News
Here’s what happened on Wednesday.
President Trump took office 101 days ago after a campaign in which voters bought his argument that he could skillfully manage the economy and that his policy prescriptions could both bolster growth and eradicate inflation.
So the news on Wednesday that the nation’s gross domestic product had contracted in the first three months of the year was a sharp political jolt as well as a blinking economic warning.
It came at the end of a quarter in which stock prices were down sharply, Wall Street’s worst performance at the start of a new presidential term since Gerald R. Ford tried to steer the country out of scandal and inflation 51 years ago. And it only added to the widespread uncertainty among businesses and consumers about what the rest of the year might hold as Mr. Trump pursues a trade war that is already choking off supply chains and threatening to push prices up and lead to shortages of critical components and products on shelves.
It is too soon to predict where the American economy is headed for the rest of the year, and Mr. Trump remains insistent that he will produce a flurry of trade deals that will bring manufacturing back to the United States and usher in a new age of prosperity.
But the first-quarter figures brought the political risks for him into focus. For Mr. Trump, what is at stake is a question of fundamental competence on an issue that he has always used to define himself.
If the report proves to be a harbinger of an extended slowdown or recession, the situation could become the economic analog of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s fumbled withdrawal from Afghanistan four years ago this summer. Mr. Biden’s job approval ratings never recovered from that early debacle. Nothing he did later — not the millions of jobs created, not the big legislative victories, not the rapid response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — could restore the sense among voters that he could be trusted to carry out the job with the skill they assumed he brought to it.
Mr. Trump stood in the Rose Garden on April 2, what he called “liberation day,” and rolled out a broad and punitive set of tariffs on trading partners. He has promised that other countries will come begging for a deal to roll back those levies and other tariffs he has imposed.
A substantial number of Americans appear skeptical. In a New York Times/Siena College poll last week, 55 percent disapproved of Mr. Trump’s handling of the economy, with 43 percent approving. About half of voters disapproved of Mr. Trump’s handling of trade.
Some of Mr. Trump’s economic advisers now recognize that the timing and execution of his tariff announcements could prove to be colossal mistakes, even if they applaud the underlying strategy. That is why, every few days, they are announcing new exceptions, most recently to relieve the pain for American carmakers.
“On April 2, standing in arguably the most powerful place in the world, President Trump thought he was projecting American strength,” said Matthew P. Goodman, who runs the geoeconomics center at the Council on Foreign Relations and served under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “But he discovered that trade is complicated, that you need to be more surgical, and he has had to tack back from that ever since.”
Mr. Trump, the billionaire real estate investor, has acknowledged that his strategy will bring some temporary pain to Americans, but seemed to argue on Wednesday that it would hardly be noticed by ordinary Americans, at least at toy stores.
“Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know?” he said. “And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”
Whatever the cost of a Barbie, Mr. Trump is facing a fundamental timing problem. It will take years for the huge investments he predicts will flow into the United States to unfold and bring about the industrial renaissance he has promised. Building the most cutting-edge semiconductor fabrication plant, for example, can easily take five years.
“Those chips, those beautiful chips, make those suckers in the U.S.A.,” Mr. Trump said in the White House on Wednesday as he addressed executives and called out how much each had committed to spending on new facilities in the country.
It is too early to know how quickly those investments will take off, including Apple’s commitment, hailed again by Mr. Trump on Wednesday, to invest $500 billion, including a chunk of its manufacturing capability, in the United States over the next four years.
But the economic pain of the tariffs could start within months, with upward pressure on prices and shortages of both industrial and consumer products made abroad.
Much of Mr. Trump’s political problem lies in that disconnect. For many of the products Americans will be paying more for — especially Chinese-made products — there is no American alternative. And for many more, producing them in the United States may make no sense.
For all his downplaying of economic concerns, Mr. Trump is clearly sensitive to the prospect of being blamed for rising prices. When reports began to circulate this week that an Amazon subsidiary was thinking about posting the tariffs customers would be paying on every product, Mr. Trump called Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder, to complain.
Giving consumers a breakdown of how much tariffs are costing them, the White House said, would be a “hostile and political act.” Amazon quickly said it had never fully approved the plan, and that it would not go into effect.
But many business leaders are rattled by the environment, saying they have no way of projecting their earnings for the second quarter because the economic environment has never been more opaque.
“I keep telling them not to underestimate Donald Trump,” said David McIntosh, the president of the Club for Growth, the anti-tax advocacy group whose members almost unanimously cheered Mr. Trump’s return to office.
Mr. McIntosh said he is optimistic that Mr. Trump will be successful at negotiating down tariffs with Western-style democracies that rank among America’s biggest trading partners. “I run into a lot of executives who ask, ‘OK, how does Donald Trump do this?’ And my answer is to wrap their minds around ‘The Art of the Deal,’ that he is negotiator in chief.”
The way to calm the markets now, he said, is to “get Congress to get the tax cut bill done,” and to extend the tax cuts Mr. Trump got enacted in his first term.
Mr. McIntosh is pressing to expand that tax cut, specifically by permitting businesses to write off the cost of building new production facilities immediately, rather than depreciate those costs over decades.
Mr. Trump may score some early wins. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Tuesday that “we are very close on India.” He added that South Korea was “sending its A-team” to negotiate and that a deal was also possible soon with Japan. Mr. Trump said on Wednesday that Canada’s new prime minister, Mark Carney, had called him the day before and said “‘Let’s make a deal.’”
Perhaps so, but Mr. Carney also had this to say on Tuesday after winning the Canadian election: “Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over. The system of open global trade anchored by the United States, a system that Canada has relied on since the Second World War, a system that, while not perfect, has helped deliver prosperity for a country for decades, is over.”
Mr. Carney has vowed to reduce Canada’s dependence on its huge neighbor, no easy assignment since bilateral trade amounts to about a fifth of the country’s economy. China, the most powerful player in Mr. Trump’s trade wars, has been pursuing a similar strategy. And its leader, Xi Jinping, has every incentive to make the next few months as politically painful for Mr. Trump as possible.
Mr. Xi has largely maintained radio silence since Mr. Trump announced an escalating set of tariffs on Chinese goods, settling at 145 percent after several angry moves and countermoves with Beijing. That rate is so high that it essentially freezes trade; already there are reports of freighters loaded with goods that are being turned around, so that importers do not have to pay those tariffs.
Mr. Trump’s bet is that Mr. Xi will blink first because the pain for the Chinese economy will be so great that he will have to strike an accommodation that will, over time, allow the United States to get back to something approaching normal. Mr. Xi is betting the opposite: that Mr. Trump has overreached, and can’t withstand bad G.D.P. numbers, rising inflation or plummeting polls.
Only one of them is right.
News
Trump proposes painting executive office building white
President Trump has submitted plans plans to paint the Eisenhower Executive Office Building white to a group that advises on architecture in Washington, D.C.
The French Second Empire-style, slate-gray building houses office space for members of the president’s team, including the National Security Council.
The building sits across a driveway from the West Wing and was completed in 1888. The plans submitted by the president say that the Eisenhower Executive Office Building is an eyesore that has long been criticized and has fallen into disrepair since its completion. The plans say “the color, design, and massing of the existing structure does not align visually with the surrounding architecture and lacks any symbolic cohesion with the White House.” The plan points to examples of cracks and poor exterior maintenance and argues, “The benefit to painting the stone is that it is repeatable.”
“The inability to bring the stone facade back to a baseline color has plagued the maintenance of the [Executive Office Building] in the past, and and will continue to plague it if not addressed,” the plan says.
The plans included renderings of what the building would look like if it’s painted white.
The Executive Office of the President submitted a design proposal to the Commission of Fine Arts, a panel of Trump appointees who advise on public architecture and design in the nation’s capital.
The CFA will hear a presentation on the plan on April 16.
News
Women are getting most of the new jobs. What’s going on with men?
The Labor Department says the vast majority of new jobs created over the last year went to women, most of them in health care.
melitas
hide caption
toggle caption
melitas
In December 2016, as Donald Trump was headed to the White House for the first time, Betsey Stevenson offered the incoming president some economic advice.
Stevenson, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan, argued in an op-ed that it would be a disservice to encourage men “to cling to work that isn’t coming back.” She cited Trump’s promise to bring an iPhone factory to the U.S.
“If Trump really wants to get more Americans working,” she wrote at the time, “he’ll have to do something out of his comfort zone: make girly jobs appeal to manly men.”

It’s a message she believes is even more relevant today.
For decades, the focus has been on getting more women into male-dominated fields. Some efforts have been more successful than others. But now, with the vast majority of new jobs going to women, it’s clear that men need help, too.
“This is happening at a time where it’s become verboten to talk about diversity, equity and inclusion,” Stevenson says. “And yet the people we need to be talking about right now are men.”
17 times as many jobs filled by women
In the mid-1970s, women held about 40% of jobs in the U.S, not including farm work or self employment. By the early 2000s, women’s share of jobs had grown to just under half. It’s hovered around there since, crossing the 50% threshold just a few times, including during the Great Recession, just before COVID, and now.
That parity masks the significant gains women have recently made in the labor market. Of the 369,000 jobs the Labor Department says were created since the start of Trump’s second term, nearly all — 348,000 of them — went to women, with only 21,000 going to men. That’s nearly 17 times as many jobs filled by women as by men.
The lopsidedness was driven by huge growth in health care, where women hold nearly 80% of jobs. Over the past 12 months, health care alone added 390,000 jobs, more than in the economy overall, making up for job losses elsewhere.

“If we want to see job growth that’s as robust for men as it is for women, we’re going to have to see men embracing those kinds of jobs,” says Stevenson.
So far, that hasn’t happened in any meaningful way. Stevenson believes it’s because men are more likely than women to have an identity tied to a particular occupation, making it harder for them to find work outside that field, much less in one dominated by women.
Meanwhile, in his second term, Trump has not strayed from his message that manufacturing will make the country strong. It’s something he emphasized in his second inaugural address, declaring that “America will be a manufacturing nation once again,” and in his repeated promises that tariffs would “bring factories roaring back.”
When manufacturers added 15,000 jobs in March, the White House called it proof that “the best days for American workers, manufacturers, and families are still ahead,” despite the fact that the sector is still down 82,000 jobs from when Trump took office.
“We have seen a year of a president absolutely fixated [on] growing the manufacturing sector,” Stevenson says. “There’s not enough of those jobs for men as a whole to thrive.”
A push for policies to open doors for men
What’s happening now in the labor market comes as no surprise to Richard Reeves, president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, a nonpartisan think tank.
He says not enough attention has been paid to the scarcity of men in certain professions, and now we’re seeing the consequences.
“There is no cause for panic here,” says Reeves, who’s been studying the decades-long decline in labor force participation among men. “But I do think we should be alert to signs that the labor market might be moving even more quickly in directions that are leaving too many men behind.”
Reeves notes that for years, the country has embraced policies and programs aimed at getting more women into science, technology, engineering and math, and the share of women in STEM jobs has grown.
“But that didn’t happen by itself. It happened as a result of concerted efforts to break down gender stereotypes,” he says.
Still, gaps remain, and some of those efforts have seen their government funding cut under Trump.
Now Reeves says what’s needed are policies and programs to draw male workers into fields such as nursing, teaching and social work.
“Those are occupations that serve people, and they should look like the people that they serve,” he says. “And it’s good for men because it means they won’t lose out on those jobs if that’s where the growth is coming from.”
Framing jobs as more masculine
Stevenson has been thinking about ways to make the fastest-growing sectors of the economy more welcoming to men.
“I think there are ways for us to talk about those jobs as being particularly masculine,” she says.
For instance, many health care jobs could be framed as roles requiring the strength to lift people. Preschools could highlight the need for teachers who serve as positive male role models.
“Kids love to be rough and tumble and build things,” she says.
Stevenson knows some people will be offended by such gender stereotyping.
“But I do want to encourage us to realize that we have to help men understand that they can do caregiving roles and stay masculine,” she says.
Ongoing challenges for women and men
What Stevenson doesn’t want people to conclude is that everything is okay now that women are leading on jobs.
“We know that there is still discrimination that holds people back,” she says.

For women, she says, that discrimination might be preventing them from getting the promotion that they deserve, contributing to the widening gender pay gap. For men, it may mean sitting on the sidelines because they don’t think there’s a role for them in the economy.
“I think we can use this moment to realize that discrimination, occupational segregation… these are things that harm all of us, not just one narrow group,” she says.
News
Video: How Trump’s Advisers Felt About Going to War With Iran
new video loaded: How Trump’s Advisers Felt About Going to War With Iran
By Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, Christina Shaman, John Pappas and Ray Whitehouse
April 9, 2026
-
Atlanta, GA6 days ago1 teenage girl killed, another injured in shooting at Piedmont Park, police say
-
Education1 week agoVideo: YouTube’s C.E.O. on the Rise of Video and the Decline of Reading
-
Movie Reviews1 week agoVaazha 2 first half review: Hashir anchors a lively, chaos-filled teen tale
-
Georgia3 days agoGeorgia House Special Runoff Election 2026 Live Results
-
Education1 week agoVideo: Toy Testing with a Discerning Bodega Cat
-
Pennsylvania4 days agoParents charged after toddler injured by wolf at Pennsylvania zoo
-
Milwaukee, WI4 days agoPotawatomi Casino Hotel evacuated after fire breaks out in rooftop HVAC system
-
Entertainment1 week agoInside Ye’s first comeback show at SoFi Stadium
