Connect with us

News

Why Trump’s tariffs won’t last long

Published

on

Why Trump’s tariffs won’t last long

This article is an on-site version of Free Lunch newsletter. Premium subscribers can sign up here to get the newsletter delivered every Thursday and Sunday. Standard subscribers can upgrade to Premium here, or explore all FT newsletters

Welcome back. Two weeks ago, I outlined five optimistic scenarios for the global economy. The first was “Donald Trump dilutes his tariff plans”. Now that the US president has unveiled his historic package of import duties, I return to this idea. This week, I sought the argument for why US tariff rates won’t stay high for long. Here’s what I found.

First, the economic pain. In the near term, most forecasters expect Trump’s import duties to raise prices and slow economic activity. But the White House may have overestimated its ability to withstand political pressure as tariffs kick in.

Consumer sentiment is falling in anticipation of bad times ahead. But as the latest tariffs actually hit supply chains, it will plummet.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Advertisement

Durable goods and non durable items, such as food and clothing, account for 30 per cent of US household spending. These will, to varying degrees, be hit by higher duties. (One estimate suggests the price of an iPhone 16 Pro Max could jump from $1,599 to $2,300, if all tariff costs are passed on to consumers.)

Trump’s pre-April 2 tariffs were already pushing up manufacturers’ prices. Given the extent and scale of his latest blitz, inflation could rise higher and faster than anticipated. Blanket tariffs limit the ability of US suppliers to find cheaper alternatives quickly. Overall, Allianz Research expects around two-thirds of companies to pass on costs to consumers.

The non-price effects of Trump’s agenda are also piling up: so-called Department of Government Efficiency-linked lay-off announcements totalled more than 280,000 over the past two months, while existing tariffs and uncertainty are restraining hiring and investment plans.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

This builds on economic concerns before Trump came in. A reminder: prices have risen 20 per cent on average since the start of January 2021 (with the cheapest goods facing even higher inflation), and debt distress is rising in Republican states (which could be exacerbated if the US Federal Reserve keeps rates higher for longer to ward off tariff-linked inflation spirals). In all, Americans’ threshold for quick, further pain is lower than the president thinks.

The targeted approach trade partners are taking in their retaliation will worsen this. For instance, the EU is devising levies aimed at Republican-held states — including soyabeans in Louisiana, beef in Kansas and produce in Alabama — in response to Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs.

Advertisement

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

This matters because approval ratings track consumer sentiment closely, particularly for Republicans when Trump is in power. And political concerns were rising within the GOP even before the president’s “reciprocal” tariffs.

Data collated from YouGov by John Burn-Murdoch in the FT shows Trump’s economic approval among his non-Maga 2024 voters rapidly falling. Broader Republican consumer sentiment is now also at a turning point.

Since Trump unveiled his latest tariffs, discontent has spread. In the Senate, a largely symbolic resolution to overturn the tariffs against Canada was passed with Republican support on Wednesday. Later in the week, the FT reported a rift emerging between top Republicans on trade policy. GOP senator Ted Cruz (usually a staunch Trump supporter) also warned of a potential “bloodbath” for the Republicans at the November 2026 midterm elections.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Businesses may also become more vocal, at least in private, notes Marko Papic, chief strategist at BCA Research. “Existing US corporations — which employ Americans at a greater level than some theoretical manufacturing renaissance would — are going to face steep costs, and will lose business in foreign markets.”

Major S&P 500 tech, banking and industrial stocks have plunged. Apple experienced its biggest ever one-day valuation wipeout. The tech bros and big business networks will put pressure on contacts in the administration, and senior officials’ stock portfolios will suffer.

Advertisement

Small business owners, who employ almost half of the private sector workforce and are an important Republican constituent, are now also feeling less optimistic. Plans to end “de minimis” customs exemptions globally would be particularly painful for them.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

In financial markets, it will take something spectacular to shift Trump, given his flippancy about plunging stock prices so far.

“It’s a bit like asking a pyromaniac to put out a fire he started,” said Jonas Goltermann, deputy chief markets economist at Capital Economics. “There is a degree of pain, whether in equities or other markets, that would prompt some sort of a rethink. But it is further away than most thought.”

Could bond markets force him to change course? Right now US Treasury yields are falling, as investors still consider them safe haven assets. But in one tail-risk scenario, fiscal recklessness (for example, stimulus measures amid unreliable tariff revenue, Doge savings or growth projections), a rising term premium (given Trump’s unpredictability) and higher inflation or interest rate expectations (if high prices become entrenched) could fuel a sell-off event. “In that case, presumably [Scott] Bessent would have to try convince Trump that his approach is not tenable,” said Goltermann.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Advertisement

Either way, the cumulative pressure from households, business, markets and Republicans on Trump will mount even faster now tariffs are in full flow. Delays, exemptions and reductions are possible.

Could the administration soften the blow by expediting tax-cutting measures? Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation, is sceptical. He said plans to extend existing tax cuts may not be considered a gain by households. Nor would they cancel out the income hit from tariffs.

Watson added that the administration’s plans for additional tax cuts might help. But the $2.9tn Trump’s tariffs are estimated to raise will not even offset the extension of the expiring tax cuts. (Plus, tariff revenues are difficult to forecast.) “Timing is also a challenge, the negative impacts of the tariffs accrue now, while the tax package will take further time to pass and even longer to see bottom-line benefits.”

Even if we assume the president can brush aside the political pressure, there are other ways tariffs could come down.

Interim shortages might lead to some limited tariff reductions. “Any price spikes from tariff hikes in totemic items may trigger emergency moves to lower prices, doing that quickly almost always involves opening up to imports,” said Simon Evenett, professor at the IMD Business School, who points out that the administration is, ironically, trying to deal with the current egg shortage in part via trade.

Next, a partial rollback could be plausible if trade partners offer him sufficient concessions. Indeed, Trump has already shown a willingness to negotiate. Allianz Research’s baseline scenario is for several bilateral deals by the end of this year to reduce the US effective tariff rate by about 40 per cent.

Advertisement

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Then there’s the bigger picture. Trump hopes foreign investors will set up factories in America to avoid tariffs. Given the time and cost involved, a swift job and investment spurt that offsets domestic economic pain is unlikely. Global manufacturers don’t know how long tariffs will last, don’t like uncertainty and need reliable supply chains (domestic or international).

But the transition to America becoming a self-sufficient manufacturing hub is a costlier, more protracted and less desirable process than Trump thinks it is. The global goods industry is more interconnected and complex than it was in the late 19th century when the US had high tariffs for an extensive period. The opportunity cost of being behind a protectionist wall is far greater today (see last week’s newsletter).

International factory owners know this. Most could decide to sit it out, which would raise pressure on Trump. That also means US manufacturing is unlikely to grow to the point where reducing tariffs in the future is harder, as established, coddled industries tend to lobby to keep them.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Sure, levies could even go higher in the near term. But between the rapidly rising economic pain, political pressure and the president’s fondness for negotiations, there is perhaps a greater chance of tariffs coming down sooner than feared.

“He will certainly pay a political price if there is nothing to show at the end of all this chaos. And that is a real possibility,” said Maurice Obstfeld, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Advertisement

Indeed, even if Trump doesn’t bow to the pressure in his term, it’s hard to see how any subsequent administration could then justify keeping his levies in place.

How long do you think Trump’s tariffs will last? Send your thoughts to freelunch@ft.com or on X @tejparikh90.

Food for thought

After remaining constant for over three decades, productivity at US restaurants surged during the pandemic and has remained high. Why? A new NBER working paper suggests the rise of takeaway culture, aided by food-delivery apps, is the secret sauce.

Recommended newsletters for you

Trade Secrets — A must-read on the changing face of international trade and globalisation. Sign up here

Unhedged — Robert Armstrong dissects the most important market trends and discusses how Wall Street’s best minds respond to them. Sign up here

Advertisement

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