Economy

Supporters of President Donald Trump want to know where their money is.

It has been a little over a year since he's been in office, and MAGA is questioning why he hasn't solved the affordability crisis.

Bloomberg News spoke to conservatives at a conservative conference over the weekend, where no one with the last name of "Trump" even spoke.

One of the gathering spots at the Conservative Political Action Conference is the wag and merch section, where supporters can buy conservative fashions. One such item cited by the report was a "Make America Sparkle Again" jacket that is completely sequined. It was being sold for $500. But a lot of folks simply didn't have that kind of money.

Even one vendor selling pro-Trump items like flags with Trump dressed as Rambo is upset about Trump's economy.

“I actually think [the White House] should do better,” Elaine Juezan said. “I’ve seen the market go up and down, and I want to help people get homes, but it’s so difficult when the rates are not going down.”

“Things are very tough right now, so I would love to see some more progress,” said Max Ballat, who paid to attend and flew in from San Francisco.

Trump has not only failed to address affordability, but he has even gone so far as to call it an invention by the left.

"The word 'affordability' is a con job by the Democrats," Trump said at the end of last year.

While many would have used the gathering to rally the MAGA loyalists, they recycled old social issues.

Trump's claim is that he's done so much to help Americans, particularly with his new website Trump RX, that offers some lower costs for prescription drugs while delivering little help to others.

Trump appeared to learn the word "groceries" during his 2024 campaign, when he promised that rising food costs would be addressed immediately. Some costs have gone down, but others have gone up. Gas prices reached over $4 per gallon.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner sang Trump's praises about the housing affordability crisis, but the cost of housing hasn't gone down. Instead, they continue to increase, year-over-year.

“Our work is bearing much fruit,” Turner said. “We want to help future generations have the same opportunities to achieve the American Dream that their parents and grandparents had. The stakes are very high.”

“What word have you not heard over the last two weeks? Affordability. Because I’ve won. I’ve won affordability,” Trump claimed in Georgia last month.

It's not a sentiment shared by Americans, however. A YouGov-Market Watch poll conducted in late February showing a whopping 80 percent of Americans say that the affordability crisis under Trump hasn't improved. In fact, nearly half (47 percent) say things have gotten worse.

CPAC Chair Matt Schlapp explained that the problem is really all in messaging. He encouraged Republicans to do a better job of convincing voters that everything is fine.

“We still have to win the argument that things are going to get better, and that weighs heavy on the administration’s shoulders,” Schlapp said in an interview with Bloomberg.

Other Republicans, like Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) promise that people will get huge tax returns this year because their cuts to corporations and the wealthy will trickle down.

President Donald Trump meddled in the free market during his first term and created a “dumb industrial policy” that he is only now starting to fix, according to a prominent conservative newspaper.

In a Monday evening editorial, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board claimed telecom mogul Charlie Ergen had been rescued by a regulatory system he once tried to “jury rig.” In 2019 Trump forced T-Mobile and Sprint to sell spectrum and wireless assets to Ergen's Dish network as a condition of permitting their merger. While the purpose of this policy was to create additional competition in the 5G market place, Ergen never built a 5G network, and under President Joe Biden the FCC extended deadlines even as Ergen donated $100,000 to a Biden Super PAC.

Yet because President Trump pressured FCC Chair Brendan Carr to allow Ergen to sell some of his unprofitable licenses rather than have them reclaimed by the FCC, Ergen has been able to strike deals that may ultimately create that fourth wireless competitor which regulators were unable to artificially engineer.

"This is a tale of dumb industrial policy that might end well despite government planners,” the Board opined, slamming Trump’s original meddling in the process. "The original sin was the first Trump DOJ’s attempt to jury-rig a fourth competitor. One political intervention invariably begets more."

On another occasion, the Board pointedly concluded that "that's what happens when politicians and regulators try to manage markets."

The Wall Street Journal, though generally supportive of Trump, has recently pointed criticisms his way on a variety of issues. Earlier in March, it urged Trump to abandon the SAVE America Act, which Trump is pushing in the hope of retaining control of Congress during the 2026 midterm elections.

“The decentralized nature of American elections is a source of resilience, and Republicans rightly opposed President Biden’s attempt to federalize voting rules on the lax California model,” wrote the Journal. “Have they given up federalist principle? If 51 Senate votes are all it takes to limit mail ballots across the country and require voter ID, Democrats next time will use 51 votes to mandate ballot harvesting and ban voter ID.”

The Journal also disputed Trump’s claim that “voter fraud is endemic.”

“Audits in a variety of places—Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Utah, Idaho—have found noncitizen voting and registration to be rare,” the Journal said. “Other states might be worse, but consider incentives: Illegal immigrants who want to stay are trying to avoid being noticed by the authorities. Green card holders have much to lose if they commit a crime. Prosecuting violators is good for deterrence, and vigilance is important.”

Also in March the Journal argued that Trump’s tariffs have been a lag on the US economy.

“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,” the Journal pointed out. “Consider it our contribution to easing everyone’s economic anxiety.”

Finally, in March the Journal ran an editorial by columnist William A. Galston argued that the Iran war has “backfired” against the president.

“When the current war began, public support was lower than for any other major conflict undertaken in nearly a century,” Galston wrote. “Before attacking Iran, however, Mr. Trump offered only a cursory rationale to Congress and the American people. The need for surprise might conceivably have justified his near-silence on such a grave matter.”

He added, “But there is no justification for his failure to offer a systematic and sustained case for the war once it began,” concluding that a war with a roughly 39 percent approval rating has “backfired” on the president who waged it.

“The American people don’t think that the president has clearly explained the goals of the war, and the share who think he has done so is smaller today than it was at the beginning,” Galston argued. “Americans have concluded that the war will weaken the economy and leave the country less safe. They believe that it is a war of choice, not necessity, and that it is going badly. And despite the administration’s call for short-term sacrifice, people reject paying more for gasoline as their patriotic duty by a margin of 2 to 1.”

Jim Paulsen, a veteran economist and former chief investment strategist for the Leuthold Group (a Minneapolis-based investment research company), is known for operating the Walmart Recession Signal. The WRS is used to measure the economy's well being, and according to Business Insider's Jennifer Sor, a recent WRS reading indicates that a recession is a strong possibility.

Sor, in an article published on March 30, notes that the WRS "measures Walmart's stock price against a basket of luxury stocks."

"The general idea is that the higher the gauge goes," Sor explains, "the more risk there is of a sharp economic downturn…. The WRS is the highest since the Global Financial Crisis nearly two decades ago…. The logic behind the recession signal is that, as the economy slows, more shoppers shift away from luxury businesses to budget retailers like Walmart. That means a rise in the Walmart Recession Signal could hint that a downturn or a 'significant economic slowdown' is on the way, Paulsen said of the indicator."

Sor continues, "Walmart, which has long served as a marker for U.S. consumer health, has crushed it in the past year, with its stock up 40 percent over the last 12 months. It's gotten a boost from consumers looking to save money as inflation worries have mounted."

According to Sor, Paulsen's WRS gave a danger signal before the last four economic downturns. And in 2026, the WRS has "climbed about 28 basis points, likely due to economic anxiety surrounding the Iran war," Sor reports.

Paulsen told Business Insider, "The WRS is increasingly advising caution about the U.S. economy. My guess is the economy avoids a recession this year, but I am becoming more convinced that a significant U.S. economic slowdown is unfolding. ... My guess is the WRS is pointing to a significant weakening in real economic activity, which could become more obvious during the next several months."

In May 2023, I received a surprise phone call from a top Target executive. It was after the close of business, so I knew it was serious.

“I wanted to give you a heads up,” the executive said. “Tomorrow, we will be announcing that we will be pulling from Target stores some items from our annual LGBTQ+ Pride collection.”

Target, the official said, had been receiving threats from people who objected to the merchandise. Right-wing groups especially objected to apparel made by UK-based artist Abprallen, whom they accused of promoting Satanism. The products in question: outer-space-themed messenger bags and a sweatshirt reading “cure transphobia.”

For the second time in two weeks, Target panicked about a supposed security issue.

Just a few days prior, CEO Brian Cornell unexpectedly warned that rampant shoplifting could force Target to close stores. In effect, Cornell endorsed a right-wing narrative gaining traction at the time, that liberal mayors in pandemic-scarred cities were allowing crime to run unchecked. And now businesses were suffering the consequences.

“Safety of our guests and employees are our top priorities,” he said. “We will do everything in our power to keep our stores open.”

But pulling the Pride merchandise felt more consequential. The retailer was a long-time ally of the LGBTQ+ community. And destocking socially-conscious products at the last minute from nearly 2,000 stores across the country attracts attention.

Unfortunately, Target’s cold feet was not an anomaly. It was an early sign that, under pressure, Target was beginning to respond to instability by amplifying it rather than by reinforcing its own identity.

Amid President Trump’s attacks on wokeness, the company last year quickly pulled back its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, many of which Target instituted after the fatal police shooting of George Floyd in 2020.

Earlier this year, Target failed to say anything during Operation Metro Surge, even after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested two of its employees in a Richfield store. Only after a Border Patrol agent killed Alex Pretti in January did the company eventually sign on to a milquetoast letter issued by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.

Target did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

How did Target, whose business model has long depended on the very progressive business values that it has now repudiated, crack so easily under pressure?

The deeper problem was not politics, crime, or even Donald Trump.

Target simply lost its nerve.

Pressured by a cascade of events — the pandemic, social unrest, inflation, and hyper-partisanship — the company began chasing stability instead of protecting continuity — the cultural identity that made the company successful in the first place.

Target is what industry folks call an “aspirational” retailer. The company pioneered the idea of “cheap chic,” that people with modest means could still buy fashionable merchandise, whether clothes or home accessories, created by talented, top tier designers. Its shoppers perhaps can’t afford Louis Vuitton handbags, but they can aspire to a higher-end lifestyle by purchasing cheaper stuff made by Jason Wu or Michael Graves.

But aspiration is fragile. It depends on a baseline level of stability and optimism — the sense that life is improving, not unraveling. Warning your customers that shoplifting gangs and gay-hating extremists are overrunning your stores probably doesn’t help. Neither does backtracking on inclusive values that have generated billions of dollars in profits in the past. In that sense, Target’s efforts to project control only weakened the conditions that made its brand work.

“There were a lot of self-inflicted wounds, which stemmed from lack of consistency and clarity and coming off as being very wishy-washy on some of its core values that turned out to really matter to their employees and shoppers,” said Carol Spieckerman, president of Spieckerman Retail consulting firm. “They went on a defensive position. And defensiveness is antithetical to aspiration.”

Walmart, on the other hand, is the model for peak stability. Its simple but effective “Every Day Low Prices” plays well whether the world is sunny or coming apart. We may have civil unrest and even war, but you could still count on Walmart to sell the lowest-price stuff.

Of course, neither Target nor Walmart can control such external events. But companies can certainly control how they respond to them. And what makes Target stand out is how, in its quest for stability, the company so completely and decisively retreated from its own history.

Daytons choose growth

In a way, Target was specifically created to avoid stability.

The five grandsons of Dayton’s department store founder George Dayton — Ken, Wally, Donald, Bruce and Douglas Dayton — wanted to create something of their own rather than rely on an inheritance.

They didn’t want to fight over who ran Dayton’s. Growth and profits, not stability, were key to establishing familial peace. So, they founded Target in 1962.

“Though they managed well together, one department store was not big enough for five of them,” Bruce Dayton wrote in his corporate history of Target. “For both financial and take-charge reasons, they wanted to make a bigger pie, perhaps several pies. Working together on a broader, deeper playing field, they could make the most of the opportunity their father had provided.”

“Next, the brothers decided, they were paying too high a price for harmony, for not rocking the boat,” Dayton continued. “They decided that profit, not harmony, would be the goal. Profit would produce family harmony in the long run; conversely, a lack of profit would produce disharmony among the families.”

I first encountered this philosophy while researching my book “Rebuilding Empires,” which examined how companies like Target and Best Buy adapted to disruption.

Target’s decision to meld the sensibility of a department store — which usually attracts higher-end middle-class shoppers — with a discount format was a unique and winning formula.

Its stores were known for being bright, neat and clean, a stark contrast with the messy and cluttered shelves of discounters and even some department stores.

In 1999, Target upped the ante by introducing a limited-edition collection of home furnishings by designer Michael Graves. This launched Target’s now-trademark strategy of collaborating with designers like Missoni, Lilly Pulitzer, Isaac Mizrahi, Phillip Lim, Proenza Schouler, Rodarte, Anna Sui and Jason Wu.

Target became not just a place that sold goods but a cultural authority on its own. The discounter opened pop-up stores at New York’s Fashion Week and produced music videos that aired during the Grammy Awards. Target evolved into a brand itself.

But being a forward-looking curator of taste requires confidence. It also requires a kind of inclusive progressivism that Target had enthusiastically embraced, if not in name but in practice.

“Target started a really strong multicultural strategy that lasted until COVID started,” said DeAnn Campbell, a consultant with Rethink Retail. “And it was kind of an industry-leading template where they made a deliberate sustained investment in multicultural marketing and not just talking the talk but walking the talk.”

But Target’s confidence and progressivism started to waver during the COVID pandemic. That erosion of confidence would prove central to the company’s larger break from continuity.

COVID problems

Target has weathered crises before. In 2011, its website spectacularly crashed during the rollout of its Missoni collection. The retailer’s high-profile collaboration with Neiman Marcus fell flat. And in 2015, Target pulled out of Canada, the first time it tried to expand into another country; the debacle ultimately cost it more than $2 billion.

But in each case, it was the result of Target not executing on its own plan.

COVID and the political divisions that accompanied the pandemic were not of Target’s doing, instead reflecting economic and cultural disorder. And to function, an aspirational retailer like Target needs a sense of cultural optimism.The company excels when times are good. Not so much when the country is angry and divided.

“Target is at its best is when they have a clean sense of who they are and what they want to deliver,” Alicia Hare, a former top Target strategy executive, told me. “When companies are disrupted like Target, the No. 1 emotion is fear. Fear creates a lot of different behaviors. If you don’t have the sense of purpose, there is no focus. It’s hard to decide whether we should go left or right.”

Target’s retreat began in the early part of 2023. At the time, retailers were struggling to get people back into stores after the pandemic officially ended.

Downtown areas were particularly hard hit as employees either continued to work remotely or visited the office two or three times a week. Shoplifting also prompted chains like Target, Walgreens and CVS to start placing everyday items like shampoo, toothpaste and deodorant behind locked cases.

At the same time, inflation soared, as manufacturers struggled to ramp up supply chains hit hard by the pandemic. These conditions exposed and exacerbated Target’s historic weakness: inventory control.

Target tends to order fewer products than other mass merchandisers for a couple of reasons. Like Apple, the company focuses more on profits versus raw sales growth. Carrying more inventory runs the risk that the retailer might have to cut prices to move unsold merchandise, which destroys profit margins.

Target also likes to keep its stores neat, sparse and clean, which means it greatly dislikes cluttered, messy shelves. As a result, the retailer has an unfortunate reputation for running out of merchandise, even everyday grocery items like milk and bread.

By the time Brian Cornell started to complain about shoplifting that May, the company’s sales at stores open for at least a year (same store sales) — a key metric for retailers — were anemic.

Amid rising prices, consumers tend to cut back on discretionary purchases like clothing and home accessories — Target’s core strength — and focus on necessities like groceries, products the retailer struggles to keep stocked.

“The stores looked bleak because the shelves are empty,” Campbell said. “And with higher prices from inflation and high tariffs on imports, shoppers are really not very willing or able to buy those impulse items that were a staple of their business model.”

Analysts suspect that Cornell scapegoated crime to avoid responsibility.

Still, his threat to close stores and disclose financial losses from shoplifting felt, well, excessive. After all, Target’s numbers at that moment weren’t great, but they weren’t that bad.

“I don’t think anybody really expected that from Target,” Spieckerman said. “But to me, frankly, it did come from the top down. Cornell felt vulnerable. There’s really no other explanation for it.”

Weird messaging: criminals and extremists are laying siege to our stores.

As it turns out, Cornell’s warnings over rampant shoplifting and homophobic extremists were an overreaction at best. Target never again talked about crime in detail when discussing financial results. And while the company, like many other retailers, has had to close stores over the past three years, Target never said the reason was shoplifting.

The executive who informed me about pulling Pride products insisted at the time that the decision was meant to protect store employees and customers. But the person declined to say whether Target contacted the FBI or even the police.

People also seemed to forget that Walmart sells plenty of Pride merchandise but didn’t warn about extremist attacks.

In June 2023, a group of top state law enforcement officials, including those in New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota, released a letter criticizing Cornell, suggesting Target had not even bothered to contact them about providing extra security to stores before withdrawing the products.

“If Target again finds itself facing anti-LGBTQIA+ harassment — whether of customers or employees — store management or the corporate office are encouraged to reach out to our offices,” the letter read. “We are ready, willing, and able to work with you in the spirit of progress, inclusivity, and equality.”

Political controversy rarely impacts financial results of a major corporation in any meaningful way. But in Target’s case, the company was nourishing a monster it had created.

For one thing, Target’s aspirational strategy depends on consumers visiting its stores because they are bright, fun and hopeful. Otherwise, they might as well just shop online.

But in just two weeks, the retailer painted a picture of criminals and extremists laying siege to its stores. That image certainly didn’t help its sales struggles. It also reinforced the larger pattern: Under stress, Target was no longer defining confidence but broadcasting fear.

“These stumbles tarnished the brand,” said Gerald Storch, a former vice-chairman of Target who also served as CEO of Toys R Us and Hudson’s Bay. “The issues were handled poorly.”

For 2023, Target said same-store sales fell a sharp 3.7%. The company recovered a bit the following year with a minuscule 0.1% gain. But in 2025, same-store sales dropped 2.6%.

Onlines sales were still growing but people weren’t visiting or shopping at its stores.

Target didn’t just make a series of missteps. It responded to pressure in a fundamentally different way than it had in the past — not by defining itself, but by retreating from itself.

“Target is totally off track,” Storch said. “They lost their direction. They don’t remember who they are anymore.”

When Donald Trump assumed the presidency in January 2025, he immediately started to attack DEI programs at corporations, universities and law firms, among other institutions.

Target was especially vulnerable given the company’s reliance on foreign goods and Trump’s penchant for using tariffs as a cudgel. He didn’t specifically mention Target, but the retailer heard the message loud and clear. The company quickly ended DEI goals, the Racial Equity Action and Change program and stopped participation in external surveys like the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index.

Target’s swift retreat from DEI stunned supporters, still reeling after the retailer pulled items from its Pride collection. In addition, the company launched many of these DEI programs after George Floyd’s killing in 2020.

The decision fit a pattern. Each time pressure mounted — crime fears, political backlash, social unrest — Target did not defend its identity. It retreated from it.

Burt Flickinger, managing director of New York-based Strategic Resources Group consulting firm, said Target’s fragility directly reflects its board of directors, which remains overwhelmingly white and male.

“Target is a narcissistic, self-absorbed chain store organization that has failed to recruit best-in-class talent,” Flickinger said. “They have one Latina director, no African American women, and no Asian women. I can’t find any LGBTQ people. It’s a board that doesn’t represent the customer base. They’ve got too many consultants. They forced out too many of the best and brightest women. The board has low to no term limits and low to no accountability.”

“It’s a completely rudderless group that’s leading the company,” he said.

What confused many observers is that Target’s DEI programs weren’t just symbolic gestures but essential to its identity as an aspirational retailer — one that promised people of all cultures and backgrounds affordable access to style and joy.

“They diversified their vendor base,” Campbell said. “They created multicultural agencies. They built product assortments. They invested in the gay community, not just with products and signs, but also supporting the community year-round. And that really translated into sales. They outperformed Walmart in multicultural consumer business for a sustained period. And that became part of their business strategy.”

The Dayton brothers believed growth would define Target. So, while many retailers focus on squeezing their core consumers, Target long distinguished itself by expanding the customer base itself — especially among Hispanic/Latino shoppers, Asians, women and younger urban consumers, including college students and Millennials.

In other words, inclusion wasn’t separate from the business model. It was the business model.

A year later, Target was again affected by the White House agenda. Trump, who vowed to crack down on illegal immigration, sent thousands of ICE agents into the Twin Cities as part of Operation Metro Surge.

The result was the arrest and detention of U.S. citizens, Native Americans, refugees, and legal immigrants awaiting status as agents swept through schools, homes and businesses. ICE agents also shot and killed Rene Good and Alex Pretti, two white U.S. citizens who were observing their operations.

After agents detained and later released two U.S. citizen employees at a Richfield Target store, activists protested at Target headquarters, demanding the retailer prohibit ICE agents from entering stores.

Target did not publicly comment on this incident, another example of the company’s incoherent message. After all, this was the company that loudly proclaimed protecting employees and customers was its top priority when it spoke about shoplifting and pulling Pride products off its shelves.

The silence reinforced a growing perception: Target was no longer leading with values, only reacting to events — or, in this case, reacting with silence.

Recovering delight

Today, Target sits at a crossroads. The company hasn’t grown annual sales in three consecutive fiscal years, a stunning fall for a retailer long synonymous with profitable growth. The retailer had previously achieved 61 straight years of annual sales increases from its founding in 1962 until 2023.

Those weak sales have had real consequences, especially in the Twin Cities. Last year, the retailer eliminated nearly 2,000 employees from its corporate headquarters, its first major layoffs in a decade.

The company named Michael Fiddelke CEO and moved Cornell to executive chairman. In his first public remarks as CEO, Fiddelke suggested Target return to its roots as an aspirational retailer, repeatedly using the word “delight.”

The company plans to spend $5 billion this year alone to remodel stores, update technology, and train store employees. Analysts say consumers tend to have short memories and that Target loyalists will eventually return to stores.

But Target’s challenge is not operational. It is philosophical.

Lots of companies retreat when the economy turns bad or when politics get rough. But Target specifically built its growth on aspiration tied to inclusion and cultural confidence. Once that identity weakened, the business model weakened with it.

Target was built to delight.

But when outside pressure came, it revealed something more troubling: it was never built to endure.

President Donald Trump’s war in Iran is hurting farm workers who are already vulnerable because of his tariffs — and a new report sketches out the details with vivid portraits of those suffering because of MAGA politics.

“The vice president of operations at Sequoia Nut Co. had shipped 15 containers of almonds, walnuts and pistachios from the Port of Long Beach, and he wasn’t exactly sure where they were on the high seas,” wrote the Los Angeles Times’ Laurence Darmiento. “Their destination was Dubai’s Port of Jebel Ali, a major trading hub, but the jets, missiles and rockets crisscrossing Middle Eastern skies had diverted one ship to the Netherlands and another to Algeria.”

He added, “Finally, the remainder of the 300 tons of California nuts worth $1.7 million was offloaded at the Port of Fujairah, also in the United Arab Emirates but on the Gulf of Oman, a bit farther from the fighting. Now, shipping costs to the region have tripled to $7,500 per container, and Hundal is uncertain when the Tulare County company will get its money.”

The Times reported that California's agricultural sector is struggling to adapt to the Iran war because it simultaneously cut off key Middle Eastern export markets and drove up the cost of essential farm inputs such as fertilizer and diesel fuel, which now averages $7.26 per gallon in California.

"This is different than anything we've experienced before, in that it is not occurring in a single market, and that it is something that is a critical input to growers around the world,” Darmiento quoted Veronica Nigh of the Fertilizer Institute.

American Farm Bureau economist Faith Parum offered an even bleaker analysis.

"How do we make sure that we keep farmers in business?” Parum asked. “Because it is a matter of national security and food security."

Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom, bluntly stated that the state’s farmers are suffering because of Trump’s Iran war.

“California farmers are getting hit twice with higher fertilizer costs and higher fuel costs,” Gallegos said. “Every American will wind up paying for that at the grocery store because these commodities are priced globally.”

Darmiento reported, “Parum noted that farmers who plant crops such as corn, soy, rice and cotton have experienced nationwide losses of $90 billion since 2023. Key ingredients for some fertilizers come from the oil-and-gas-rich Middle East, where the war has unsettled markets and supply chains.”

He added, “Already there are reports that some fertilizers are up by a third or more in price. The rise is taking place in California and across the U.S. even though the country produces the majority of its nitrogen-based fertilizers, which are critical to improving crop yields.”

The Times is not the first outlet to report a link between the Iran war and increased suffering for agricultural workers. Earlier in March MS NOW anchor Katy Tur pointed out that when it comes to the war in Iran, the problem for farmer is “not just gas. The price of fertilizer is also climbing amid the US war with Iran, driving up costs for American farmers just before spring planting season, when fertilizer is needed most.” According to one farmer interviewed by Georgia News Channel 11Alive, “There's been some predictions that fertilizer will go up another $100 a ton on top of losing money as it is. It's really sad that that the farming has got to the point where we're losing money to even to even be doing it. And, and then with things going on like it is, there's so much uncertainty.”

Farmers have also been devastated by Trump’s tariffs, which have impacted farmers’ goods more than many other American industries.

"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 about the tariffs, which the Supreme Court ruled were collected illegally and should be reimbursed. “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.”

Colin Woodall, head of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, similarly stated that “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.”

President Donald Trump’s tax policies are failing for a number of reasons, an expert argued on Sunday — and this expert, like so many others slamming Trump’s tax policies, is nonpartisan.

“President Trump has spent much of his time in office boasting about new carveouts he's enacted, like new deductions for tips, overtime, auto loans and seniors,” wrote Garrett Watson, director of Policy Analysis at the Tax Foundation, for The Hill on Sunday. Wilson conceded that these benefit some Americans, but argued those benefits are offset by how the same policies “narrow the tax base in arbitrary ways and worsen the deficit.”

Wilson added that these tax cuts cause new administration burdens, as "each new deduction comes with definitions, income limits, phaseouts and reporting rules.” Trump’s tax chaos is further compounded by his tariff policies, which Wilson characterizes as Trump thinking tariffs are “the golden ticket to our revenue problems.” In fact, Wilson pointed out that tariffs do not bring anywhere near the revenue that Trump says they will, but instead hurt ordinary families by causing "higher prices, lower wages and smaller profits" and "threaten[ing] to offset much of the growth and income gains from the 2025 tax cuts."

Wilson ultimately concluded that "a simpler code and an honest accounting of the nation's finances would do more for working families than another round of tariff fights and tax complexity."

Trump has repeatedly come under fire for his handling of taxes and tariffs. Earlier this month, lawyer Ray Brescie wrote for MS Now that the Court of International Trade’s Judge Richard Eaton has become an “unlikely hero” of the Trump era by demanding that the president return billions in illegally collected tariffs from the levies he imposed at the start of his second term.

“While one might think this was a recipe for mischief, an unlikely hero has arisen, Judge Richard Eaton of that court, who appears to be holding the administration’s feet to the fire and does not appear like he is about to tolerate many shenanigans should the administration seek to drag those feet in an effort to evade the law,” Brescia explained, citing when he ordered “Customs and Border Protection to refund the illegal tariffs paid by American companies. At a time when lawyers and judges gravitate toward complex reasoning, obscuring jargon and legal briefs and opinions that seemingly go on forever, Eaton has taught a masterclass in simple, concise and clear language.”

Andrew Egger and William Kristol of the center-right publication The Bulwark also condemned Trump for demanding $10 billion from taxpayers as compensation for being prosecuted for his alleged crimes while president. First they said it was hypocritical for Trump to justify it by saying that “nobody cares how much [I pay myself] if it goes to a good charity,” even though Trump has slashed hundreds of billions in social welfare programs that people voted for. Second, Egger pointed out that “Trump had been using his personal charity, it came to light after a lawsuit from the state of New York, to pay his business debts, make political contributions, and buy things for himself.”

Trump has also given taxpayer money to his friends, such as when the Department of Justice awarded Michael Flynn, a retired three-star Army general who served as Trump's National Security Advisor for less than a month, a $1.25 million settlement.

"I really do not understand how you justify this as anything but theft," said Andrew Weissmann, a former Justice Department prosecutor, earlier in March. "To make this a legitimate settlement, there would have to be a good faith belief that he has a meritorious argument and that there might be some downside in litigating this."

Early Friday morning, March 27, the New York Times posted a podcast focusing on Cameron Joudi — owner of a gas station in Jacksonville, Florida — and the effect that soaring gas prices are having on his business during President Donald Trump's war against Iran. Major economists like Paul Krugman and the University of Michigan's Justin Wolfers are warning that gas prices will continue to rise if the war lasts a long time, affecting the cost of not only gas itself, but also, prices for a wide range of consumer goods.

One of the customers host Michael Barbaro interviewed was a 2024 Trump voter, who detailed his business' financial struggles but said he supports the Iran war nonetheless.

The 70-year-old voter, who is named William and owns a trucking company, told Barbaro, "In some states, we're paying six and seven dollars (a gallon for diesel)…. You're pumping 250 gallons every time you fill up. It's costing anywhere between 1200 and 1600 dollars for a tank of fuel now."

When Barbaro, however, noted that William "would be a strong candidate for being very upset about this war," he responded, "I would be, but I think it's worth it."

William continued, "I'm a Trumpster, but let me tell you, I have some issues with him at the moment. But I still support what we're doing in Iran because I've been watching it all my life. I'm 70 years old. So, I support it for the people of Iran. If I were going to endorse the war, it would be simply to free the Iranian people from this ridiculous regime. What happens after that, who know? Did they have a nuclear weapon? Why wouldn't they?"

Asked if he considered soaring gas prices a "small" or "big" price to pay for the Iran war, William replied, "I don't think it's a big price to pay. I do worry about the commercial end of it."

Opponents of U.S. President Donald Trump's Iran war are citing a variety of reasons for their opposition, from the high cost of the war to rising gas prices to the possibility of increased terrorist attacks in the United States. Critics are also noting all the Middle Eastern countries being dragged into the conflict as Iran carries out military strikes against U.S. installations in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and other countries.

According to researcher Logan McMillen, another negative effect is a likely credit downgrade for the United States.

"Let's set the scene," McMillen explains in an article published by The New Republic on March 26. "The U.S. government is staring down a projected $1.9 trillion deficit for this fiscal year, with the total national debt now pushing $39 trillion. Simultaneously, the expanding war in Iran and the subsequent crisis in the Strait of Hormuz have fractured global energy supply chains, driving Brent crude to $119 a barrel and sparking a massive inflationary shock. By any standard metric of sovereign risk, a state that is rapidly accelerating its debt issuance while engaging in a war of choice that is throttling the worldwide supply of oil should be facing the possibility of having its bonds repriced."

McMillen argues that although "Wall Street and Washington continue to treat" U.S. treasuries like "the ultimate risk-free asset," that can't go on forever.

"This pristine rating is no longer a reflection of reality," McMillen warns. "Many countries are beginning to explore alternatives to the petrodollar. And the physical infrastructure and foreign policy that underpin its value are in tatters, replaced by a series of ad hoc military strikes in the Persian Gulf and temporary waivers to 'protect' American consumers from the resulting inflation…. Simultaneously, Trump is calling on the U.S. to borrow trillions of dollars to finance the military, while signaling that the U.S. may withdraw from policing the Strait of Hormuz altogether."

The researcher adds, "Viewed in this light, the 'full faith and credit' of the U.S. government is poised to hit a hard limit in the near future."

According to McMillen, the U.S. government's debt has "relied on a geopolitical bargain with the rest of the world.

"The U.S. could run perpetual deficits because its military secured global trade, keeping the commodity inputs for industrialization at the periphery cheap and plentiful," McMillen notes. "This arrangement allowed the U.S. to export its inflation and import the world’s surpluses at massive discounts, passing the savings along to domestic consumers as their wages began to stagnate in the late 1970s. But now, the clocks are running out, and the bills are coming due…. The Federal Reserve will soon be confronted with an inflationary shock that monetary policy is ill equipped to fix…. . There are only two exits, and both are likely to diminish the value of U.S. treasuries. Path 1 is monetization."

McMillen continues, "To keep the war machine running and prevent the federal budget from collapsing under its own weight, the Fed can choose to absorb ballooning wartime deficits…. Path 2 is hiking interest rates. But here, the Fed runs into the practical limits of America's $39 trillion national debt. The federal government is already spending over $1 trillion annually just to service its existing debt. Pushing rates higher to crush inflation will cause those servicing costs to explode, eating the federal budget and pushing the U.S. closer to functional insolvency."

When President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4, 2025, detractors — including liberal economists Paul Krugman and Robert Reich — argued that it would have a range of negative effects, from increasing the United States' federal deficit to defunding key safety-net programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Trump and his Republican allies, however, celebrated the bill as his signature achievement.

Another negative effect of the One Big Beautiful Bill that Trump's critics predicted was budget shortfalls at the state level. According to Politico reporter Natalie Fertig, some of those shortfalls are occurring in red states.

"Republican-led states facing major budget shortfalls in 2026 are facing an awkward reality: President Donald Trump's signature tax and spending bill is making their problems worse," Fertig reports in an article published on March 25. "Federal tax cuts approved by Republicans as part of the megabill, coupled with new requirements for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, are costing some states as much as $450 million this year in added costs and lost tax revenue, further squeezing budgets that were already stretched thin. Legislatures are now considering cuts and reallocations, including a cut to childcare subsidies in Missouri — a 5 percent reduction across state agencies in Arizona and a $22 million cut from disability services in Idaho."

In 2024, deep red Idaho was one of Trump's best states: He carried Idaho by roughly 36 percent. But according to Fertig, the One Big Beautiful Bill "is estimated to cost" Idaho "$155 million in 2026 and $175 million in 2027."

Fertig quotes Idaho State Rep. Jordan Redman, a Republican, as saying, "We're stealing from Peter to pay Paul…. It's put us in a predicament where now, we're trying to figure out, 'OK, what programs do we keep? What programs do we cut?'"

Idaho State Sen. Jim Guthrie, another Republican, is sounding the alarm as well.

Guthrie told Politico, "The feedback I'm hearing from citizens is that extra few bucks on their (return) at the end of the year, because of the taxes they didn't have to pay, comes secondary to wanting us to take care of the things that government needs to be invested in. Which is your infrastructure and your roads and bridges and schools and also your Medicaid population."

President Donald Trump promised that if he was elected, he would impose high tariffs and thereby help America’s beloved and lucrative automobile industry. Instead, expert economists revealed on Monday that the tariffs have actually done “the opposite of what Trump promised.”

Describing a “tariff shock” caused by Trump’s policies, the car magazine WardsAuto reported that “the financial toll has been swift and steep. General Motors projects a tariff hit of $3.5 to $4.5 billion in 2025. Ford absorbed an $800 million second-quarter blow. Volkswagen is bracing for a €5 billion impact. Cox Automotive estimates the industry has collectively accumulated more than $25 billion in tariff obligations through just the first seven months of the year — roughly $5,200 per imported vehicle. For vehicles built in Mexico, a critical manufacturing hub, the added cost runs to approximately $4,800 per unit, effectively turning the build-in-Mexico business model upside down.”

To analyze the problems which have arisen from Trump’s tariffs and come up with proactive solutions, the US software company ServiceNow and the UK multinational professional services network KPMG issued a joint white paper called "When Tariffs Hit an Industry in Transition.” KPMG managing director Len Prokopets, an expert on supply chains, explained to WardsAuto that the tariffs “have created a three-dimensional crisis: direct cost increases on materials and parts, deteriorating supplier financial health, and a massive internal administrative burden as OEMs must analyze, validate, and renegotiate thousands of individual supplier claims.”

Karl Widerquist, an economist and philosopher at Georgetown University-Qatar, told AlterNet that he shares the concerns expressed in the WardsAuto article. He described the tariffs as being “very much the opposite of what Trump promised,” having had “a highly negative effect on many U.S. manufacturers. Today, most big market products are built with international supply chains, meaning that parts come from factories all over the world.” For more than half a century, the car industry built supply chains all over the world based on the fact that America had been a free trade country since the 1930s.

“Suddenly Trump reversed course with tariffs sometimes upwards of 100%,” Widerquist explained. “That kind of reversal will disrupt any industry that relies on foreign resources or parts--and that is most industries.”

Writing for MS NOW, lawyer Ray Brescia cited the Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton — who is presiding over the case to determine how the Trump administration reimburses the tariffs he illegally collected — to illustrate the magnitude of the tariffs’ impact on ordinary Americans.

“The $165 billion in collected duties is currently accruing approximately $650 million in interest every single month,” Brescia wrote citing Eaton. “If the entries are not liquidated by the end of the year, he explained, American taxpayers will be on the hook for an estimated $10 billion in interest alone.”

Widerquest further broke down the “legal morass” that has resulted from Trump levying illegal tariffs.

“The question of who gets compensated for a tariff is a legal morass that relies on unknowable questions,” Widerquist told AlterNet. “The question of how to pay a tariff usually involves at least three parties: foreign manufacturers, U.S. retailers, and U.S. customers. With the complex contemporary supply chains, it can be many more. To decide who gets the refund, one has to imagine what the price would have been without it.”

As an example, Widerquist posited a consumer paying $200 for a “widget,” with $100 going to the domestic retailer and the other half going to the foreign manufacturer.

“To say who should get the refund, we have to imagine what the price would have been had there been no tariff,” Widerquist pointed out. “If the retail price would have been $100, then the consumer should get a $100 refund. If the price would have been $200, while the import price was $100, the local retailer should get the entire refund. If both the retail and the import prices would have been $200, the foreign manufacturer should get the entire refund. But the two relevant prices could have been anything in between, justifying a three-way split of the refund in any conceivable set of portions. We have no way to know which is the ‘right’ one.”

He concluded, “Our legal system will probably give the refund to the part that spends the most on lawyers instead of the one with the best evidence.”

Americans appear to be aware that the tariffs have hurt their pocketbooks. Conservative commentator Mona Charen wrote for The Bulwark in February that the tariffs could even cost Trump in the 2026 midterm elections.

“Voters are rarely able to connect policy to outcomes, but they have done so in the case of tariffs,” 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.”

President Donald Trump has a plan he says will help ordinary homeowners sell and buy their properties — but a publication that specializes in finances says things are not that simple.

“Americans thinking about selling their homes may decide to stay put when they look at today’s interest rates, especially if they’re currently locked in at a low rate” explained an editorial published by Moneywise and syndicated by Yahoo Finance.

Moneywise then quoted Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) director William Pulte, who posted on X that the agency is “actively evaluating” portable mortgages, with a portable mortgage being defined as a mortgage that “lets you transfer your mortgage and your existing rate to a new home instead of taking out a new loan when you move.” Although this plan could work in theory, Moneywise noted, there are also “critics” who are “raising concerns” about this plan that, even at its best, would require homeowners who purchase a place more expensive than their current property “to either cover the difference in cash or take out a separate loan for it.”

“The New York Times reports that portable mortgages exist in other countries for shorter-term loans, but introducing them in the U.S. could shake up the economy,” Moneywise wrote. “U.S. mortgages are bundled and sold as investments called mortgage-backed securities.”

They added, “CNN noted that portable mortgages could ‘disrupt the engine powering the U.S. housing market,’ because mortgage-backed securities give banks the cash they need to issue new loans and keep the ‘mortgage market flowing.’” The publication also quoted 9i Capital Group CEO Kevin Thompson, who told Newsweek earlier in March that “if the market opens up and people can carry those low rates with them, demand jumps overnight. Prices move higher. No question about it. This does nothing to solve affordability.”

Similarly Realtor.com senior economist Jake Krimmel wrote that portable mortgages could help “in theory” but the so-called “lock-in effect” only accounts for roughly half of the recent drop in mobility and portable mortgages would primarily help homeowners who already have low rates.

This is not the Trump administration’s first controversy involving housing. In February Washington Post financial advice columnist Michelle Singletary surmised that the conditions which caused the 2008 housing crisis — one that culminated in the Great Recession — are “creeping back” now.

“Again, like the 2008 ruination, this new brewing crisis is ensnaring moderate- and low-income homeowners first,” Singletary wrote. “The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Center for Microeconomic Data reports that mortgage delinquency rates for lower-income households are surging, according to the recently released Household Debt and Credit report for the fourth quarter of 2025.”

She added, “According to New York Fed data, the 90-plus-day mortgage delinquency rate for families in the lowest-income bracket jumped from 0.5 percent in 2021 to nearly 3 percent by the end of 2025.” All of this further demonstrates that “financial storm clouds are gathering over those who can least afford a rainy day. As the New York Fed points out, ‘financial distress appears to be deepening for households in lower-income areas.’”

Also in February, Politico reported that Trump pressured Congress to amend a housing affordability bill to block investors from benefiting from the new policies. Even some in Trump's own party pushed back against that proposed amendment.

“I don’t think banning institutional investors is a good idea,” Rep. Troy Downing (R-Mont.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, told Politico at the time. “I need to see exactly what language they were talking about if they’re being specific about some certain practice.”

President Donald Trump's economy is already struggling under the weight of his tariffs and his war in Iran. Now there's a risk of beef prices going up thanks to what some say is corporate greed.

One of the largest meatpacking plants in the country has gone on strike for the first time in 40 years, and the New York Times is explaining why.

JBS workers are represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, Local 7. They've been able to fight for decent pay, but it's still so low that the people who work there can't afford to buy the meat that they're cutting. Many of them showed their injuries. One had a scar from a gash across her arm. Another had her shoulder dislocated when her meat hook got "lodged in a moving belt," the Times report said.

Worker safety is a big issue and the federal government even cited JBS for safety violations after a died from falling into a vat of chemicals in 2021. The pandemic ravaged the workers, who continued to work through the virus while slicing meat that Americans would eat. Six died from it.

“The hurt from these workers runs deep,” said union president Kim Cordova. “This is a long time coming."

Another problem is that the company charges workers to replace their knife sharpeners or even safety equipment when they are lost or stolen. Some workers alleged that they aren't allowed to take bathroom breaks because then they can't keep up with the "chain" that carries cow parts from station to station.

“They don’t care about their employees any more than the cattle,” complained plant worker Jim Kees, a plant worker who takes images of meat to determine its quality grades. He compared the job to Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel about Chicago’s meatpacking industry. “If you’ve ever read ‘The Jungle,’ it’s still going on.”

JBS denies all of the allegations, saying that the company provides them with sharp knives and that they can leave the line to use the bathroom. Nikki Richardson, a spokeswoman the American branch of JBS, told the Times that they give employees safety equipment and they only charge the employee for it when it's “maliciously damaged.”

“When equipment wears out through normal use, the company replaces it at no cost,” she said.

One of President Donald Trump's big plans has been to open risky investment markets for anyone who wants to participate using their retirement funding. Now there is a fear that doing so could push markets teetering over a cliff.

Politico opened Friday with a bombshell: the financial markets are starting to crack amid Trump's troubled economy.

"The Labor Department is planning to roll out a long-awaited proposal that would offer workers invested in retirement products like 401(k)s access to the so-called private markets — a class of highly coveted but risky investments that have historically been walled off from the masses," Politico explained.

It's coming at the worst moment, however, as the private credit industry faces "a reckoning from investors." Politico noted that some even refer to it as a "shadow banking system." The industry is made up of companies that buy loans from Wall Street firms that aren't part of a typical home or car loan. It's a $2 trillion industry.

The issue is that investors are pulling their money after a "string of blow-ups," as Politico described. At the same time, the world of artificial intelligence has posed a risk to some software companies. So, investors are growing so worried that they're pulling their money out to such an extreme that they hit withdrawal limits.

It's making financial experts recall the lead-up to the 2008 crash. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is now sounding the same alarm as Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, saying that retirees could be in potential danger.

“It’s the perfect storm,” investor Danny Moses told Politico. He was among those who bet against the subprime mortgage debt and became the inspiration for the book and film "The Big Short."

“They’ll have no choice but to bail out this entire industry if it goes off a cliff. It will impact retail investors, the banks, certainly private equity and private credit," he said.

Market freakouts aren't new for Trump, however, as he was at the helm of the COVID-19 pandemic that set about a global financial catastrophe. Luckily, the quick sell-offs have rebounded, but these recent concerns might be the ultimate test as to whether Trump is willing to completely deregulate Wall Street.

The private markets can be high reward for some but they're also high risk and "less transparent than the stocks and bonds that drive many Americans’ retirement accounts," the report explained.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that there is a concern that these markets could simply become a "dumping ground" for bad assets. He wants people to have the freedom to throw their money into it but hopes it can be dome in "a safe, sound and smart way."

However, the private credit industry assumes Congress will have its own thoughts on the matter, particularly because every issue is up for grabs in an election year.

As Sen. Warren explained it, “this is the worst possible moment” to open these markets to retirement investments. She, like many, are concerned about the lack of transparency and the reality of the returns.

As the report continued, it explained that the industry is desperately trying to assuage those fears.

Since launching his war against Iran three weeks ago, few topics have gripped the national conversation like the fast-rising price of gas. Between the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the attacks on oil facilities across the region, oil supplies have been disrupted, which consumers then pay for at the pump.

Through it all, President Donald Trump has remained fixated on one oil market metric in particular: the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil, which is essentially the price of crude oil before processing. But while Trump has focused on keeping that cost below $100 a barrel, according to industry expert Javier Blas, the president is looking at the “wrong” oil price, which is misleading on how the war is actually impacting American pocketbooks.

For most Americans, says Blas, the economy is driven not by the price of the WTI, but by the cost of refined petroleum products like gasoline. And while Texas crude has shot up by 60 percent since January, the fuels people actually use have skyrocketed by as much as 120 percent.

For every three barrels of WTI crude oil, a refinery can typically produce two barrels of gasoline and one of a distillate fuel like diesel. That extra processing requires special refining products — the supply of which has been disrupted by the war — as well as functioning refineries, which have also been disrupted. Because of these additional layers of disruption, the prices for refined fuels take on added cost pressures, and are now “approaching 2022’s all-time high.”

As a result, the price hikes of everyday fuels like gas, jet fuel, and diesel have far outpaced that of crude. That means paying more at the pump, more for airline tickets, and more for operating heavy machinery. Blas is particularly concerned about the price of diesel, which fuels vital economic sectors like construction, transport, and farming.

Blas says that from a PR standpoint, Trump’s use of the WTI price makes sense. On the surface, it ignores the added refinement costs, making the negative economic impacts of the war seem less severe. At the same time, Wall Street tends to focus on WTI as a market indicator and ignore real-world gas prices. If the price of oil is all you’re watching, things might not appear so bad.

Trump and equity traders, however, aren’t looking at things like the price of jet fuel or reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending, the former of which determines air transport costs while the latter is used to make gasoline.

“But those products, the mainstay output of US refineries,” says Blas, “are precisely what will make or break the country’s consumers and businesses.”

During the first year of Trump’s second term, many of his actions — from his private statements to his public policies — have served to alienate the United States from its allies. Now polling shows that America’s top allies, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, overwhelmingly view China as a more dependable partner than the U.S. under Trump.

“This is wild,” declared Cambridge economist Jostein Hauge of the results. “The global balance of power is clearly tilting away from the US and toward China.”

In the poll, respondents were asked whether they view China or Trump-led America as more dependable, and the response was clear: the world no longer feels it can rely on the U.S.

Perhaps the most telling numbers came out of Canada, where a whopping 57 percent of Canadians say China is more dependable, while just 23 percent say the U.S. Long America’s biggest trade partner and closest ally, in a follow-up question, 48 percent of Canadians also say their country can and should build closer ties to China.

And as Politico points out, respondents agree that this shift “is driven by Trump’s disruption, not by a newfound stability in China.”

Again, Canada is a prime example. Since retaking office, Trump has leveled tariffs at America’s northern neighbor, complained about previously uncontroversial border infrastructure projects, and threatened to make Canada “the fifty-first state.” As a result, Canadians have boycotted American products while Ottawa has sought to strengthen previously strained ties with China.

For many, another major strike against the U.S. has been not only its overt antagonism toward the rest of the world, but its withdrawal of aid and from collaborative programs like the World Health Organization and the United Nations Human Rights Council. China, on the other hand, has begun stepping in to fill the void left by American actions.

Hauge pointed out an example of this: China’s donation of thousands of solar power systems to Cuba in response to the severe power outages caused by the oil embargo imposed on the island by the U.S.

“This is what real commitment to international cooperation, solidarity, and development looks like,” wrote Hauge over a video of the solar installations.

According to the poll, many don’t think the situation is due to a temporary estrangement from the U.S., but is part of a long-term trend. About half of respondents from the four countries surveyed said they believe “China is rapidly becoming a more consequential superpower.”

E.J. Antoni — chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, a major contributor to Project 2025, a Fox News pundit, and President Donald Trump's initial nominee to replace fired Erika McEntarfer as U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) commissioner — has been an outspoken supporter of the MAGA movement's economic agenda. But Antoni is now speaking out against Trump's decision to go to war with Iran, which, he warns, will have dire economic consequences for the United States.

Antoni told Financial Times, "I don't think this is an economy that is going to be able to handle $100 a barrel for oil, it's just not. The economy is weaker than we thought it was, and inflation is worse than we thought it was. The lower energy prices that we saw in 2025 helped put downward pressure on prices throughout the economy. Now…. we're going to see higher energy prices have exactly the opposite effect and put upward pressure on prices throughout the economy."

Although Trump withdrew his nomination of Antoni for BLS commissioner and went with Brett Matsumoto — who still needs to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate — Antoni still has a lot of influence at the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank.

Financial Times' George Steer, reporting on Thursday morning, March 19, notes, "Antoni's remarks on the health of the world's largest economy come a day after the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, (Joe Kent), resigned in protest at the Iran war, marking the first significant defection from the Trump Administration since the conflict began. Republicans are, meanwhile, growing increasingly worried that high oil prices — Brent crude jumped 5 per cent to almost $110 a barrel on Wednesday — will dent their chances in the midterm elections. Petrol prices at the pump have surged to $3.84 a gallon from $2.92 a month ago, while diesel has exceeded $5 — exerting a heavy toll on U.S. consumers and businesses."

Antoni, the Daily Beast's Ewan Palmer notes, is also suggesting that "weak U.S. job growth could partly be blamed on the Trump Administration's firing of thousands of federal workers as part of cost-cutting measures."

The U.S. economy now appears to have only a "thin cushion" of protection to bank on, according to Politico, should President Donald Trump's war with Iran begin to have more severe impacts, and the "warning lights" have been evident since before the conflict started.

As Politico laid out in a report from Thursday morning, the typical pillars indicating a strong economy have shown major signs of erosion under Trump, meaning that the "guardrails that protected" the economy from his many "policy jolts" are now "wearing thin."

"New economic reports show inflation is ticking higher, prompting the Federal Reserve on Wednesday to keep interest rates steady," the report explained. "Hiring has stagnated, wage growth has fallen, and market-based interest rates are climbing amid concern over rising prices, sending mortgage rates up. And with oil now topping $100 a barrel — with no end in sight for the Iran conflict — Trump’s economy only has a thin cushion to rely on if the war in the Middle East starts to rock the economy."

Despite persistent spin from the Trump administration that the economy is strong, bad news continues to pile up. On Wednesday, a new report on the Producer Price Index showed that inflation had reached its biggest year-over-year increase in years. Job creation has also gone underwater, with the U.S. losing around 19,000 jobs overall since May. Gregory Daco, chief economist for EY-Parthenon, warned that the economy is dealing with "inherent fragilities."

"Downside risks are rising, and this is an extremely fluid situation," Daco said, noting further that the "typical buffers that would prevent any type of external shock — like an oil price shock — from disproportionately affecting the economy are smaller than usual."

As Politico noted, "the warning lights were flickering" on the economy under Trump even before the war with Iran resulted in a global oil supply chain disruption. The addition of rising gas prices to the situation will only hinder the president's ability to sell his accomplishments ahead of the midterms, with voters signaling that affordability is their number one priority.

“The thing that underlines every strong economy is consistency and progress, and things that promote confidence, and I just don’t see any of those attributes being displayed on a disciplined, routine basis by the White House,” Chuck Coughlin, a veteran Republican strategist at the firm HighGround, told Politico. “Most of the country is looking at the president, going: ‘What is he doing?’”

Andrew Hollenhorst, the chief U.S. economist at Citi, observed that "things look a little bit weaker" for the U.S. economy, even without the impacts of Iran.

"It’s a really unpleasant combination of data and events," Hollenhorst said about the prospect of a bigger oil price shock hitting the economy.

Under President Donald Trump, the United States national debt crossed $39 trillion for the first time as of Tuesday — meaning that it has grown by $1 trillion since it reached $38 trillion for the first time in late October.

This pace of accumulation is universally regarded as “unsustainable” by budget watchdogs and academic economists alike, wrote Fortune's business editor Nick Lichtenberg on Wednesday.

“The milestone, confirmed in Wednesday’s Daily Treasury Statement, lands amid a politically charged moment: it comes roughly two weeks before the ten-year anniversary of President Trump’s 2016 campaign promise to eliminate the national debt within eight years,” Lichtenberg wrote. “Instead, the gross national debt has roughly doubled since Trump first took office—it was $19.9 trillion in January 2017.”

Even worse, Lichtenberg cited a Peterson Foundation study which projects the debt will exceed $40 trillion before the 2026 midterm elections.

“Perhaps the most alarming dimension of the crossing is what it costs just to carry the debt,” Lichtenberg said. “Net interest payments on the national debt are projected to exceed $1 trillion in fiscal year 2026—nearly triple the $345 billion in interest the government paid in 2020, at the onset of the pandemic. In the first three months of the current fiscal year alone, net interest payments reached $270 billion, already surpassing the nation’s defense spending for the same period.”

Kent Smetters, director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model and described by Fortune as “one of the nation’s foremost fiscal economists,” argued that the actual debt number that matters is the amount held by the public, which is $31.3 trillion rather than $39 trillion. Even so, Smetter added “the fact that debt held by the public has now exceeded $31 trillion is not great.

He added, “The real problem is that we are on an upward debt path that is unsustainable.”

Economist Michael Peterson of the Peterson Foundation, meanwhile, told Fortune that “America faces complex and critical challenges, both at home and abroad, and putting our debt on a sustainable path will support a stronger, more secure future.” Writing for The Washington Post on Wednesday, conservative columnist George F. Will warned that “at our current pace of profligacy — it probably will accelerate — three trillion-dollar milestones can be passed during one fiscal year. The Congressional Budget Office projects that in 10 years, the nation will annually be spending more than $2 trillion (two thousand billion) just on debt service, which already is the fastest-growing part of the budget. The national debt will exceed $40 trillion by the end of October, the Peterson Foundation projects."

One factor significantly exacerbating the deficit is Trump’s recently-declared war against Iran. The Intercept reported on Tuesday that the war is so far costing $1 to $2 billion every day, meaning the conflict could cost $250 billion if it lasts a few months.

“If this war takes months rather than weeks, the costs will become astronomical,” Gabe Murphy, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, explained to The Intercept.