that new car six months later, but you'd probably rather not.
Jonathan Parker, a finance professor at MIT, tells me that a big spike in uncertainty will cause people to delay major spending such as upgrading to a new car, noting that "you might want that money for other purposes."
When people make a big financial decision, such as buying a house, investing, or retiring, they want some level of buffer. They leave space for the possibility that some unexpected need will pop up — a medical emergency, an unexpected broken-down car or leaky roof, a lost job, a death in the family. Ideally, consumers don't want to just barely make their mortgage, wind up suddenly tapping the money they stowed away in their stock portfolio, or skimp on their day-to-day needs in retirement. When they take leaps, they want to leave a little side pot available to avoid an unforeseen circumstance. There's only so much a person can control — doing the best job possible at work doesn't insulate you from layoffs or guarantee your pay will increase with prices. Uncertainty makes that buffer harder to calculate and feel confident about having in the future.
"In a time of great uncertainty, it's probably not the time you want to stretch with a purchase," Sahm says.
This uncertainty may be headache-inducing for individuals trying to make up their minds, but what it might mean for the broader economy is tricky. Consumer spending is America's economic engine — personal expenditures account for about two-thirds of GDP. Ironically, people being worried is, in part, supporting the economy. When consumers are concerned about prices going up, they may pull forward big purchases to get them out of the way now before they get more expensive later. If you're nervous about your washing machine or car going kaput soon or are just looking to upgrade, it may feel prudent to replace them sooner rather than later in case prices go up. This year, consumer spending has jumped because of people trying to get ahead of tariffs. Crummy feelings about the future of the economy have actually been a good thing, spending-wise.
"This is one thing that has helped consumer spending stay up while sentiment has really cratered," says Scott Baker, an associate finance professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.
At the same time, once people have made these anticipatory purchases or start to batten down the hatches, they could bring down the economy with them. If someone decides to put off renovating their kitchen, it means the contractor, the workers, and the store selling the materials miss out on money.
"Just the fact that all of this is happening generates a wave of uncertainty," Parker says. "It's a significant drag on the economy, and it's not clear how big, but it certainly is a drag."
Anyone who says they know what will happen next is lying.
To be sure, there are some areas where sitting on your hands is usually the way to go, such as investing. When the going gets tough in the stock market, one of the worst things people can do is panic and cash out at the bottom. If someone had done that, say, in the wake of Trump's "Liberation Day," they'd probably regret it now.
"Markets fluctuate all the time, they will go up and down," says Siavash Radpour, the associate director of the Retirement Equity Lab at The New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. "Not doing anything is often a good policy for people who don't know what's going on."
My colleagues at Business Insider recently did a series of stories attempting to answer whether it's a good time to make big life decisions. They looked at starting a business (the answer was yes), buying a home (if you must, but maybe rent), changing jobs (no), investing in stocks (go for it, within reason), buying a new car (hop to it), and retiring (hold off). The advice in the stories is all helpful and enlightening, but it can also go only so far. Every decision in life involves risks, and the truest answer to "Should I do X, Y, Z?" is, "It depends!"
There's no denying we're in a time of heightened uncertainty. Anyone who says they know what will happen next is lying. And it really feels like things could break in any direction. While the safest advice is probably that you should snap up that new car before tariffs push up prices by thousands of dollars, Trump could declare the tariff thing over tomorrow, and all of a sudden you've overpaid for no reason.
"The market this year has been driven less by fundamentals and just more by the different news we're getting from week to week on what's going on," Woods says.
Maybe you do hold off on buying a house and come to regret it five years from now when prices are even higher. Or, you don't retire, and you miss out on time with your grandkids, or you're so risk-averse about jumping ship from your company that you miss out on your dream job. Those decisions are harder to make now with more factors in play. It's not just whether a recession is coming, but also what the AI revolution means for the structural future of the labor market. The question for retirees isn't just whether they've saved enough; it's also what might happen with public assistance programs they'd long planned around.
"There is the risk of what's going to happen to Medicaid, what's going to happen to Social Security," Radpour says. "Health expenses are really scary in retirement."
Starting a new business is always risky — statistically speaking, half of new businesses fail in five years. Loans for starting said business are more expensive and harder to come by. While it may be a decent time for a startup, no plan is foolproof. Many people who start a company during downturns and turmoil are doing so because they've lost their job or someone in their household has, not because they're jazzed about the future. "The jump is made for them, in some sense," Baker says. Still, if you see a market opportunity and want to make the jump, the idea that economy could get bad shouldn't preclude taking action.
Thinking through all of the ambiguity and confusion isn't fun. Financial risks are always scary, whether big or small. Now it feels like the anxiety is extra heightened, given the context. For many people, it's going to feel like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NATO has promised a spending blitz. Can its European members afford it?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the defense alliance of 32 countries, is on a spending spree, with plans to funnel billions into their militaries and security systems over the coming decade. But it's a splurge that some European members of NATO, grappling with huge and ballooning debt burdens, can ill-afford. 'It's something unprecedented in peacetime to have such a massive increase in spending on any item – in particular, on defense,' Marcel Fratzscher, president of the German Institute for Economic Research or DIW, told CNN. Last month, NATO members agreed to boost their respective defense spending targets to 5% of gross domestic product by 2035 – more than double the current 2% target and the sort of major increase that US President Donald Trump has been demanding for many years. The pledge came as Europe's NATO members have to contend with an aggressive Russia and an America that has backed away from its long-standing role as the guarantor of the region's security. Governments have three options to meet the new spending target – cut other expenses, raise taxes or borrow more – but analysts told CNN that each is either politically unpalatable or unviable in the long term for heavily indebted European NATO countries. 'Many (European Union) countries face hard fiscal constraints,' analysts at Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank, wrote earlier this month. 'It is unrealistic to expect countries that have struggled for decades to reach a 2% defense spending target to embrace credibly an ill-justified, much higher target.' Hard choices Many NATO countries have failed to meet the previous, 2% target, set in 2014. Most have increased spending in recent years in response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 – so much so that the European Union's executive arm expects its 23 member states belonging to NATO to meet that target this year, based on their combined GDP. But they now need to go further. The new, 5% target includes a commitment by NATO member states to spend the equivalent of 3.5% of their annual GDP on so-called 'core' defense requirements, such as weapons, with the remaining 1.5% allocated to areas supporting defense like port infrastructure. For some nations, that will mean finding tens of billions of extra dollars a year. Frank Gill, a senior sovereign credit ratings analyst for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at S&P Global Ratings, thinks that meeting the 3.5% target alone will require European countries, including the United Kingdom, to borrow huge sums of money. Some nations may also cut or reallocate government spending to reduce the amount they need to borrow, he said, but that could prove difficult. 'A lot of (European governments) are facing other fiscal pressures… not least aging populations, which are essentially leading to even higher pension spending,' Gill told CNN. 'Politically, (that) is very challenging to cut.' Fratzscher at DIW in Germany agrees. For most NATO countries, he argued, cutting spending is 'utterly impossible.' 'Europe is aging quickly,' he said. 'It's completely illusionary to believe that… governments in Europe could save on public pensions, on healthcare, on care more generally.' The only sustainable way to finance the 'kind of magnitude of extra (defense) spending' now pledged by NATO is to hike taxes, he argued. Yet there exists neither the political will nor the public support to spend 'in such a dramatic way in this direction… and actually accept the consequences.' Crushing debt Simply borrowing more is a similarly tricky option in Europe where a number of governments are already saddled with debts close to, or larger than, the size of their country's entire economy. All else remaining equal, meeting just the 3.5% 'core' defense spending target could add roughly $2 trillion to the collective government debt of NATO's European members, including the UK, by 2035, according to a recent analysis by S&P Global Ratings. That compares with combined GDP of $23.1 trillion for the EU – a proxy for European NATO members – and Britain, based on World Bank data for 2024. The extra debt would be particularly hard to swallow for countries such as Italy, France and Belgium. These NATO members had some of the highest public debt-to-GDP ratios at the end of 2024, at 135%, 113% and 105% respectively, according to the EU's statistics office. Those are already heavy burdens. On Tuesday, French Prime Minister François Bayrou said the EU's second-largest economy risks a 'crushing by debt.' He warned that, should nothing change, just the interest France pays on its debt will swell to €100 billion ($117 billion) in 2029, becoming the government's largest single expense. He still supports splashing the cash on defense, while reining in other government spending. The EU is trying to make it easier for member states to invest in their security. Brussels has exempted defense expenditure from its strict rules on government spending and pledged to create a €150 billion fund from which countries can borrow, at favorable interest rates, to invest in their defense. However, there is another option for EU NATO members, according to Guntram Wolff, a senior fellow at Bruegel. 'Just not doing it. Not spending more,' he told CNN. Already, Spain has said it will not meet the 5% target, arguing that doing so would compromise its spending on welfare. Last year, the southern European nation spent only 1.28% of its GDP on defense, based on NATO estimates. Wolff said the 'best predictor for the increase in defense spending is (a country's) distance to Moscow – much more than any pledges at the NATO summit.'
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
America's terrible tariffs could actually be a huge win for Canada's economy
The whole thing about Canadians is that they're remarkably nice. Except lately, they haven't been feeling so warm and fuzzy, namely toward their neighbors to the south. Given everything that's going on — President Donald Trump's on-and-off trade war, his remarks about making the country the 51st state — Canada has a right to be annoyed with the United States. If your longtime bestie suddenly turned on you for no apparent reason, you'd be miffed, too. The US's sudden shift to frenemy status is going to cause some pain for Canada in the near term, especially as it stands to be a big economic loser from Trump's tariff tantrum. But ultimately, the turmoil may be a blessing in disguise for the Canucks. It's an opportunity for the country to step out of the star-spangled shadow and do its own thing. "It's really kind of a decoupling moment that is scary to watch in the short term. In the medium to long term, I have to say, it's an important wake-up call for Canada," says Matthew Holmes, the chief of public policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. "If I look back on this in 20 years, I hope to be able to say that this woke Canada up to the need to be a little more strategic and have a little bit more of its own agency in the economy and in the kind of economy we want." If the US doesn't want to be as good of friends anymore, fine, Canada can make new, better friends, anyway. The US and Canadian economies are deeply intertwined. A shared language, geographic proximity, and interconnected supply chains have made the countries convenient strategic partners for decades. Three-quarters of Canada's exports go to the United States, and nearly half of its imported goods come from the US. In 2024, Canada was the third-largest source of imports to the US, behind China and Mexico. Canada was also the top destination for exports from the US. Several of the two countries' biggest industries, including automotives and energy, are highly interwoven with one another. Trump's belligerent stance toward Canada has thrown the country for a loop. While Canada isn't subject to the 10% blanket tariffs he's placed on imports from other countries, he's targeted specific areas with import taxes, including 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum, 25% tariffs on cars, 10% tariffs on potash and energy, and 25% tariffs on imports not compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal (formerly known as NAFTA). He's also planning to place a 50% tariff on copper come August. Most recently, the president threatened to put a 35% tariff on imports from Canada, blaming its retaliatory tariffs for the move, though it wasn't immediately clear what goods this would apply to. (The president says this is about fentanyl, though very little fentanyl comes to the US over the Canadian border.) A Trump administration official said in an email that they expected goods currently tariffed at 25% to go up to 35%, though no final decisions have been made by the president. Given Trump's persistent flip-flopping on tariffs, it's not clear whether they will actually take hold. This constant state of flux is making investors, at the very least, a bit more casual about the whole thing. The foreign exchange market, which tracks currency fluctuations, would indicate investors aren't too worried about it — the Canadian dollar isn't swinging based on Trump's pronouncements and has strengthened in recent months. "The market, so to speak, is seeing through a lot of this rabble-rousing," says Peter Morrow, an economist at the University of Toronto. The TACO trade — which is short for Trump Always Chickens Out and proxy for the idea that the president backs down from his most aggressive threats — is alive in the Great White North, too. Regardless, the American president's trade antics are taking a toll on Canada. It's the country most hurt by the US trade war so far — the US is second. An analysis from the Yale Budget Lab found Trump's tariffs and Canadian countermeasures could cause Canada's economy to shrink by 2.1% in the long term. The trade dispute increases the chances of a recession in Canada, and it threatens to increase inflation. It also injects an incredible amount of uncertainty into the economy. It's next to impossible for Canadian businesses to plan for the future when they have no idea what the guy in the White House is going to do, day-to-day. "It's not only the tariff wall; it's kind of a wall of uncertainty that's going up between the two countries," says Julian Karaguesian, a course lecturer in McGill University's economics department. "The immediate effect it's having in the short term is a cooling effect on business investment, which is the dynamic part of the economy." Canada isn't taking the economic punch in the face lying down. Canada's new prime minister, Mark Carney, and the Canadian public have taken a hockey-esque "elbows up" approach to the US. A "Buy Canadian" movement has swept the nation. Canadians are swapping out American-made products and groceries for national ones, guided by forums and apps that help distinguish locally made goods from their Yankee counterparts. Liquor stores have pulled American whiskeys off the shelves. Instead of going to McDonald's, Canadians are hitting up A&W. They're opening up the CBC Gem streaming app to see what's on there instead of Netflix. "Brand damage can last a long time. People won't remember in 10 years why they don't like Nike anymore, but they will still think slightly ill of it," a guy who runs a website called Shop Canadian Stuff tells me. He spoke with me on the condition of anonymity, because his job doesn't know about his nationalist side hustle. Evan Worman, one of the moderators of a Buy Canadian subreddit, tells me that Canadians redirecting their purchasing power is a loss for the US because it's opening people's eyes to the quality of non-American stuff. "People are going to find a lot of the products that are getting imported from Europe have better safety standards, have higher quality control than the US, and it doesn't come with all the hang-ups and baggage of buying from somebody who wants to invade you," he says. Worman is originally from Alaska and has lived in Canada for a decade. When people don't realize he's not Canadian, he doesn't correct them. "People are genuinely very angry at us right now," he says. The attacks are also fostering a willingness to reshape the domestic Canadian economy: Local governments are getting rid of internal trade barriers that have prevented goods from flowing between provinces. "We've had, for decades, stupid, unnecessary rules between Canadian provinces," says Dan Kelly, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. "There has been a resurgence of that among our members that are now saying, 'Well, wait a minute, if the US market is uncertain, then I'll send my goods to Ontario rather than to New York.'" The federal government says knocking down interprovincial trade restrictions could boost Canada's economy by $200 billion annually. Karaguesian believes that may be an overstatement, but that and the domestic focus are emblematic of a bigger shift. "The people that are running the United States are saying we don't really have any allies right now — we have adversaries, and we have countries we can tell what to do," making the emphasis on a more unified Canadian economy all the more important, he says. Also on the shorter-term front, many Canadian businesses that hadn't yet bothered to get compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement because previous tariff levels were so negligible are getting their ducks in a row. Holmes, from the Chamber of Commerce, says that pre-Trump, only about half of the products crossing the border were USMCA compliant, because companies hadn't bothered to do the paperwork, but over the past four months, that's gotten to about two-thirds. He estimates that 90% of Canadian products should be compliant overall but notes that "it's just the work of getting it done." Canadian companies aren't rushing to move their operations to the US — which seems to be, in large part, Trump's goal in all of this — but they are adapting. "They're diversifying their sales, and they're diversifying their suppliers," says Patrick Gill, the vice president of the Business Data Lab at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. "And so they're looking to other international markets where Canada has established free trade agreements." The United States' attitudes have sent Canada seeking improved trade agreements and relations elsewhere, including Europe, Asia, and the Global South. In an attempt to wean itself off the US, Canada is looking to expand where it sources from and where it sells. But just how far to go is a difficult calculation. "Some people say that Canada should take the easy win, stay linked to the US, and just ride it out. And there's other people who say that the United States is not a reliable trading partner anymore, and that Canada should strengthen its relationships with other countries. But developing those other relationships is not easy," says Morrow, from the University of Toronto. Canada may be at its breaking point. Canadian political leaders and nationals feel like the US will never be satisfied, no matter how much ground they give. They find the 51st state jokes really offensive. And as much as the US-Canada relationship is extra strained right now, Canadians have long been skeptical of their larger neighbors. The US-Canada free trade agreement that predated NAFTA in the late 1980s was unpopular in Canada. Post-9/11, Canada resisted pressure from the US to join the Iraq invasion and chafed at President George W. Bush's "you're with us or against us" mentality. Some Canadian policymakers felt slighted by the Obama administration's attempts at pushing "Buy American" provisions and by the US-focused investments in the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act. The US and Canada have long grumbled over dairy and lumber. "Canada has a strong skepticism of the US even during the best of times," Morrow says, citing a quote from former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (Justin's father), who said living next to the US was like "sleeping with an elephant — no matter how friendly or even-tempered is the beast, if one can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." "The United States, for its entire history, has been a protectionist country except the time from the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 to the 9/11 attacks," Karaguesian says. "The United States was the biggest defender of free trade at the turn of the century because they were winning at that game." Trump says the US has "all the cards" in trade relations with Canada. The US certainly has more cards, but Canada isn't playing with an empty hand. The country has felt emboldened to strengthen trade relations with other partners, to revive its own manufacturing base, and to separate itself economically, culturally, and otherwise from the US. Kelly, from CFIB, compares Canada's retaliatory tariffs to economic chemotherapy — "you take the poison in order to try to fight the larger battle" — and adds that it says something that the country is so willing to dig in. "There is fairly significant resolve among Canadian businesses to press back," he says. To be sure, Trump's trade war is doing real damage to Canada — and, it should be said, to the US. Continuing the tit-for-tat won't mean mutually assured destruction for the neighboring countries, but it is one that will harm both, even if to different degrees. Canada's 40 million population can't replace the US's 340 million in terms of a consumer market. It will continue to depend on the US and, increasingly, others for commerce and trade. And the idea of a complete decoupling is quite unfathomable, unless Americans want to spend a ton more on energy and the entire North American auto sector is overhauled. At the moment, Canadians are fired up and holding their own. They don't appear to be poised to back down anytime soon — or to forget what's happening now. "Our elites need to wake up to the full nightmare of what Donald Trump's administration means in terms of trade," Karaguesian says. Much of the Canadian population already has — and years down the line, it could very well be to their country's benefit. Emily Stewart is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, writing about business and the economy. Read the original article on Business Insider 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
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With gavel in hand, Trump chisels away at the power of a compliant Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — 'Mr. President, this is the gavel used to enact the 'big, beautiful bill,'' House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a White House signing ceremony on the Fourth of July. 'I want you to have it,' he said. Handing over the gavel delighted President Donald Trump who, seated behind a desk outdoors, immediately tested it out with a few quick thumps. The moment left a memorable mark on a historic day. The gesture reflected a traditional nod of honor, from one leader to another, a milestone of the Republican Party's priority legislation becoming law. But the imagery also underscored a symbolic transfer of political power, from Capitol Hill to the White House as a compliant Congress is ceding more and more of its prerogative to the presidency. Congress gives Donald Trump what he wants Since Trump's return to the White House in January, and particularly in the past few weeks, Republicans in control of the House and Senate have shown an unusual willingness to give the president of their party what he wants, regardless of the potential risk to themselves, their constituents and Congress itself. Republicans raced to put the big package of tax breaks and spending cuts on Trump's desk by his Independence Day deadline. Senators had quickly confirmed almost all of Trump's outsider Cabinet nominees despite grave reservations over Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary, Pete Hegseth as the Pentagon chief and others. House Republicans pursued Trump's interest in investigating his perceived foes, including investigating Democratic President Joe Biden'suse of the autopen. But at the same time, Congress hit the brakes on one of its own priorities, legislation imposing steep sanctions on Russia over its war on Ukraine, after Trump announced he was allowing President Vladimir Putin an additional 50 days to negotiate a peace deal, dashing hopes for a swifter end to the conflict. This past week, Congress was tested anew, delivering on Trump's request to rescind some $9 billion that lawmakers had approved but that the administration wanted to eliminate, including money for public broadcasting and overseas aid. It was a rare presidential request, a challenge to the legislative branch's power of the purse, that has not been used in decades. The pressure on Republicans is taking its toll 'We're lawmakers. We should be legislating,' said a defiant Sen. Lisa Murkowksi, R-Alaska, as she refused to support the White House's demand to rescind money for National Public Radio and others. 'What we're getting now is a direction from the White House and being told, 'This is the priority. We want you to execute on it. We'll be back with you with another round,'' she said. 'I don't accept that.' Congress, the branch of government the Founding Fathers placed first in the Constitution, is at a familiar crossroads. During the first Trump administration, Republicans frightened by Trump's angry tweets of disapproval would keep their criticisms private. Those who did speak up — Liz Cheney of Wyoming in the House and Mitt Romney of Utah in the Senate, among others — are gone from Capitol Hill. One former GOP senator, Jeff Flake of Arizona, who announced in 2017 during Trump's first term that he would not seek reelection the next year, is imploring Republicans to find a better way. "The fever still hasn't broken," he wrote recently in The New York Times. 'In today's Republican Party, voting your conscience is essentially disqualifying.' Seeking a 'normal' Congress But this time, the halls of Congress are filled with many Republicans who came of political age with Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement and owe their ascent to the president himself. Many are emulating his brand and style as they shape their own. A new generation of GOP leaders, Johnson in the House and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, have pulled closer to Trump. They are utilizing the power of the presidency in ways large and small — to broker deals, encourage wayward lawmakers to fall in line, even to set schedules. Johnson, R-La., has openly pined for what he calls a 'normal Congress.' But short of that, the speaker relies on Trump to help stay on track. When Republicans hit an impasse on cryptocurrency legislation, a Trump priority, it was the president who met with holdouts in the Oval Office late Tuesday night as Johnson called in by phone. The result is a perceptible imbalance of power as the executive exerts greater authority while the legislative branch dims. The judicial branch has been left to do the heavy lift of checks and balances with the courts processing hundreds of lawsuits over the administration's actions. 'The genius of our Constitution is the separation of power,' said Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the former speaker, in an interview on SiriusXM's 'Mornings with Zerlina.' 'That the Republicans in Congress would be so ignoring of the institution that they represent, and that have just melted the power of the incredibly shrinking speakership' and Senate leadership positions, 'to do all of these things, to cater to the executive branch,' she said. Confronting Trump comes with costs Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., endured Trump's criticism over his opposition to the tax and spending cuts bill. The senator raised concerns about steep cuts to hospitals, but the president threatened to campaign against him. Tillis announced he would not seek reelection in 2026. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted against that bill and the rescissions package despite Trump's threat to campaign against any dissenters. One Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, appears to be pressing on, unphased. He recently proposed legislation to force the administration to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, something the president had been reluctant to do. 'Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that if the president wants something, you must do it,' said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, in a Senate speech. 'We don't have to do this. We don't have to operate under the assumption that this man is uniquely so powerful.'
