Latest news with #ChicagoCouncilonGlobalAffairs
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The 10 biggest ways Trump has changed our politics, 10 years later
It's now been 10 years since Donald Trump rode down that golden escalator and launched his 2016 presidential campaign. And plenty of people – raising my hand here – initially dismissed him as a passing novelty. Little did we know at the time that this man would not only become president (twice), but would completely flip the political script in our country. Regardless of what happens from here, Trump has changed the course of our politics, in multiple ways. So what are the biggest ones? Here are 10 that rise to the top. The Republican Party bears little resemblance to the GOP of even a decade ago, when Trump first started running. The biggest policy shifts, to my mind: It has gone from a more hawkish party to a more non-interventionist one – especially when it comes to combatting Russia in Ukraine. The percentage of Republicans who said it would be best if we 'stay out of world affairs' rose from about 30% in 2015 to 53% in 2023, according to a Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll. It has deemphasized high-minded ideals like democracy and morality, in favor of a more Machiavellian brand of politics. It has embraced the baseless challenging of election results. And it's declined to hold moral failings against its candidates and top officials (like Trump) and human rights failings against foreign countries (like Russia and Saudi Arabia). While it once defined itself as the party of free trade and 'no new taxes,' it's now pursuing a massive, protectionist trade war – one that involves, for all intents and purposes, large tax increases on goods decided upon by Trump alone. It's all decidedly un-Reagan. At this point, Trump's falsehoods often aren't even treated as news. And that's because, strictly speaking, they're not new. He spouted more than 30,000 false and misleading claims in his first term, according to The Washington Post. That averages out to nearly one every hour for four years. And it hasn't stopped. Many people blanched when Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway referred to his team's 'alternative facts' three days after he first took office, but that has become a way of life for the president and his allies. More significant than Trump's willingness to spout false claims, though, is that much of the country has decided this is not a deal-breaker. Whether because they believe what Trump is saying or they have decided it's not important (or that it's even strategic), nearly half the country has decided it's just not a big deal for the president to be grounded in the truth. Trump effectively launched his national political ambitions with a conspiracy theory about how then-President Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States. And there's been plenty more where that came from. Back in 2019, I counted 23 conspiracy theories Trump had promoted. And that was long before his biggest one: the false stolen election claims that spurred the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. But more than Trump's willingness to traffic in these things is his party's willingness to believe them. It's become a situation in which Trump claims something, and it often gradually becomes an article of faith for many in the GOP: the 'stolen' 2020 election, the 'great replacement theory,' various claims about the 'deep state' targeting Trump, and last year the idea that Haitian migrants were eating pets in Ohio. Conspiracy theories aren't new to politics, and Republicans aren't the only ones who believe in them; some of this is about the decline of traditional media and rise of social media, on which unverified claims flourish. But Trump, more than anyone else, has effectively weaponized these theories to build his base. Whether through happenstance, the Democrats' own failings or Trump's ability to block out the sun, the Trump era has left a remarkable vacuum in Democratic leadership. The party in two successive presidential campaigns has nominated politicians who weren't exactly towering figures. (Joe Biden won in 2020, but largely because of Trump's own problems.) Its aged leadership in Congress has struggled to adjust to the new paradigm of the Trump era. Democrats have bled support among key demographics like Latinos and Black men (at least for now). And the party's image numbers are as bad as they've been in decades, if not worse. None of it means Democrats won't rebound in 2026. Merely being the opposition party generally means you gain ground in midterm elections. But rarely have we seen a party so devoid of a true identity and plan for the path forward. Trump has demonstrated a talent for confounding his opponents, and the Democratic Party as an institution has clearly been confounded. You've probably read a lot over the last 15 or so years about how Congress is stuck in a state of 'gridlock.' The Trump era is not just about gridlock but the effective sidelining of Congress altogether. Increasingly, Congress doesn't even try – both because it doesn't want to, and because Trump doesn't want it to. Earlier in the 21st century, this took the form of Congress effectively handing the president war powers the Constitution gave it, because members didn't want to take hard votes on using force. Today, the Republican-controlled Congress has stood by as Trump has taken over its tariff powers and its power of the purse. The administration has pushed to cancel congressionally appropriated spending, and Congress is doing almost nothing to reclaim these powers. The attitude increasingly seems to be: It's just easier to let the president do it, if possible. Republican lawmakers might disagree with Trump on issues like tariffs or the war in Ukraine, but they often decline to assert power even where it's prescribed to them in the Constitution, because they fear his attacks or the prospect of a primary challenge. The result: Trump signed a historically low five bills in his first 100 days. Meanwhile, he set a record for executive actions – exceeding even the first 100-day clip of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was combatting the Great Depression. One of the biggest questions right now is how much more authoritarian the American government might become under Trump. He's flirted with this for years, and whether you think the a-word is appropriate, many of his early moves are geared toward consolidating power. And as all of that's happened, Trump's base has warmed to the idea and created a more ripe environment. Polls for years have shown Republicans souring on checks and balances and moving in favor of a version of governmental power that's centralized in the presidency – or more aptly, Trump. A survey earlier this year showed 76% of Republicans said Trump should keep deporting people even if the courts tell him to stop. Another last year showed just 26% of Republicans said it would be good for a president to rule 'without having to worry about Congress or the courts,' but that number rose to 57% when the president in question was Trump. Congressional Republicans, too, have greased the skids. Many of them have basically said whatever Trump wants is what they should do, and they've roundly criticized the judiciary when it stands in his way – even as Trump's moves transparently test the bounds of the law. Trump has turned his party into one that's defined by loyalty to him, in large part by turning it against other major institutions. He's basically made himself into the one true answer, because, in his telling, nobody else can be trusted. Republicans were always suspicious of big government and especially the media, but that's been put on steroids. Gallup polling in recent years has shown fewer than 1 in 5 Republicans express confidence in Congress, the media, public schools, the criminal justice system and big business. And their level of trust in most institutions is significantly lower than Democrats'. Trump – the first convicted felon ever to become president – has also significantly devalued and politicized the justice system. He's done so by regularly attacking the courts, but also by rewarding allies (see: the January 6 pardons and his many pardons of allies) and wielding investigative powers to target his opponents. And of late, Trump has turned his focus to wielding the powers of government against major institutions he dislikes, like law firms, universities and the media – in ways that are often transparently political. There have been myriad examples of political violence in recent years – most notably an assassination attempt a year ago that nearly killed Trump and the shootings of two Minnesota state lawmakers over the weekend. And repeatedly in recent years, Trump himself has toyed with the prospect of political violence. Regardless of how much Trump is at fault for anything, it's clear his rise has created a tinderbox in our politics. A number of Republicans who have run afoul of Trump have said part of the reason their colleagues have stayed in line was because of not just the fear of political blowback, but fear for their own safety. I ran through several examples here after January 6. And there have been more since. And then there is the increasing tolerance for it. Polling after January 6, but before the Trump assassination attempts, suggested that Americans were increasingly likely to say political violence can sometimes be justified. Republicans were more likely to say this. While the shift of Latinos and Black men toward Trump was the big demographic story of the 2024 election, perhaps the most significant and durable demographic shift of the Trump era is education. Put plainly: Democrats have become the party of the educated, while Republicans have become the party of the working class. When Trump launched his 2016 campaign, Gallup polling showed every education level except those with postgraduate degrees were pretty evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Those without college degrees now lean clearly Republican, while those with college degrees lean Democrats. The gap between non-college and college-educated voters has gone from virtually nil to around 20 points. It's even bigger when you look at postgrads. When Trump came on to the scene in 2015, the Republican Party was in an unusual spot. While it had for years decried illegal immigration, it had decided after a disappointing 2012 election – particularly with Latino voters – that a change in tone was necessary. You might remember the 'autopsy.' Trump almost immediately lit that portion of the autopsy on fire, making a series of broad and hyperbolic claims about how migrants were 'rapists' and criminals. And more than any issue, harsh immigration enforcement is now front and center to our politics. Of late, this has meant some of the lowest border-crossing numbers of the 21st century – a major political win for Trump and a development that has lent credence to Trump's argument that all we really needed was a president with willpower. But the immigration debate is also bigger than that right now. It forms the basis of the power struggles in Washington, with Trump using what he thinks is Americans' thirst for deportations to test the limits of his power, both with the courts and the American public. Thus far, the courts have repeatedly blocked him, and Americans don't seem to like all of what he's doing. Whether he is allowed to push forward will go a long way toward determining how powerful he ultimately becomes.
Politico
16-06-2025
- Business
- Politico
Trump gets an unexpected ally in East Asia
ALL THE WORLD'S A STAGE — South Korean President Lee Jae-myung arrived in Canada today for his G7 debut, less than two weeks after winning a snap election held after his predecessor, Yoon Suk Yeol, was removed for unlawfully declaring martial law. By stepping on the global stage so early in his presidency, Lee is sending a message: The domestic instability within his country is over, and South Korea is ready to be a reliable partner again to global leaders. Lee, however, is stepping into the spotlight during a particularly tumultuous time. President Donald Trump's tariffs have shaken the global economy. New security alliances are emerging among countries like China, North Korea and Russia. Meanwhile, Trump's tariffs are causing fissures in existing alliances with U.S. allies, including South Korea. At first glance, a progressive like Lee might seem like an awkward fit with American security interests, especially compared to Yoon, a conservative who staunchly allied himself with the U.S and its foreign policy priorities. Historically, Korean progressives have tried a different tack, looking to soften relationships with China and North Korea, while antagonizing Japan for failing to properly acknowledge its history of colonization within the peninsula. But Lee has gone out on a limb to clarify that he's not an ideological purist and will pursue 'pragmatic' foreign policies, even saying that he's willing to 'crawl between [Trump's] legs if necessary, and if that's what I have to do for my people.' That means Lee will likely avoid any moves that disrupt the U.S.-Korea alliance, including getting too cozy with China or disrupting ties with Japan. Already, Lee has expressed his openness to holding a trilateral meeting with Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and Trump at the G7 summit. It's an approach that will be welcomed in Washington since the U.S. needs its two strongest allies in East Asia — South Korea and Japan — to work together to combat China's growing influence in the region and North Korea's developing arsenal. Where Lee and Trump align is their approach to the U.S.-South Korea military alliance: Since his first presidency, Trump has pushed South Korea to take on more responsibility for its own defense, and South Korean progressives have historically been more open to increasing budget spending, said Karl Friedhoff, an expert in East Asian security at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Friedhoff pointed to former progressive President Moon Jae-in — who famously had a friendly relationship with Trump and helped him set up the U.S.-North Korea summit in 2018 — and his push for the largest defense spending increases in the country's history. Lee has also emphasized a need to strengthen the military during his campaign, which could help South Korea take on a larger role in joint defense efforts — news that would delight Trump. Lee's commitment to improving ties with North Korea, which had completely deteriorated under Yoon, may also help the U.S.-South Korea alliance in the long run, Friedhoff said. 'If North Korea is your main enemy, that means you're going to spend more on land forces and the army. But if it's no longer the main enemy, that means you can begin to look elsewhere for your defense priorities,' Friedhoff said. 'Ultimately, that's really good for the alliance, because we want South Korea to do more, and the chips that they have are going to be helpful for the alliance long term.' Improved relationships between South and North Korea would also be uniquely beneficial for Trump, who has previously expressed interest in building closer ties with Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong Eun. It remains to be seen if Kim is interested in reengaging with Trump following a failed summit in 2018, which was seen as an embarrassment for Kim at the time. If Trump wants a second chance at a summit, it's far more likely to happen under Lee, who believes dialogue is the best way to diffuse nuclear tensions, than Yoon, who designated North Korea as the 'main enemy.' And while there have been headlines about Lee warming up to China — Lee and President Xi Jinping pledged to have a closer economic and security partnership — any concerns of South Korea prioritizing China over the U.S. are likely overblown: 'The United States is like an insecure romantic partner,' Friedhoff said. 'Any hint that South Korea might have an improved relationship with China, or North Korea, for that matter, has everyone saying, 'Oh, South Korea is going to move to China's side.'' 'Something that every progressive president has emphasized is that the alliance is not going anywhere. There's no intention to move away from it,' Friedhoff said, pointing out that South Korea is simply repositioning itself with China as it considers ways to bolster its economy. 'The expectation that South Korea is going to move away from China and take a harder line — as the Trump administration will want, even as the economy is so dependent on China — is just not realistic,' he said. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at ckim@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @ck_525. What'd I Miss? — U.S. builds up military presence in Middle East: The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier rerouted from the South China Sea to the Middle East today, a move that will put two U.S. aircraft carriers in the region as the conflict worsens between Israel and Iran. Dozens of Air Force refueling aircraft also left their U.S. bases this weekend in a new deployment to Europe, a preventative measure to support any operations in the Middle East, according to two defense officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal operations. — Department of Energy looks to gut sex discrimination protections for education programs, athletics: The Trump administration is seeking to rescind key civil rights protections for sex discrimination in sports and education programs through a swift regulatory process at an unlikely agency: the Department of Energy. Buried in a list of more than three dozen regulation changes published in May, the DOE is moving to rescind regulations that oversee sports participation and sex discrimination protections for students in education programs. The direct final rules align with a series of executive orders signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year that seek to ban transgender athletes from women's sports and one that proclaimed there are only two sexes — male and female. — American Bar Association sues Trump administration over executive orders targeting law firms: The American Bar Association is suing the White House to stop President Donald Trump's use of executive orders to punish and pressure law firms. The ABA — a voluntary professional organization for lawyers — alleged in its complaint filed in federal court in Washington today that the executive orders pursued by the Trump administration, as well as the deals it has reached with some of America's top law firms seeking a reprieve from federal sanctions, have cast a 'blizzard-like chill' across the legal industry. — Trump fires former Biden chair from Nuclear Regulatory Commission: President Donald Trump has terminated Commissioner Christopher Hanson from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the latest move by the White House to assert control over independent agencies. Hanson said in a statement today that he was removed from the position Friday 'without cause' and 'contrary to existing law and longstanding precedent regarding removal of independent agency appointees.' — Trump administration slapped with 'impoundment' violation for freezing library, museum funding: For the second time this year, the federal government's top watchdog concluded today that the Trump administration violated the law by withholding funding that Congress already approved. This time, the Government Accountability Office found the Trump administration flouted the law by clawing back federal cash Congress enacted to support libraries, archives and museums throughout the country. By freezing money that's supposed to flow through the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Trump administration violated the 51-year-old law barring presidents from withholding federal dollars without approval from Congress, the watchdog concluded. — Trump: 'There would be no war' if Russia were in G8: 'The G7 used to be the G8,' Donald Trump mused after a bilateral meeting with host Prime Minister Mark Carney at the G7 summit in the Canadian Rockies. Standing next to a mute Carney today, the U.S. president blamed his predecessor, Barack Obama, and previous Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for dropping Russia from the alliance over its 2014 invasion of the Crimean peninsula. 'Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in. And I would say that was a mistake because you wouldn't have a war right now,' he said of Moscow's ongoing invasion of Ukraine. AROUND THE WORLD READYING FOR WAR — All of NATO's eastern flank countries are revisiting crisis response protocols for health-care facilities, organizing training exercises, investing in ballistic helmets and vests, and shifting operating theaters underground. The conflict in Ukraine has shattered the illusion that Europe is safe from war. 'It's not a question of if [Russia] will attack,' said Ragnar Vaiknemets, deputy director general of the Estonian Health Board, which oversees preparedness for crises from pandemics to war. 'It's a question about when.' Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shown that modern conflicts no longer spare health services — or the civilians they serve. Eastern European countries are taking note. Located just 50 kilometers from the EU's external border with Belarus, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Clinics is developing underground infrastructure, shelters, helicopter landing sites and autonomous systems that would allow it to function even if electricity or water supplies were cut off. Santaros is not unusual. In Estonia, in addition to body armor for ambulance crews, satellite phones would be distributed to maintain communications if traditional networks fail. Plans are even in place to generate an independent internet network if necessary. Read POLITICO EU's feature on hospitals' war readiness here. KNOCK IT OFF — Convincing President Donald Trump to stop his global trade war is among the EU's top priorities for the G7 summit in Canada, the bloc's leaders said. European Commission boss Ursula von der Leyen and President of the European Council António Costa on Sunday both urged Trump to stop hurting the global economy with tariffs. 'Let's keep trade between us fair, predictable and open. All of us need to avoid protectionist measures — this is an important message that the G7 can send to the markets and to the world,' von der Leyen told reporters, speaking alongside Costa at the first press conference of the G7 leaders' meeting in Canada. Costa said the EU can't increase defense spending, as Trump wants it to, if it has to fight a trade war at the same time. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP BITE SIZED TELEVISION — The sitcom, running at around 22 minutes per episode, used to define 'short-form' television. Now, it's a whole lot shorter than that. Wildly popular already in much of Asia, in particular in China, 'microdramas' are composed of 60 to 90 second 'chapters' that consumers can watch vertically on their phones on platforms like TikTok or other streaming video apps. They have a coherent story, but they are very easy to dip in and out of. And now, they're finding some interest in the U.S. as well. These shows hire non-union actors and crew and produce their content for cheap — and rack up views and cash doing so. Elaine Low and Natalie Jarvey explain the phenomenon for their Substack Like & Subscribe. Parting Image Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
Politico
15-06-2025
- Business
- Politico
Trump wants to score trade deals in Canada. He's unlikely to get them.
President Donald Trump will arrive in the Canadian Rockies on Sunday for a meeting of the world's economic powerhouses facing a potentially calamitous tariff deadline and a burgeoning crisis in the Middle East. But he's unlikely to leave the three-day summit with a breakthrough on either front. Trump is eager to use the G7 meetings to show progress toward an array of trade deals with the U.S.'s most critical allies. The gathering also takes on heightened importance in the wake of an Israeli attack on Iran that sent oil prices skyrocketing and injected fresh uncertainty into the global economy. But Trump officials are struggling to lock down trade pacts that they predicted were imminent in the wake of a first deal with the U.K. nearly a month ago. Even early chatter of a deal with Japan by this week's conference appears unlikely, said two people close to the White House, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. And now, with the U.S. occupied by turmoil in the Middle East, Trump aides and advisers are tempering expectations for what the G7 may ultimately produce. 'Everybody just wants to survive,' said Ivo Daalder, president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and a former U.S. ambassador to NATO. 'There's not a lot of interest in making deals.' In a call with reporters on Friday, a senior U.S. official granted anonymity to preview the summit offered little in the way of specific goals, saying only that Trump sought to 'make progress' in a range of areas including 'making America's trade relationships fair and reciprocal.' The lowered stakes reflect the plodding pace of negotiations with economic partners since April, when Trump blew up their trade ties in pursuit of new deals that he's insisted must be more favorable to the United States. Leaders across Europe are projecting resolve despite the prospect of punishing tariffs come early July. The reduced expectations also underscore how quickly Trump's return to office has fractured the close Western alliance that the U.S. long claimed to lead. Whereas the G7 once prided itself on speaking with one authoritative voice on critical economic and national security matters, most leaders are now just hoping to escape the summit site in Kananaskis, Alberta, without opening a new front in their fight with Trump, diplomatic experts and others involved in the summit preparations said. The G7 countries have already abandoned hopes of signing a traditional joint statement, upending decades of precedent over worries that Trump and his counterparts are too far apart on a number of key issues. The nations instead plan to issue a handful of 'leaders' statements' on more specific issues where all or most of them can reach agreement. The move averts the risk of a repeat of the last Canada-hosted summit, when Trump in 2018 abruptly rejected the statement via an incensed tweet from Air Force One. Back then, negotiators had spent hours haggling over a single word in a line related to trade amid Trump's vows to impose steeper tariffs on allies, said one of the people close to the White House. But shortly after reaching agreement, then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau criticized the U.S. tariffs, enraging Trump and prompting him to pull his support. New Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has sought to sidestep conflict with the rest of his agenda as well, with multilateral meetings on topics like energy security and drug trafficking aimed at emphasizing areas of common ground. As for the White House, it's shied away from making grand promises. A potential trade deal with Japan is unlikely to be finalized. And while officials cautioned that Trump could always broker a surprise agreement in meetings with other world leaders, there's little expectation that the summit will yield more than commitments to keep talking. 'Everyone's in really different spots in their trade relationships,' one of the people close to the White House said of the several parallel efforts to strike new trade agreements. 'I would be shocked if they came out with anything like the U.K.-U.S. framework in that environment.' Still, Trump and his aides view the G7 as a high-profile opportunity to reassert American primacy over even their closest allies, said advisers and others involved in the global preparations. Trump is likely to jump at any chance to demonstrate his administration's strength on the world stage, even if just rhetorically — forcing the rest of the group to decide when to go along and when to risk confrontation. 'A success on the U.S. side would be going to the summit and being seen as not being pushed around by other leaders,' said Caitlin Welsh, a former senior National Security Council official during Trump's first term. The president may get plenty of opportunities to cultivate that image. In addition to trade issues, Trump's response to Israel's attack on Iran will be closely watched for clues as to whether the U.S. will join the fray. Trump is also likely to face greater pressure to impose sanctions on Russia over its war in Ukraine — a step that he's publicly floated but remains reluctant to take. The president on Thursday said he was 'very disappointed in Russia' over its resistance to peace talks. But he quickly added that he was 'very disappointed in Ukraine also' in a sign of the wide gap between Trump's attitude toward the war and the rest of the G7's steadfast support for Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was among those invited by Carney, has vowed to seek another sitdown with Trump at the summit. But even the prospect of a brief meeting has raised some concerns within the G7 over whether it's worth the risk that at any moment Trump and Zelenskyy's relationship could go sideways again — and sink U.S. support for Ukraine in the process. 'The value is only in maintaining the status quo,' Daalder said of discussions with Trump on the topic. But for Trump, the trade war that has consumed his first months in office is just as likely to dominate his three days in Canada. The president is expected to hold a series of bilateral meetings on the summit's sidelines, as the administration tries to push ahead trade deals in differing stages of negotiation. Trump has also tried to up the pressure on his G7 allies, vowing to greenlight a market-rattling return to steep tariffs on July 9 should they fail to clinch agreements in the coming weeks. The push still isn't expected to generate any quick victories in an area where negotiations are often measured in years rather than weeks. Yet allies in the U.S. and abroad are hoping that simply being back at the center of it all, surrounded by world leaders eager for a bit of his time, will prove enough progress for Trump to call off an even more severe trade war. 'He's completely comfortable with an outcome that ends in tariffs,' one of the people close to the White House said. 'But a lot of it depends on whether there's progress being made, and if he feels the countries are serious.' Amy Mackinnon contributed to this report.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Economic populism from both parties fails working Americans
President Trump's startling win in 2016 ushered in a new era of economic populism. Ever since, both parties have been vying to offer a new economic deal to blue-collar Americans, whose earning power had been declining for decades. They could use a new deal. According to the Federal Reserve, real median earnings for non-college workers fell 14 percent over the past 40 years, while those for workers with a bachelor's degree or higher have grown by 14 percent. Opportunity in America looks very different to people on opposite sides of the diploma divide. Whereas non-college workers contend with downward mobility, the highly educated rise into tonier precincts of upper-middle-class affluence. This disparity disfigures our society, and populists across the political spectrum are right to want to redress it. Unfortunately, they have proved better at posturing as working-class tribunes than at tangibly improving their lives. President Biden presided over a nearly $5 trillion public spending binge aimed at rebuilding a pandemic-stricken U.S. economy 'from the bottom up and middle out.' But Bidenomics ultimately struck out with working families, who identified it with rising living costs and eroding purchasing power. Although he owes his reelection mainly to inflation, it didn't take Trump long to break his promise to focus on batting it down. Instead, he's launched a global trade war that's driving prices back up for consumers and businesses, choking economic growth and provoking retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports. An angry Trump lashed out at Walmart last week for announcing price increases, instructing the retail giant to 'eat the tariffs.' That's not an option for thousands of smaller businesses operating on slim profit margins. After four years of steady growth, the U.S. economy has shrunk 0.3 percent since Trump's return to the White House. Like Bidenomics before it, MAGA populism is failing working Americans. Both are based on dubious premises about what's gone wrong and how to fix it. Populists blame trade agreements and globalization for decimating factory jobs. This ignores structural changes that have affected all advanced economies — rising education levels, more women working, growing demand for services, the digital revolution. It also vastly overstates the power of policy to either cause or reverse deindustrialization. Trump is taxing most imports to shield U.S. companies from foreign competition and induce them to bring manufacturing jobs home. Yet America already has nearly half a million unfilled factory jobs. The share of U.S. workers in manufacturing has been falling steadily since 1950, to just eight percent today. Is it worth risking a new bout of inflation and possibly a recession to bump that number up a few points? Americans aren't buying Trump's prescription for a 'new golden age' built upon protectionism and autarchy. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs reports that 84 percent of Americans say trade is good for their standard of living and good for the U.S. economy (79 percent). Strikingly, 55 percent — including nearly half of Republicans — want Washington to pursue a global free trade policy, up from 34 percent in 2024. No wonder Trump is crawfishing away from his 'beautiful' tariffs and trying to cut new trade deals with Great Britain and China. Yet even as his right-wing economic populism implodes, progressives continue to clamor for a left-wing version. They see it as the antidote to 'neoliberalism,' which they define as a fixation with free markets, free trade, global economic integration and fiscal austerity that supposedly gripped both parties over the last four decades. The populist left demands a 'post-neoliberal' agenda — conveniently forgetting that in Bidenomics, it already got one. In his first major decision, Biden sided with progressive economists pushing for a massive $1.9 trillion stimulus bill. They dismissed warnings that a big dose of deficit spending would ignite inflation. Biden also put trade policy in the deep freeze, left some Trump tariffs in place and embraced industrial policies to 'reshore' factories and supply chains, nurture domestic chip manufacturing and invest billions in electric cars and clean energy production. The White House hired a left-wing academic to launch an unsuccessful bid to break up America's most successful tech companies. And Biden made good on his promise to be the most pro-union president ever, intervening on labor's behalf in organizing drives and even walking a picket line with striking workers. While Biden can take credit for new investments in chip fabs and clean energy production, much of his spending on education and infrastructure, including on rural broadband, has yet to yield positive results. From January 2023 to January 2025, manufacturing jobs dropped. And while union membership under Biden saw a modest uptick (240,000 workers), the share of unionized workers fell below 10 percent as the workforce grew. Bidenomics won raves from progressives but Bronx cheers from working-class voters. They linked heavy government spending to high prices and resented what they saw as Democrats' inattention to their economic struggles. As The Atlantic's Jonathan Chait concluded in a Bidenomics post-mortem, 'The notion that there is a populist economic formula to reversing the rightward drift of the working class has been tried, and, as clearly as these things can be proved by real-world experimentation, it has failed.' Non-college Americans aren't asking for statist 'solutions' — protectionism, unrestrained deficit spending and industrial policies larded with superfluous social policy mandates — that flout basic economics and common sense. Populism, as practiced by Biden and Trump, has foundered on the patronizing premise that working families want yesterday's factory jobs back. But they know the economy has changed and want to be part of where it's going, not where it has been. Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
23-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Economic populism from both parties fails working Americans
President Trump's startling win in 2016 ushered in a new era of economic populism. Ever since, both parties have been vying to offer a new economic deal to blue-collar Americans, whose earning power had been declining for decades. They could use a new deal. According to the Federal Reserve, real median earnings for non-college workers fell 14 percent over the past 40 years, while those for workers with a bachelor's degree or higher have grown by 14 percent. Opportunity in America looks very different to people on opposite sides of the diploma divide. Whereas non-college workers contend with downward mobility, the highly educated rise into tonier precincts of upper-middle-class affluence. This disparity disfigures our society, and populists across the political spectrum are right to want to redress it. Unfortunately, they have proved better at posturing as working-class tribunes than at tangibly improving their lives. President Biden presided over a nearly $5 trillion public spending binge aimed at rebuilding a pandemic-stricken U.S. economy 'from the bottom up and middle out.' But Bidenomics ultimately struck out with working families, who identified it with rising living costs and eroding purchasing power. Although he owes his reelection mainly to inflation, it didn't take Trump long to break his promise to focus on batting it down. Instead, he's launched a global trade war that's driving prices back up for consumers and businesses, choking economic growth and provoking retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports. An angry Trump lashed out at Walmart last week for announcing price increases, instructing the retail giant to 'eat the tariffs.' That's not an option for thousands of smaller businesses operating on slim profit margins. After four years of steady growth, the U.S. economy has shrunk 0.3 percent since Trump's return to the White House. Like Bidenomics before it, MAGA populism is failing working Americans. Both are based on dubious premises about what's gone wrong and how to fix it. Populists blame trade agreements and globalization for decimating factory jobs. This ignores structural changes that have affected all advanced economies — rising education levels, more women working, growing demand for services, the digital revolution. It also vastly overstates the power of policy to either cause or reverse deindustrialization. Trump is taxing most imports to shield U.S. companies from foreign competition and induce them to bring manufacturing jobs home. Yet America already has nearly half a million unfilled factory jobs. The share of U.S. workers in manufacturing has been falling steadily since 1950, to just eight percent today. Is it worth risking a new bout of inflation and possibly a recession to bump that number up a few points? Americans aren't buying Trump's prescription for a 'new golden age' built upon protectionism and autarchy. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs reports that 84 percent of Americans say trade is good for their standard of living and good for the U.S. economy (79 percent). Strikingly, 55 percent — including nearly half of Republicans — want Washington to pursue a global free trade policy, up from 34 percent in 2024. No wonder Trump is crawfishing away from his 'beautiful' tariffs and trying to cut new trade deals with Great Britain and China. Yet even as his right-wing economic populism implodes, progressives continue to clamor for a left-wing version. They see it as the antidote to 'neoliberalism,' which they define as a fixation with free markets, free trade, global economic integration and fiscal austerity that supposedly gripped both parties over the last four decades. The populist left demands a 'post-neoliberal' agenda — conveniently forgetting that in Bidenomics, it already got one. In his first major decision, Biden sided with progressive economists pushing for a massive $1.9 trillion stimulus bill. They dismissed warnings that a big dose of deficit spending would ignite inflation. Biden also put trade policy in the deep freeze, left some Trump tariffs in place and embraced industrial policies to 'reshore' factories and supply chains, nurture domestic chip manufacturing and invest billions in electric cars and clean energy production. The White House hired a left-wing academic to launch an unsuccessful bid to break up America's most successful tech companies. And Biden made good on his promise to be the most pro-union president ever, intervening on labor's behalf in organizing drives and even walking a picket line with striking workers. While Biden can take credit for new investments in chip fabs and clean energy production, much of his spending on education and infrastructure, including on rural broadband, has yet to yield positive results. From January 2023 to January 2025, manufacturing jobs dropped. And while union membership under Biden saw a modest uptick (240,000 workers), the share of unionized workers fell below 10 percent as the workforce grew. Bidenomics won raves from progressives but Bronx cheers from working-class voters. They linked heavy government spending to high prices and resented what they saw as Democrats' inattention to their economic struggles. As The Atlantic's Jonathan Chait concluded in a Bidenomics post-mortem, 'The notion that there is a populist economic formula to reversing the rightward drift of the working class has been tried, and, as clearly as these things can be proved by real-world experimentation, it has failed.' Non-college Americans aren't asking for statist 'solutions' — protectionism, unrestrained deficit spending and industrial policies larded with superfluous social policy mandates — that flout basic economics and common sense. Populism, as practiced by Biden and Trump, has foundered on the patronizing premise that working families want yesterday's factory jobs back. But they know the economy has changed and want to be part of where it's going, not where it has been. Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute.
