Connect with us

Business

Amid economic chaos, some Republicans want control of tariffs back in Congress

Published

on

Amid economic chaos, some Republicans want control of tariffs back in Congress

As the fallout over President Trump’s tariffs continues to roil the world economy, a few Republicans in Congress have begun discussing how to curb the president’s ability to levy tariffs — taking a rare step to rein in the party leader.

Republican leaders have largely struck a “wait-and-see” attitude toward the tariffs, as well as with their continued effect on the plunging stock market and negative consumer sentiment. Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday that Congress would “weigh in on it, but with the president, with the administration in tandem.”

“I think you’ve got to give the president the latitude, the runway to do what it is he was elected to do, and that is to get the economy going again and get our trade properly balanced with other countries,” Johnson said.

But others in Congress — including a couple of California Republicans — don’t want to wait.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced a bill last week, alongside Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and other lawmakers of both parties, to reassert Congress’ authority and limit the president’s power over trade policy. The Trade Review Act of 2025 would require the president to notify Congress of any new tariffs within 48 hours, and to provide analysis and reason for their purpose. It also would allow Congress 60 days to review the tax.

Advertisement

“I’ve long expressed my view that congress has delegated too much authority on trade to the executive branch under Republican & Democrat presidents,” Grassley posted on X.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said Sunday that he would introduce a companion bill in the House, so it could advance in both chambers.

Support from Californians

Already, several Republican lawmakers — including California Rep. David Valadao, a Hanford Republican who holds the precarious swing seat in the 22nd Congressional District — suggested support for the legislation. Valadao said on News Nation on Sunday that he needed “to take a better look” at Bacon’s proposal, but it “is something that should be considered.”

“I’ve always been someone who supports giving power back to the Congress the way our founding fathers originally designed,” Valadao said. “And this is one of those powers that belongs in the Congress, and we should be looking at that in, I think, a very serious manner.”

Valadao represents an agriculturally rich swath of the Central Valley, home to acres of almond farms and lemon groves. The congressman said he’d heard from constituents on both sides of the tariffs debate — those whose exports are receiving a stiff reception from other countries, and those who wished for higher tariffs on competing industries. As a dairy farmer himself, Valadao said he used to lobby lawmakers for tariffs against countries whose labor standards or regulations differed from the U.S., making it harder for American companies to compete.

Advertisement

“They’re competing with me at the grocery store shelf, and it was frustrating,” Valadao said. “I think [tariffs] should be used as a tool to get to a level playing field.”

Other support for the legislation trickled in Monday, as markets continued to drop and bankers talked of a looming recession. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) said Monday on Fox Business that she wants “to give the president time” to see the effect of tariffs. But, she acknowledged, “Being able to have input on these tariffs is extremely important.”

A spokesperson for Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills), who represents another swing congressional district in California, said the representative was “encouraged” by news from the White House that countries have been lining up to negotiate relief from the tariffs.

“Rep. Kim knows the importance of free trade for Southern California’s economy and believes we can strengthen U.S. industries while promoting free trade with like-minded allies and partners,” spokesperson Callie Strock said in a statement. “While tariffs can be a strategic tool, Rep. Kim is concerned about the impact long-term tariffs can have on families and small businesses already hurting from high taxes and living costs.”

Another California Republican, Rep. Tom McClintock, posted on X last week, “Our trade objective must be: ZERO tariffs, ZERO subsidies and ZERO non-tariff barriers. Tariffs always harm whatever country imposes them. Their only justification is to leverage trading partners to adopt free trade agreements. I hope this is where the President is going.”

Advertisement

Asked about the Elk Grove representative’s comments, spokesperson Jennifer Cressy said “his views have not changed” since 2018, when McClintock railed against tariffs in a House floor speech.

“There is no more perfect way to turn abundance into scarcity than by levying a tariff on imports,” McClintock said at the time. “Remember, every producer in a society is also a consumer. No consumer benefits from higher prices and no producer benefits from scarcer materials. Every country that has tried protectionism has suffered terribly, including ours.”

Despite the grumbling in Congress, Trump forged ahead. He ratcheted up the trade war with a post Monday on his website, threatening more strikes against China — the world’s largest trading nation, which retaliated against Trump’s 34% tariff last week by issuing its own 34% tariff against the U.S. The White House also indicated that the president would veto a bill restricting his power over tariffs, if it passed, according to Politico.

Are Trump’s tariffs constitutional?

The Constitution gives Congress the power over taxes, duties, imports and exports — including “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

But over the years, Congress has given the executive branch more leeway over foreign trade, beginning with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act in 1934. That allowed the president to make certain changes to tariffs without Congress’ approval, noted legal expert and Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson.

Advertisement

“When you look at an executive order in this area, it’s really a question of whether or not what the president is doing falls within the scope of one of these statutes where Congress has basically thrown the ball to the executive branch,” Levinson said.

Already, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonprofit legal group that challenges administrative overreach, has filed a complaint alleging that the tariffs are unconstitutional. Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to issue tariffs, a move the New Civil Liberties Alliance claimed is not permitted under the statute.

Bacon agreed on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that Trump’s announcement was not a true exercise of emergency powers but a change in tariff policy.

“This is where Congress has to step in and say, do we really want to create this new policy on tariffs?” Bacon said. “And if it is, it should come from Congress, and not the president.”

Another bill, introduced in the Senate last week by Virginia Democrats, would in effect stop U.S. tariffs on Canada — which Trump enacted by declaring a national emergency over the fentanyl crisis — by ending the national emergency.

Advertisement

Josh Robbins, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, said an additional legal problem with the president’s tariffs is that Congress was wrong in handing over its tax authority to the executive branch.

“Congress has unconstitutionally given up way too much of its authority … to the president in a statute that really doesn’t have any guardrails on how he can regulate foreign commerce once he declares an emergency,” Robbins said.

During Trump’s first term in office, when he invoked steel tariffs, there was a bipartisan effort in Congress to rein in the president’s power, which ultimately did not pass.

Advertisement

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Published

on

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.

Advertisement

What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.

But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.

Advertisement

The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.

Advertisement

How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments

To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.

Advertisement

The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.

In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.

In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.

Advertisement

Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.

Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.

Advertisement

Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.

Advertisement

How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies

With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.

Advertisement

The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.

The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.

Advertisement

The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.

One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.

Advertisement

Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.

And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending