Economy

When Donald Trump was on the campaign trail in 2024, he hammered the Biden Administration relentlessly over the economy — including then-Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee. Trump blamed Harris and then-President Joe Biden for high prices, promising to bring them down "on Day 1" if he won the election. And he focused heavily on grocery prices as well as the cost of gas.

But 13 and one-half months into Trump's second presidency, inflation is still a major concern for many Americans. And New York Magazine's Ed Kilgore, in an article published early Monday afternoon, March 9, argues that Trump is now at odds with his own cost-of-living messages — especially when it comes to energy prices.

"Donald Trump's 'war of choice' against Iran is a big departure from his administration's alleged determination to focus on improving the domestic economy and addressing concerns about affordability before crucial midterm elections this November," Kilgore explains. "But aside from the president's spectacular failure to stay on message, there is a more specific problem with the sudden lurch into a regional war in the Middle East. To the extent Trump had an actual affordability agenda, other than calling concerns about living costs 'a hoax,' a central pillar was keeping energy prices low by demolishing any obstacles to maximum exploitation of fossil-fuel resources."

Kilgore continues, "Aside from the beneficial effect this might have on prices for other goods and services influenced by energy costs, the 'drill baby drill' mentality was designed to reduce gasoline pump prices — one of the most visible inflation indicators from the perspective of regular folks. Suddenly, the United States has produced an energy-price crisis for itself and for the whole world, Reuters reports."

According to Kilgore, "American motorists could soon pay more at the pump amid spiking oil prices due to the U.S.-Israel attacks on Iran, with experts predicting gasoline prices could rise sharply this week."

Trump, Kilgore notes, made a "decision to subordinate economic policy to another presidential military adventure."

According to Fortune's Jim Edwards, the war in Iran is going badly from both an economic standpoint and a national security standpoint.

Edwards, in a March 9 article, reports, "It's day 10 of the war with Iran. The price of oil briefly hit $119 per barrel this morning, and stock markets fell sharply around the world as it became clear that the war would become worse before it got better: Iran appointed Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of its recently killed leader, as its new supreme leader. He's a hardliner who will likely seek revenge for the death of his father…. Fortune’s Jason Ma reported that, when asked in the Oval Office last week for the worst-case scenario in Iran, Trump replied, 'I guess the worst case would be we do this and then somebody takes over who’s as bad as the previous person, right? That could happen.' That is exactly where we are right now."

Kilgore points out that rising energy prices could be a major problem for Republicans in the 2026 midterms.

"Shortly before the 2024 presidential election," Kilgore notes, "I was filling up my car with gas in California, and someone had placed on the pump a little decal of Trump pointing at the per-gallon prices and saying, Biden did this! If pump prices continue to go up in 2026, it will be even easier to show that Trump did this! And the price will be paid not just by consumers but by Republican candidates whose affordability arguments have been blown up by the explosions in Iran."

As the granddaughter of President Donald Trump and daughter of Donald Trump Jr., 18-year-old Kai Trump enjoys full U.S. Secret Service protection when she's out in public. Now, Kai Trump is drawing strong criticism for publicizing a TikTok video and a shopping spree at a time when the United States is at war with Iran.

A video posted on TikTok shows Kai Trump with jets in the background while the words "she does what she wants and she looks cool doing it" are heard over music. Another video, posted on YouTube, shows her in the upscale Los Angeles grocery store Erewhon. And her activities are generating a lot of comments on X, formerly Twitter.

The Russian government-owned RT tweeted, "Kai Trump SLAMMED online for 'out of touch' TikTok featuring war machines 'She does what she wants & she looks cool doing it' How cool is war?"

Wayne Waldrop, CEO of Bloom Wave Digital Marketing, disagreed with the argument that "Kai is off limits."

Waldrop posted, "Kai Trump made herself not off limits the second she decided to post content aura farming in front of military aircrafts. She is a grown adult and she should fight in her Grandpa's war if she supports it so much and thinks it is so cool. Why do American lives have to be lost while they smile and film the behind the scenes? Also, she could have at least read the room and hold off on her shopping videos one week into a new war her family helped start."

In a separate tweet, Waldrop highlighted Kai Trump's shopping spree and wrote, "This title is absolutely wild. Kai Trump decided to flex her shopping trip with her Secret Service detail while the whole country is struggling and war is breaking out."

Waldrop also complained, "I can't believe she still couldn't just pretend for like two weeks."

Journalist Saul Gonzales commented, "New generation, new grifts."

X user Jayce Mcwood said of Kai Trump's video, "It's disrespectful"

Another X user, Francis Pentangelo, tweeted, "How much are taxpayers shelling out so she has security to go around making videos? They're all grifters."

Attorney Tracey Gallagher, "Give me a break. Put a uniform on."

Over the years, a long list of U.S. presidents were voted out of office thanks, in large part, to widespread frustration over the economy — from Republican Herbert Hoover in 1932 during the Great Depression to Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1980 to George H.W. Bush in 1992. Bush had stellar approval ratings in early 1991 and appeared to be heading to a landslide reelection victory, but with the U.S. in a recession in 1992, Democratic nominee Bill Clinton won the popular vote by roughly 5.5 percent and defeated Bush 370-168 in the Electoral College.

In 2026, frustration over the economy is playing a major role in President Donald Trump's weak approval ratings in poll after poll. But Salon's Chauncey DeVega, in an article published on March 8, stresses that economic angst can, in some cases, work in favor of authoritarians.

"Millions of Americans are experiencing real financial hardship because of Donald Trump's policies — and it's getting worse," DeVega explains. "The country's economy lost 92,000 jobs in February and the unemployment rate increased to 4.4 percent, according to numbers released on Friday morning. Only 13 percent of Americans feel financially secure. Later that afternoon, in a sure signal that investors were spooked by the job numbers and the war in Iran, the S&P 500 plummeted by two percent for the week, wiping out all the gains made in 2026…. Meanwhile, Trump continues to brag about the economy, saying there is so much 'winning' that people are begging him to stop and the affordability crisis is a 'hoax' conjured by Democrats to undermine his MAGA Golden Age."

The Salon journalist continues, "Trump's solipsistic alternate reality, though, does not change the facts. His approval ratings are at record lows, and a majority of Americans correctly blame him for the worsening economy. But this is where the story gets more complicated, and much more dangerous."

DeVega notes that according to a new study from Northwestern University's Center for Communication & Public Policy, authoritarians can benefit from economic woes.

"The conventional wisdom holds that presidents and the incumbent party will be punished at the polls because of the economy, particularly in midterm elections," according to DeVega. "On the surface, the GOP's wave of losses in 2025’s off-year elections would seem to fit that pattern and logic. In reality, matters are much more complicated…. Economic insecurity may actually make authoritarians like Trump more compelling to voters…. Some of the (Northwestern) study's key findings, which were published in the journal Perspectives on Politics, are revealing — and timely."

DeVega adds, "Commitments to liberal democratic norms are conditional, not fixed. When people feel financially secure, support for democratic principles increases. When they feel economically disadvantaged, voters are more open to authoritarianism and autocracy, with characteristics including a biased press, weakened checks on executive power and attacks on the rule of law. Perhaps most striking is that for both liberals and conservatives, political ideology mattered less than economic stress and hardship."

After a lengthy delay, President Donald Trump released a national cybersecurity strategy on Friday afternoon — and, as one critic observed, it seems at odds with the reality of America “hemorrhaging cyber-talent.”

Trump’s strategy is "impressively underachieving, even by the abysmal standards this Administration has set for itself,” said Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) He then pointed out that the plan does not account for the most glaring issue facing the Trump administration.

Thompson added, “Completely lacking is even the most basic blueprint for how the Administration will go about achieving any of its cybersecurity goals — an objective possibly hamstrung by the hemorrhage in cyber talent across all Federal agencies since Trump took office.”

By contrast, Trump claimed his strategy “calls for unprecedented coordination across government and the private sector to invest in the best technologies and continue world-class innovation, and to make the most of America’s cyber capabilities for both offensive and defensive missions.”

The federal workforce is experiencing a massive personnel shortage under the Trump era, both due to the president’s sweeping layoffs and because he has reportedly made it less comfortable to work for the government. Agencies like the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA), the National Weather Service (NWS), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are all bleeding quality staffers.

"Another abrupt departure of a high-ranking Food and Drug Administration official is raising alarm about a brain drain that could mean new drugs take longer to reach the public," reported Axios' Pete Sullivan in December. "Why it matters: Biotech and pharmaceutical companies rely on the FDA for dependable guidance as they spend huge sums developing new treatments. The American public needs the agency to ensure treatments are safe and effective…. Driving the news: The latest uproar surrounds the unexpected departure of Richard Pazdur, a respected oncologist who just three weeks ago became the fourth person to direct the FDA's drug center this year."

He added, "Pazdur's appointment had helped calm nerves to some degree within industry after months of turmoil. But now, executives and even former FDA commissioners are publicly questioning the agency's direction."

Trump’s policies are also causing brain drains from red states to blue states. Last year Common Dreams reported widespread dissatisfaction from individuals over restrictive abortion laws. Among 10,000 adults surveyed by Morning Consult, 1 in 5 of respondents who are planning on having children in the next decade either moved from an anti-abortion state to a pro-choice one or know someone who has. Notably, 14 percent of people with advanced degrees have either moved out-of-state or know someone who has over anti-abortion laws.

"Workers are not willing to trade their health and autonomy for a paycheck," Dr. Jamila K. Taylor, president and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR), told Common Dreams at the time.

Trump is even pushing personnel out of his own party, albeit indirectly and perhaps unintentionally. Of the 62 lawmakers who have so far announced they will not seek reelection, 37 are Republicans.

President Donald Trump’s economy is “lousy” and could be improved if he removes his tariffs, a newspaper that normally supports Trump wrote on Friday.

“There’s no denying the February report was lousy,” The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote on Friday. “The U.S. shed 92,000 jobs and revised down gains for January and December by a combined 69,000. The question is what to make of the declines.”

After arguing that the jobs report is not related to Trump’s invasion of Iran, the Journal nevertheless predicted “a temporary price surge” in oil as the Iran regime tries to “cause enough political pain in the Gulf and the U.S. that Mr. Trump and Israel stop the bombing.” Yet they urged the public to not waver in backing the Iran war even as that happens.

“But that is all the more reason not to panic at a temporary price surge and press ahead to remove Iran’s missile and drone stockpiles and assembly lines and the regime’s brutal enforcers,” the Journal argued.

They then added, practically as an afterthought, “Oh, and if Mr. Trump wants a tax-cut boost for the economy while the war continues, he could call off his new 15% universal tariff. Consider it our contribution to easing everyone’s economic anxiety.”

Economist Catherine Rampell, speaking with the conservative publication The Bulwark, argued on Friday that Trump’s anti-immigrant policies are contributing to the ongoing economic malaise.

“So, we had been hearing for years from Trump and his allies that if you pulled immigrants out of the economy, then you would have a lot more job openings for native-born Americans, that immigrants were stealing all of the jobs that should have gone to, you know, red-blooded Americans,” Rampell said. “And therefore, if you just yanked them out of the labor force and out of the country, that would create an abundance of riches in terms of job opportunities for native-born Americans.”

She added, “Is it that we should have expected more job growth for native born Americans? Or is it … we should have expected less job growth overall? So, you know, they kind of want it both ways. And either way, they're just trying to cope with the fact that the numbers are not great… [Y]ou should never read too much into one month's report. Every economist will tell you that. But it's not just one month's report. We've seen, again, six months now under Trump's tenure in which we've had job losses.”

Also on Friday,University of Massachusetts Amherst Economics Professor Arin Dube warned that “the labor market is flashing red,” while University of Michigan Professor of Economics and frequent cable news guest Justin Wolfers said after the new jobs report that “the economic story just changed dramatically. Recession questions are back on the menu.”

In February the liberal-leaning think tank Center for American Progress argued Trump’s tariffs have cost the US more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs.

“Far from the manufacturing sector ‘roaring back’ as Trump promised, the United States has lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs over the past year,” Allison McManus and Dawn Le of the Center for American Progress wrote. “These actions have pushed the country’s closest trading partners to seek deals elsewhere, including with China: Canada, India, Japan, South Korea, and the European Union have all recently sought new agreements without the United States.”

They added, “Over time, each of these deals will result in markets that were once enjoyed by U.S. suppliers increasingly oriented away from them — and the rules of international engagement increasingly written by foreign governments.”

Conservative commentator Mona Charen from The Bulwark speculated last month that voters may also blame Trump’s tariffs for the poor economy.

“Voters are rarely able to connect policy to outcomes, but they have done so in the case of tariffs,” Mona Charen wrote. “Back in 2024, Americans were about equally divided on the question of trade, with some favoring higher tariffs and roughly similar numbers opting for lower tariffs. Experience has changed their views.”

Veteran economics reporter Catherine Rampell warns of “Warflation” in the weeks ahead.

In a post to The Bulwark, Rampell predicted higher prices are on the horizon for “anything that needs to be transported anywhere.”

“The top crude oil expert at S&P Global Energy warned that the military conflict has the potential to become 'the largest oil supply disruption in history,'" she writes. "That’s because about a fifth of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, on Iran’s southern coast.”

Oil prices are already skyrocketing, a reversal of a previous bright spot in affordability.

“But since we bombed Iran, energy costs have risen sharply. To put things in perspective: oil prices are up about 20 percent so far just this week," Rampell adds.

The downstream effect on various pricing issues will soon follow.

“Downstream firms that require [liquefied natural gas] to operate are closing shop, too. For example, the Gulf region is responsible for nearly a tenth of the global aluminum supply," according to Rampell. "Already this week, multiple major aluminum smelters had to initiate shutdowns; one company says it may take up to a year to restart production.”

Adding to the cascade are methanol and other chemicals, including fertilizers used to grow food supplies. “American farmers are freaking out,” Rampell claims, and buttressed the point by talking to an analyst.

Consumers may see “higher prices for bread within six to 10 weeks, eggs within a few months and pork and broiler chicken within six months,” according to an estimate from food-system expert Raj Patel.

Those are the obvious targets. But on the horizon are other products that will soon feel the effect of chemical price hikes.

Rampell writes, “Then there are the gazillions of consumer goods that people may not realize use petrochemicals as inputs. Those include clothes, iPhones, candy, dentures, dishwashing liquid, footballs, shampoo, toothpaste, lipstick, plastic toys, trash bags, umbrellas, tires — you name it.”

Not everyone is sounding the inflation alarm.

Forbes reports LPL Financial analysts have noted, “Across more than two dozen events since World War II, the S&P 500 averaged a one-day decline of about 1 percent, analysts said, adding markets tend to “absorb shocks” quickly before stabilizing and recovering “within a matter of weeks.” The S&P 500 dropped 1.2 percent when Iran attacked Israel in April 2024 and took just over two weeks to recover the loss, whereas the index rose 1 percent after the U.S. and Israel last struck Iran in June 2025.”

The underlying state of the economy, such as the health of the job market, interest rates and inflation, “matters more than the event itself,” LDL writes.

CNBC notes, “most economists say the impact from higher oil prices is difficult to gauge and could ultimately prove temporary, as has often been the case with past Middle East conflicts.”

Moreover, with the U.S. producing a larger share of its own energy, the broader economic impact of oil price spikes is not what it once was.

“In today’s American economy, spikes in oil prices do not present the same significant downside risk to top-line economic growth or inflation as they did a half century ago,” said Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM. “The American economy is far less exposed to economic and inflation disruptions while its overall size has tripled.”

Rampell says Trump isn’t deliberately trying to raise prices, and acknowledges that presidents really don’t have a lot of tools to fight inflation.

“But between tariffs, mass deportations (and a resulting depletion in the agricultural workforce), politicizing the Federal Reserve, and bombing Iran, Trump seems intent on proving us wrong.”

Economic experts are stunned by the latest jobs report that found the Trump economy lost 92,000 jobs in February despite expectations of an increase of 50,000. Unemployment rose to 4.4 percent. Some are sounding the alarm that a recession — or even stagflation — could be on the way.

The Washington Post called the results “a striking loss signaling a warning flag for the economy.”

Describing the report as “grim,” NBC News called the loss of 92,000 jobs “a number that will raise alarms about the state of the economy.”

Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY News called the report “simply ugly.”

“The labor market is flashing red,” warned Professor of Economics Arin Dube.

“The economic story just changed dramatically,” declared Professor of Economics and frequent cable news guest Justin Wolfers. “Recession questions are back on the menu.”

Pointing to a chart that reads, “Job growth has stalled and may even be going backwards,” Wolfers responded, “This is not good.”

Navy Federal Credit Union chief economist Heather Long called the results “dismal.”

“Let me put this another way,” she continued. “The US economy has LOST jobs since April 2025. Total job gains since from May 2025 to February 2026 are now -19,000. Companies are not hiring in the face of all of these headwinds and uncertainty. And even healthcare is starting to slow down.”

Veteran finance reporter Ron Insana concluded, “Mini-stagflation remains the operating description of the current economic environment.”

“This is the ‘Welcome Back, Kotter’ economy!” Insana quipped. “It’s 1975 and the ‘sweathogs’ are in vogue … weak jobs and rising inflation bringing back stagflation like its 1975!”

President Donald Trump has long held that his trade war and imposed tariffs would help rebuild the U.S. manufacturing base. One company that promised to buy into his philosophy is now fleeing to Mexico and laying off American workers.

The U.S.’s largest appliance manufacturer, Whirlpool, had been a champion of Trump, welcoming him to an Ohio plant in 2020, where he touted the "Made in America" label that goes on every machine. He pledged to Whirlpool at the time that he'd impose a 50 percent tax on any washing machine imported from a foreign country.

The company promised Trump in 2018 that, in exchange for tariffs, it would increase manufacturing in the U.S. By 2019, consumers were the ones footing the bill for the tax increases, the Wall Street Journal reported.

“And while the tariffs did encourage foreign companies to shift more of their manufacturing to the United States and created about 1,800 new jobs, the researchers conclude that those came at a steep cost: about $817,000 per job," reported the New York Times.

Now those U.S. jobs are headed to Mexico, said the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which represents the plant's workers.

The Des Moines Register noted that 481 people in Iowa are now without a job, and the overwhelming majority of those come from Whirlpool. The company is the last headquartered in the U.S. that makes large appliances, the report said.

Cedar Valley Corp. LLC is also closing its doors in Iowa. The company was created in 1971 and is laying off 89 workers in the state.

Wells Fargo Bank cut 49 employees in Iowa, too, in February.

The farm and construction manufacturer CNH will finish the closure of its facility in late May. The plant was where the backhoe was invented.

In 2025, there were 108,000 manufacturing job losses in the U.S. and the downward trajectory continues as 2026 begins, the Cato Institute reported.

Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz commented last month that the economy is “not great right now. And the prospects are that it’s going to get worse.”

Just last month, Trump promised a “golden age” of manufacturing.

When Donald Trump narrowly won the United States' 2024 presidential election, many polls of voters found that the economy — especially frustration over inflation — played a key role in his victory. The U.S. enjoyed historically low unemployment rates during Joe Biden's presidency, but high prices did a lot to hurt his popularity. And former President Joe Biden's vice-president, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, was unable to get past the finish line and lost the national popular vote by roughly 1.5 percent.

In a column posted on his Substack page on February 27, liberal economist Paul Krugman describes the connection between authoritarian movements and economic meltdowns. And he argues that inheriting a generally healthy economy from Biden slowed down Trump's push for far-right authoritarianism.

"When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933," Krugman explains, "Germany's economy was in dire straits. Under Chancellor Heinrich Brüning, the German government had clung dogmatically to economic orthodoxy in the face of the Great Depression, staying on the gold standard and imposing ever harsher fiscal austerity. The result was economic devastation and extremely high unemployment.… When Vladimir Putin came to power in 1999, Russia had just experienced a devastating financial crisis."

Krugman continues, "The crisis precipitated a severe recession, forced the Russian government to default on its debt, and led to a plunge in the value of the ruble…. Donald Trump's return to power in January 2025 was largely thanks to public dissatisfaction with the Biden economy. However, there was no economic crisis: unemployment was low, and inflation had declined sharply from its peak in 2022…. And because there was no crisis when he regained the presidency, Trump — his bombastic lies in the State of the Union notwithstanding — hasn't been able to preside over a clear economic improvement. Indeed, his approval on economic issues has plummeted."

Trump, according to Krugman, "can't credibly claim to be an economic savior." And the former New York Times columnist lays out three obstacles that Trump and the MAGA movement are facing.

"Make no mistake, MAGA is a fascist movement," Krugman warns. "But can a fascist movement that controls many but not all of the levers of power achieve total control when most people see that it is making their daily lives worse, not better?.... In the end, if Trumpist fascism is indeed defeated, I believe that there will be three sources of that defeat."

Krugman continues, "First is the courage and basic decency of the American people, who refuse to bow down. Second is the egomania and malign incompetence of Trump, who tried to bludgeon and gaslight Americans into submission. And last is the weakness of a fascist movement that just can't deliver the goods."

President Donald Trump called for Congress to pass the so-called “Dalilah Law” requiring commercial drivers licenses to only go to legal residents — and in the process continued the MAGA movement’s targeting of the Sikh community.

"Many, if not most, illegal aliens do not speak English and cannot read even the most basic road signs," Trump said during his Tuesday night State of the Union message. "That's why tonight, I'm calling on Congress to pass what we will call the 'Dalilah Law,' barring any state from granting commercial drivers licenses to illegal aliens."

From bus drivers and over-the-road semi-trailer drivers to RV delivery haulers, America has 3.5 million licensed truckers, and the American Trucking Associations trade group (37,000-members strong) supports Trump’s efforts to both enforce immigration laws and “ensure that only properly trained, fully qualified, and English-proficient drivers are behind the wheel of 80,000-pound commercial motor vehicles.” Yet Trump’s approach may also target a group that MAGA repeatedly puts in its sites — Sikhs

“Among the strongest critics of the measures are India-born Sikhs, who make up about 150,000 members of the trucking community, according to regulatory data,” reported USA Today’s Trevor Hughes. “Tens of thousands of Sikhs sought asylum in the United States during the Biden presidency, many of them crossing the Mexican border without advance permission.” The article also pointed out that for thousands of people “the crackdown on foreign drivers would cause them to lose their jobs and homes in one fell swoop ‒ many truckers live in their semis” and simultaneously increase “freight costs from American consumers.”

The White House has often singled out Sikh truck drivers, in particular a California-licensed Sikh driver named Harjinder Singh was involved in a fatal August crash in Florida that killed three people. Trump officials claim Singh was in America illegally and did not speak English well enough to qualify for his license. Sikhs For Justice, a US-based group, donated $100,000 to the victims in the accident Singh is accused of causing.

Others in the Trump movement have expressed prejudice against Sikhs. In June Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) misidentified a Sikh man as Muslim and argued that he should not have been allowed to pray on the House of Representatives floor because he is not a Christian.

“It’s deeply troubling that a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning,” Miller said. “This should have never been allowed to happen. America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further…”

Miller later posted a version that swapped the word “Sikh” for “Muslim.” Miller’s target was Giani Singh, a Sikh Granthi from southern New Jersey who had been “welcomes” to deliver the prayer by Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ).

FBI director Kash Patel has also been targeted by xenophobia. When he wished his followers a Happy Diwali on X (Diwali is celebrated by Sikhs, some Buddhists, Jains and Hindus), far-right Christian and white nationalists attacked Patel online. Diwali greetings were similarly attacked when expressed by Indian American Trump officials like former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon.

President Donald Trump repeatedly claims that manufacturing jobs have boomed during his second term, but a recent report reveals the construction spike is not doing what most people want — creating large numbers of jobs.

“Industry data show that much of the recent surge in construction jobs is tied to data centers and the power infrastructure that supports them, not a wave of new factories backed by fresh investment pledges Trump has secured,” wrote Politico’s Megan Messerly and Sam Sutton. “That matters because factories tend to employ far more people than data centers, one of the main reasons communities have been more receptive to the former setting up shop in their towns.”

By contrast, Trump claimed during his State of the Union message that “as thousands of new businesses are forming and factories, plants and laboratories are being built, we have added 70,000 new construction jobs in just a very short period of time. It’s getting bigger and bigger and stronger. Nobody can believe what they’re watching.”

Even though Trump says rising construction activity means Trump’s tariff policy is cultivating domestic manufacturing, Politico reports that many of these investments are in such early planning stages that “the factory jobs that could reshape communities are likely years away” — and that is assuming the factories in question produce lots of jobs, which often is not the case with data centers.

“Not one in the last year has started under this administration where we’ve procured the first man hour of work,” Sean McGarvey, president of the North America’s Building Trades Unions, told Politico. Although there have been announcements of projects, “they haven’t started yet… As far as actual shovels in the ground, that hasn’t happened.”

In terms of the 33,000 job gains in January, “economists believe those jobs were just a blip in the data, driven largely by unseasonably warm weather during the period when government statisticians were collecting data. That disconnect could complicate Republicans’ argument to working-class voters looking for signs of a Trump-fueled factory comeback.”

Quoting Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, Politico reported that “whether it’s warehouses, data centers, manufacturing or a Buc-ee’s or whatever, what is ultimately going to bring stable, high-paying jobs into the community? From that perspective, manufacturing is the winner. At a data center, there are fewer jobs. There will be a few high-skilled jobs, but not a lot of them.”

He concluded, “I think that’s a very fair question of, what’s going to get you more bang for the buck, employment wise?”

Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, confirmed the type of construction cultivated by the Trump administration will not be particularly fruitful in terms of creating thousands of long-term jobs.

“You’re going to get some construction jobs because of data centers and build out of power capacity and maybe chip plants — that kind of thing,” Zandi said. “But that’s going to be offset by job loss in the housing sector. Multifamily, single family completions are weak and are going to continue to fall. And they’re much more worker intensive than the data centers.”

In fact, not only has Trump failed to stimulate manufacturing job creation. According to the liberal-leaning think tank Center for American Progress, he is actually making things worse.

“Far from the manufacturing sector ‘roaring back’ as Trump promised, the United States has lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs over the past year,” Allison McManus and Dawn Le from the liberal-leaning think tank Center for American Progress recently wrote. “These actions have pushed the country’s closest trading partners to seek deals elsewhere, including with China: Canada, India, Japan, South Korea, and the European Union have all recently sought new agreements without the United States.”

Similarly, when Trump claimed during the State of the Union message that tariffs would one day replace the income tax, experts scoffed.

“I believe that tariffs paid for by foreign countries will, like in the past, substantially replace the modern day system of income tax,” Trump claimed, prompting American Bridge 21st Century to tweet that “American families and businesses paid at least 90% of Trump’s tariffs last year. His agenda taxes Americans anyway you slice it.”

A moderate commentator echoed this critique.

“After a fairly sober opening, Trump is now veering into fantasy, falsely claiming that he ended taxes on Social Security and suggesting that tariffs paid by foreigners will mostly replace the income tax,” Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times posted on X. “All false.”

Editor's Note: The story was updated on Tuesday to include a reply from the White House.

President Donald Trump has a "wrongheaded mercantilist view of international trade,” a Johns Hopkins economist wrote for Fortune Magazine on Tuesday — and his upcoming State of the Union address will likely pander to those who share his mistaken belief that "the U.S. is victimized by foreigners, as reflected in the country’s negative external trade balance.”

“On Friday, he raged at the fresh news of his defeat by calling the high court’s justices ‘disloyal’ and immediately erected 10% tariffs on the world, revising those upward to 15% over the weekend, via social media,” Fortune’s Steve H. Hanke wrote regarding the political fallout from the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision overturning Trump’s tariffs. “As this week has progressed, he has vowed ‘to do absolutely ‘terrible’ things to foreign countries.’”

Hanke pointed out that the 1974 Trade Act does not empower Trump to unilaterally levy tariffs, despite him falsely claiming that Section 122 grants him this authority. Setting aside the legal questions for a moment, though, Hanke also argued that it is absurd to claim America’s trade deficit is an economic problem for ordinary consumers.

“This wrongheaded mercantilist view of international trade and external accounts has its roots in how individual businesses operate,” Hanke said. “A healthy business generates positive free cash flows, with revenues that exceed outlays. If a business cannot generate positive free cash flows on a sustained basis and cannot take on more debt or issue more equity to finance itself, then it will be forced to declare bankruptcy.”

Even though a trade deficit occurs when Americans spend more than they produce, “as long as Americans can finance the deficit with ease, which has been the case since 1976, the deficits are a ‘good,’ not a ‘bad,’” Hanke explained. “This is why most economists, ever since Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, reject mercantilism and all the baggage that goes with it, including tariffs.”

The White House, in turn, disputes Hanke's bleak assessment.

“The U.S. Trade Representative comprehensively laid out in a 2025 report how America’s trading partners were systematically ripping off American workers, farmers, and industries with unfair trade barriers and tariffs," White House spokesman Kush Desai told AlterNet in a statement in response to the Fortune story. "President Trump’s trade rhetoric is backed up by a clear pattern of facts and data – and both the President and his trade team are hard at work to reverse America Last policies that have left our country behind.”

Hanke is not alone among experts in denouncing Trump’s pro-tariff policies. Last week the editors of the conservative publication National Review argued Trump’s boast “that the U.S. trade deficit had been reduced by 78 percent thanks to his comprehensive tariff regime” was undercut by the annual trade report produced by Trump’s own Census Bureau, which “reveals that the U.S. trade deficit declined by just 0.2 percent in 2025 — a far cry from Trump's figure — from $903.5 billion in 2024 to $901.5 billion last year."

Because Trump’s tariffs are hitting America’s farmers especially hard, agriculture industry advocates are likewise critical of them.

"We call on Congress to exercise its oversight role to ensure trade policy supports — not undermines — America’s family farmers and ranchers,” National Farmers Union president Rob Larew said in a statement. “Over the past year, tariffs have raised input costs, disrupted export markets and triggered retaliation against U.S. agricultural goods. In an already fragile farm economy, uncertainty has hit family operations hardest.”

The libertarian Cato Institute recently determined through a data analysis that all of tariffs enacted through Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, as Trump has done after the Supreme Court overturned much of his original tariff regimen, will expire after 150 days unless they are authorized by Congress. This, in theory, will put vulnerable congressional Republicans on the spot to vote for or against the president’s signature economic policy during the 2026 midterm election cycle. As this author wrote for the think tank the Progressive Policy Institute in March, historically Democrats tend to politically outperform Republicans when they focus on lowering tariffs as their own signature issue. Anti-Trump conservative commentator Charlie Sykes warned fellow commentator Matt Lewis earlier this week that this could put the Republican-controlled Congress in a serious bind.

Further compounding matters, Democrats are calling for Trump to issue tariff refunds in light of the Supreme Court overturning the taxes.

“Across the country, businesses paid billions in unlawful duties,” lawyer Neal Katyal, who successfully argued for repealing the tariffs to the Supreme Court, recently wrote. “At several points along the way, government lawyers assured judges that there would be no ‘harm’ in allowing tariff collection to continue during the appeal process because duties later invalidated could be refunded — with interest. Businesses would be made whole.”

Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump levied illegal tariffs on US businesses and consumers for more than a year, progressive Democrats are escalating demands that Americans get their money back.

Days after the Supreme Court shut down Trump’s ability to unilaterally enact tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said on Tuesday that during the State of the Union address, Trump should announce refunds for Americans he unlawfully taxed.

“Americans don’t need a rambling, two hour lecture from Trump,” Casar wrote in a social media post. “We need our money back. He owes us: $1,700 in illegal tariffs per family; $4 billion he’s profited off the presidency; $1 trillion he stole in tax breaks for the ultra-rich. Spare us the speech. Pay up or shut up.”

Casar’s demands for tariff refunds aren’t isolated.

Politico reported on Monday that Democrats have pounced on the Supreme Court ruling to deliver a simple message to voters: Trump wrongfully took your money and should return it.

Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), who along with Rep. Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.) introduced legislation mandating tariff refunds on Friday, accused Trump of outright thievery.

“When someone takes money that wasn’t authorized and does it in a way that harms you,” Horsford told Politico, “they’ve stolen from you, and that is what the Trump administration has done for the last year.”

Horsford’s rhetoric echoed a statement made by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who said in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling last week that Trump “illegally stole your money” and “should give it back to you” instead of trying to cook up new ways to slap tariffs on imported goods.

Groundwork Collaborative on Tuesday previewed Trump’s State of the Union speech by noting the president has totally failed to keep his promise to bring down prices, adding that his tariffs “cost the average working family nearly $1,200 last year.”

“No matter what Trump says in the upcoming State of the Union address,” Groundwork Collaborative said, “it won’t change the fact that working families know that the president and his lackeys in Congress alone bear responsibility for painfully high prices and a dragging economy.”

Although the Supreme Court clipped Trump’s power to levy tariffs via the IEEPA, he has since announced plans to issue a 15% global tariff using his authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to levy tariffs to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits with foreign nations.

However, as a recent analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute explained, any tariffs enacted through Section 122 expire after 150 days without authorization from Congress, which in theory could put vulnerable congressional Republicans on the spot to vote for or against the president’s signature economic policy this summer right before the 2026 midterm elections.

President Donald Trump suffered a major defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling handed down on Friday, February 20 in the case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruled that most of his tariffs are illegal. Yet Trump is doubling down on his trade policy, attacking the six justices who comprised the majority as a "disgrace" and looking for new ways to push tariffs.

In a biting column posted on his Substack page on February 24, liberal economist Paul Krugman argues that Trump's angry reaction to the High Court decision underscores his inability to accept defeat gracefully — and that Trump will keep looking for ways to pursue "zombie tariffs" despite a "stinging rebuke" in Learning Resources.

"Never one to accept limitations on his power," Krugman explains, "Trump rushed to impose new tariffs using an obscure clause: Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. Section 122 tariffs have a 150-day limit, at which point they expire. So Trump officials are now claiming that they'll find ways to reconstruct the tariffs using other legal loopholes before the expiration date is reached. I don't know how well this strategy will actually work. To the extent that it does work, we will be in the grip of zombie tariffs — tariffs that should be dead, because they were clearly imposed illegally, but that somehow keep shambling along."

The former New York Times columnist adds, "Why this desperate attempt to keep tariffs high? A MAGA loyalist would say it's to preserve what those illegal tariffs have accomplished. But even before they were struck down, the tariffs had achieved none of their stated goals."

Although Trump claimed that his tariffs would eliminate the United States' trade deficit, Krugman notes, the "U.S. trade deficit for all of 2025 was about the same as it was in 2024."

"Trump also claimed that his tariffs would revive American manufacturing," Krugman observes. "In fact, manufacturing employment has declined since Liberation Day…. Trump likes to boast about the immense revenue generated by the tariffs. And they did indeed bring in some money — tariffs are taxes, and taxes yield revenue. But they aren't the gusher of revenue that Trump claims…. Trump will have lost a lot of power even if he manages to avoid a big reduction in average tariff rates. So why persist?"

Krugman continues, "The obvious answer is that Trump can’t bring himself to acknowledge defeat. His tariff strategy is, by any reasonable standard, dead, and the tariffs should be dead too. But they won't stay dead; they just keep shambling along."

After the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its bombshell 6-3 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on Friday, February 20, President Donald Trump angrily railed against the decision and attacked six of the justices as a "disgrace." The majority struck down most of Trump's tariffs as illegal, and he even went so far as to say that the six justices — who included Chief Justice John Roberts, Trump appointees Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, and Democratic appointees Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan — should be investigated for foreign influence.

But some Republicans are applauding the decision. And former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) pushed back against Trump's claim that the federal government's executive branch should unilaterally set trade policy, saying, "Congress is not an inconvenience to avoid."

In an article published on February 24, The Hill's Alexander Bolton reports that the High Court's Learning Resources decision is fueling a "bitter internal Republican battle."

Bolton explains, "Trump's staunchest allies, led by Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), are already pushing a plan to move legislation under the special budget reconciliation process that would allow them to raise tariff rates with a simple majority vote to bolster Trump's embattled trade agenda…. But raising tariff rates with a simple majority instead of the 60 votes usually needed to pass controversial legislation through the Senate is certain to encounter opposition from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and other Republican critics of Trump's global trade war."

Bolton adds, "Paul, on Friday, applauded the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Trump's declaration of emergency powers to implement tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)…. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also cheered the Supreme Court decision striking down Trump's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs."

But Sen. Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), on the other hand, described the High Court's decision as "disappointing."

Budd told The Hill, "I’ve not traditionally been a fan of tariffs; I've been very clear about that. But again, I support the president and his agenda."

By announcing new tariffs under section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, President Donald Trump is hoping to defy the Supreme Court — and in the process, farmers’ advocates claim, hurting American agriculture.

By increasing the broad tariff rate to 15 percent, important American trading partners like China are shifting their agricultural purchases to other countries, significantly limiting their markets even as Trump’s other tariffs increase their prices on equipment, fertilizer and other imports. The 2025 deficit of $41.5 billion was significantly higher than in the previous five years, reported Civil Eats.

"We call on Congress to exercise its oversight role to ensure trade policy supports — not undermines — America’s family farmers and ranchers,” National Farmers Union president Rob Larew declared in a statement. “Over the past year, tariffs have raised input costs, disrupted export markets and triggered retaliation against U.S. agricultural goods. In an already fragile farm economy, uncertainty has hit family operations hardest.”

By contrast, Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins doubled down on Trump’s tariffs, saying “we are not backing down—not even for a second.” Rollins openly defied the Supreme Court, which struck down Trump’s across-the-board 10 percent tariff and higher reciprocal tariffs on individual companies. If Trump follows the court’s decision, he will need to reimburse millions if not billions to businesses and consumers for the illegal tariffs.

Last week Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker argued Trump owes a $1,700 refund for the tariffs to every citizen of his state, claiming among other things that they “wreaked havoc on farmers, enraged our allies, and sent grocery prices through the roof.” The potential presidential candidate was not alone in venting his outrage.

“The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and its members cannot stand behind the president while he undercuts the future of family farmers and ranchers by importing Argentinian beef in an attempt to influence prices,” Colin Woodall, head of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said in a statement. Deb Fischer, a Republican senator from Nebraska, similarly declared that Trump’s trade deal will “sideline” American cattle ranchers.

Earlier this month, The Hill reported that "bipartisan farming advocates" and "former leaders in the industry" had warned the House and Senate that Trump’s tariffs are hitting farming communities so hard, they risk “collapse.” The groups argued that Congress had to act against Trump’s tariffs “if we are to avoid a widespread collapse of American agriculture and our rural communities.” Experts agree that Trump’s tariffs add strain to farmers’ economic lives when they are already in "a downturn cycle," exacerbating the existing negative tendencies regarding "costs of production and weak crop prices."

The Hill added that the names on the letter included a "bipartisan group of leaders including staffers under former Republican administrations, past heads of agriculture organizations, experts in the field and farmers."

"[I]t is clear that the current administration’s actions, along with congressional inaction, have increased costs for farm inputs, disrupted overseas and domestic markets, denied agriculture its reliable labor pool, and defunded critical ag research and staffing," the letter argued.

During his press conferences, President Donald Trump often boasts that he has revitalized the U.S. economy since returning to the White House. And he is expected to do some more boasting about the economy during his 2026 State of the Union (SOTU) address this Tuesday night, February 24.

But New York Times reporters Ashley Cai and Linda Qiu fact-check Trump's claims about the economy in an article published the day before his SOTU.

During an NBC News appearance in February, Trump claimed, "I inherited the worst inflation in the history of our country. And now, we have almost no inflation."

But according to Cai and Qiu, "Inflation has slowed under Mr. Trump, but not by the drastic margins he is claiming. And prices are still increasing above the target of 2 percent set by the Federal Reserve."

During a MAGA rally in Georgia on Thursday, February 19, Trump told the crowd that former President Joe Biden "was sleeping while you were trying to get a job," adding, "You weren't working, and now, we have the most people working in history."

According to Cai and Qiu, however, Trump "falsely described the employment situation under his predecessor."

The Times reporters note, "Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. could also have claimed to preside over the most people working during his term, as could most other presidents not in office during periods of economic downturns or recessions. But labor force participation — those who were employed or actively looking for a job — has held steady under Mr. Trump, changing little from 62.6 percent in January 2025 to 62.5 percent this January. The unemployment rate rose slightly from 4 percent to 4.3 percent. The economy added 359,000 jobs from February 2025 to January 2026, compared with more than 1.2 million in the previous year."

In a separate New York Times article published the same day, reporter Audra D.S. Burch takes a look at U.S. workers who are still being pummeled by inflation — which Trump, during his 2024 campaign, promised to end "starting on Day 1."

"For millions of Americans," Burch explains, "affordability has become a defining issue as the soaring cost of big-ticket necessities such as housing, education, health care and child care take a toll on household budgets. Though unemployment is lower and inflation has slowed — data points that President Trump will likely cite in his State of the Union address on Tuesday — recent economic gains have largely benefited the wealthy. In interviews, some working Americans said the improved economy does not reflect their real-world struggles to pay bills or plan for the future. They have a hard time making sense of Mr. Trump's claims that he has defeated inflation, and the rising stock market has no bearing on their income."

New York City resident Kristin Errico told the Times, "Everything is up 20 percent in cost except my salary."

According to Erin Hatton, a sociology professor at New York State University, Buffalo, inflation remains a major problem for many U.S. workers.

Hatton told the Times, "For so many people, basic living has become a burden. The fact is that there are so many people that don't have a couple extra hundred dollars if faced with an emergency or, they can pay their bills but can't save for their retirement."