Connect with us

News

Tariffs are fueling fears of a recession. What does it take to actually declare one?

Published

on

Tariffs are fueling fears of a recession. What does it take to actually declare one?

Employees in the trading room of Nordea Markets follow Monday’s sharp stock market declines in Oslo. The Trump administration’s tariffs are fueling concerns about the prospect of a recession, in the U.S. and globally.

Ole Berg-Rusten/NTB/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ole Berg-Rusten/NTB/AFP via Getty Images

The Trump administration’s new tariffs on imported goods from countries around the world have rattled consumers, stoked a trade war, roiled global markets and fueled widespread concerns about the prospect of a recession, both in the U.S. and globally.

In the days since President Trump announced the sweeping baseline and “reciprocal” tariffs, Google searches for the term “recession” have surged and economists at prominent investment banks have pointed to increased odds of a recession occurring.

In a Sunday note to clients, Goldman Sachs raised the probability of a U.S. recession from 35% to 45% — and that’s assuming the tariffs are rolled back. If the country-specific tariffs take effect Wednesday as intended, the firm says, “we would revise our forecast to include a recession.”

Advertisement

In a research report last week titled “There Will Be Blood,” JP Morgan upped its risk of a global recession to 60% from 40% before the tariff announcement.

Its CEO Jamie Dimon doubled down on Monday, writing in his annual letter to investors that the tariffs “will likely increase inflation” and are prompting “many to consider a greater probability of a recession.”

“Whether or not the menu of tariffs causes a recession remains in question, but it will slow down growth,” Dimon wrote.

There are growing calls for Trump to delay or reduce the tariffs coming from Wall Street, Capitol Hill and around the world. Administration officials said Sunday that more than 50 countries have reached out to begin negotiations — but have also said the tariffs will not be postponed.

In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed concerns about a recession, saying, “We’re going to hold the course.” Pointing to March’s better-than-expected jobs report, he said he sees “no reason that we have to price in a recession.”

Advertisement

“There doesn’t have to be a recession,” he added. “Who knows how the market is going to react in a day, in a week. What we are looking at is building the long-term economic fundamentals for prosperity.”

With all this talk about a potential recession, it’s worth taking a look at what the term actually means — and who decides when it applies.

What is a recession? 

A recession refers to a period of decline in economic activity. It’s one of the four stages of the economic cycle: growth, peak, contraction (or recession) and trough.

Some analysts use a rough rule of thumb to identify recessions: Two consecutive quarters of decline in a nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) — the broadest measure of economic activity. 

Advertisement

But the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) — the nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization that has become the semi-official arbiter of recessions — uses a somewhat squishier definition. It calls a recession a “significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and that lasts more than a few months.”

Who declares a recession? 

The job of documenting the economic cycles, including recessions, does not fall to the federal government.

Instead, the NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee — made up of top American economists — has been declaring the beginning and end of the cycles since its creation in 1978 (NBER itself is decades older).

There is no fixed rule about how long NBER takes to identify a recession after a decline has started. It says on its website that past determinations have taken anywhere from four to 21 months.

“We wait long enough so that the existence of a peak or trough is not in doubt, and until we can assign an accurate peak or trough date,” NBER says.

Advertisement

For example, it announced in June 2020 that the U.S. had officially entered a pandemic-induced recession months earlier, in February. It announced over a year later that the 2020 recession had ended in April after just two months, making it the shortest U.S. recession on record.

What happens in a recession? 

A shrinking economy can cause a cascade of stressful ripple effects, including lower employment, deteriorating stock market results and higher borrowing costs for consumers and companies, according to Fidelity.

For example, people may not want to spend as much, which can impact the businesses they would otherwise support, which can lead to layoffs and in turn harm companies’ performance in the stock market — further fueling the cycle.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told NPR last week that consumer confidence and discretionary spending were already on the decline. He said the possibility of even broader tariffs — which were announced the following day — could speed up the path to a recession.

“It’s the consumer that’s feeling the brunt of it first, and with good reason,” he said. “But … the way you get to recession is businesses see the weakening in their sales, and if they start laying off workers, then we’re done. We’re going into a recession.”

Advertisement

How rare are recessions?

 Various factors can jolt the economy into a recession, from unexpected events (like pandemics and wars) to asset bubbles bursting to excessive inflation or deflation.

The U.S. has experienced 34 recessions since 1857, according to NBER data.

They varied considerably in length, from two months (2020) to over five years (The Panic of 1873, which triggered the “Long Depression”).

Since World War II, the average length of a recession has been 11.1 months, according to the business publication Kiplinger. The post-WWII U.S. has averaged a recession every 6.5 years, it adds.

The longest post-WWII recession was the Great Recession, which spanned 18 months from December 2007 to June 2009 and was triggered when the U.S. housing bubble burst. The most recent was the brief COVID-19 recession in 2020. While the economy experienced two quarters of negative GDP growth in early 2022, fueling fears of a recession, NBER did not declare one.

Advertisement

Depressions are much more severe and rare: Merriam-Webster says they are characterized by widespread unemployment and major pauses in economic activity. NBER does not specifically identify depressions, but says the U.S. is generally regarded to have last experienced one in the 1930s.

News

California Candidates to Appear in First Major Debate After Swalwell

Published

on

California Candidates to Appear in First Major Debate After Swalwell

Candidates in California’s volatile race for governor will meet Wednesday night for the first televised debate since Eric Swalwell dropped out, each looking to seize momentum in the tight contest.

The debate, being held at the television studio of KRON4 in San Francisco, will include four Democrats and two Republicans who are tightly bunched in recent polls, with many voters still undecided less than six weeks before the June 2 primary.

Mr. Swalwell, a Democrat, had just begun to emerge as a Democratic front-runner when his campaign swiftly collapsed after he was accused of sexual assault in news reports on April 10.

Candidates have taken relatively few risks so far in debates around the state, but every candidate is now eyeing a chance to jump to the front of the pack.

“Even though we have seen some movement in the last couple of weeks, it continues to be a fairly crowded, fractured field,” said Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College. “So candidates need to be able to grab attention in a debate like this.”

Advertisement

The debate comes as Xavier Becerra, a Democrat and former California attorney general, has enjoyed a surge of support in polls since Mr. Swalwell dropped out of the race.

Mr. Becerra and Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose, did not originally meet the threshold to participate in Wednesday’s debate when Mr. Swalwell was running. But they both qualified after receiving enough support in a follow-up poll that debate organizers commissioned once Mr. Swalwell had dropped out.

The other Democrats scheduled to participate are Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, and Katie Porter, a former congresswoman, each of whom have been polling near the top of the Democratic field for several weeks. The Republicans in the debate are Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host who has been endorsed by President Trump, and Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County.

All candidates run on the same ballot in California’s nonpartisan primary, with the two who receive the most votes advancing to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. The large number of Democratic candidates has created fear among state party leaders that their voters could splinter, potentially allowing two Republicans to sweep the primary in this heavily Democratic state.

The odds of that happening have decreased since Mr. Swalwell dropped out and another Democrat, Betty Yee, withdrew on Monday. But Rusty Hicks, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, still believes there are too many Democrats in the race and has urged those lagging in polls to end their campaigns. (The actual ballot will include 61 candidates for governor, most of whom are completely unknown to voters.)

Advertisement

The messy race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cannot run for re-election because of term limits, has played out as the most unpredictable contest California has seen in a generation. It has attracted a sprawling field but no one with the star power of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or the political might of Mr. Newsom or former Gov. Jerry Brown.

Much of California’s Democratic establishment is still figuring out whom to back in the turbulent race.

Mr. Newsom has not endorsed anyone, saying he trusts voters to elect someone “who reflects the values and direction Californians believe in.” Representative Nancy Pelosi, the influential former House speaker from San Francisco, and Senator Alex Padilla also have not announced their favorites. Senator Adam Schiff endorsed Mr. Swalwell earlier this year but quickly withdrew his support after the accusations against him were published.

On Tuesday, Ms. Yee endorsed Mr. Steyer, praising his work to fight climate change and engage young voters. Mr. Steyer has swamped his competitors with a raft of advertising by pouring $134 million from his personal fortune into his campaign.

Also on Tuesday, Mr. Becerra, whose campaign had appeared to be flailing until Mr. Swalwell dropped out, received the endorsement of Robert Rivas, the Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly. Mr. Rivas said he had encouraged Mr. Becerra to run for governor because he was impressed by his work as California’s attorney general during President Trump’s first term.

Advertisement

“He understands both the policy and the politics,” Mr. Rivas said in an interview. “And he has a track record, in my opinion, of delivering results under pressure.”

The 90-minute debate on Wednesday begins at 7 p.m. PT and will be broadcast and streamed by KRON and other California stations.

Continue Reading

News

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Published

on

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Virginians approved a new congressional map on Tuesday that would aggressively gerrymander the state in the Democrats’ favor, giving the party as many as four more U.S. House seats.

The new map draws eight safely Democratic districts and two competitive districts that lean Democratic, according to a New York Times analysis of 2024 presidential results. It leaves just one safe Republican seat, compared with the five seats the G.O.P. holds on the current map.

The proposed map was drawn by Democratic state legislators and approved by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat. It eliminates three Republican-held seats in part by slicing the densely populated suburbs in Arlington and Fairfax Counties and reallocating their overwhelmingly Democratic voters into five congressional districts, some stretching more than a hundred miles into Republican areas.

Perhaps the most extreme new district is the Seventh, which begins at the Potomac River and stretches to the west and south in a manner that resembles a pair of lobster claws. Several well-known Virginia Democrats have already announced their candidacies and begun campaigning in the district.

Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Published

on

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks as FBI Director Kash Patel listens during a news conference at the Justice Department on Tuesday in Washington.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

WASHINGTON — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted Tuesday on federal fraud charges alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to pay informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

The Justice Department alleges the civil rights group defrauded donors by using their money to fund the very extremism it claimed to be fighting, with payments of at least $3 million between 2014 and 2023 to people affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, the United Klans of America, the National Socialist Party of America and other extremist groups.

“The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred,” Blanche said.

Advertisement

The civil rights group faces charges including wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case brought by the Justice Department in Alabama, where the organization is based.

The indictment came shortly after SPLC revealed the existence of a criminal investigation into its program to pay informants to infiltrate extremist groups and gather information on their activities. The group said the program was used to monitor threats of violence and the information was often shared with local and federal law enforcement.

SPLC CEO Bryan Fair said the organization “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work.”

Blanche said the money was passed from the center through two different bank accounts before being loaded onto prepaid cards to give to the members of the extremist groups, which also included the National Socialist Movement and the Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club. The group never disclosed to donors details of the informant program, he said.

“They’re required to under the laws associated with a nonprofit to have certain transparency and honesty in what they’re telling donors they’re going to spend money on and what their mission statement is and what they’re raising money doing,” he said.

Advertisement

The indictment includes details on at least nine unnamed informants were paid by the SPLC through a secret program that prosecutors say began in the 1980s. Within the SPLC, they were known as field sources or “the Fs,” according to the indictment. One informant was paid more than $1 million between 2014 and 2023 while affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the indictment said. Another was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America.

The SPLC said the program was kept quiet to protect the safety of informants.

“When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators, and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system,” Fair said. “There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives.”

The center has been targeted by Republicans

The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 1971 and used civil litigation to fight white supremacist groups. The nonprofit has become a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

The investigation could add to concerns that Trump’s Republican administration is using the Justice Department to go after conservative opponents and his critics. It follows a number of other investigations into Trump foes that have raised questions about whether the law enforcement agency has been turned into a political weapon.

Advertisement

The SPLC has faced intense criticism from conservatives, who have accused it of unfairly maligning right-wing organizations as extremist groups because of their viewpoints. The center regularly condemns Trump’s rhetoric and policies around voting rights, immigration and other issues.

The center came under fresh scrutiny after the assassination last year of conservative activist Charlie Kirk brought renewed attention to its characterization of the group that Kirk founded and led. The center included a section on that group, Turning Point USA, in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as “A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the agency was severing its relationship with the center, which had long provided law enforcement with research on hate crime and domestic extremism. Patel said the center had been turned into a “partisan smear machine,” and he accused it of defaming “mainstream Americans” with its “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

House Republicans hosted a hearing centered on the SPLC in December, saying it coordinated efforts with President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration “to target Christian and conservative Americans and deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech and free association.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending