Economy

Since President Donald Trump's return to the White House nine months ago, his administration has — with the help of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — brought mass layoffs to a variety of federal government agencies, from the National Weather Service (NWS) to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). And Trump has toyed with the idea of eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) altogether.

Another is the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA), which, according to Washington Post reporters Meryl Kornfield and Hannah Natanson, has become increasingly difficult to deal with.

In an article published on October 28, Kornfield and Natanson report, "Hours-long wait times. Endless looping music. Useless robot messages. Millions of seniors and disabled people call Social Security’s 1-800 number every month. What they experience is often maddening."

Trump claims that the downsizing of federal agencies is targeting "waste, fraud and abuse," but critics of the mass layoffs argue that his administration is making a range of agencies less efficient — including the SSA.

"The Trump Administration has said it is improving Social Security customer service and dramatically cutting wait times to build on a phone experience that callers have complained about even before Trump," Kornfield and Natanson explain. "But the agency's public reporting doesn't count the time people wait for callbacks from humans, and nearly three dozen callers who spoke with The Washington Post or let a reporter join their calls said their experiences have not matched the agency's claims. The average wait time for a callback peaked at about 2½ hours from January to March, according to internal agency data obtained by The Post."

The Post reporters add, "The average time dropped to about an hour since July, when the agency added more field office workers to the 1-800 number, even as the agency has sought to reduce its workforce by thousands."

Kornfield and Natanson's article is accompanied by actual recordings of frustrated seniors struggling to get help from the downsized SSA.

"Shelley McLean, a 68-year-old technical writer from Brookhaven, New York, had been waiting for months for $31,000 that Social Security owed her in attorney fees as part of a disability case," the Post journalists report. "She called on a Friday in August to check on it and was told her hold time would be 110 minutes. McLean ended up getting a callback about 200 minutes later, after she already had personal plans and couldn't answer the phone.… In Upland, California, last spring, 72-year-old Kathy Stecher began the process of applying for benefits."

Kornfield and Natanson continued, "On her first attempt, an automated voice told the retired public schoolteacher that the wait time would extend more than 120 minutes. Trying to be patient, she hung on — only for her call to be dropped after more than an hour. Determined to get her benefits, she kept trying. For the next four days, she phoned once a day. She called early, she called in the middle of the morning, and she called in the afternoon."

Read Meryl Kornfield and Hannah Natanson's full Washington Post article at this link (subscription required).

After almost a month, the partial shutdown of the United States' federal government drags on as Democratic and GOP lawmakers continue to fight over a spending package. And Democrats are warning that access to two crucial safety-net programs — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Affordable Care Act of 2010, a.k.a. Obamacare — is on the line.

One of the people who is sounding the alarm is liberal economist Paul Krugman, who fears that many Americans could lose access to both food and health care if those programs are not adequately funded by Congress soon.

In an October 28 column posted on his Substack page, Krugman lays out four takeaways from the "hunger games" being played by President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress.

"While in in the checkout line," the New York City-based Krugman explains, "I often see some patrons, typically elderly and/or disabled, paying with EBT cards. EBT cards are the way the government delivers food aid under the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. SNAP has become a crucial part of America's social safety net, with more than 40 million Americans relying on those EBT cards to put food on the table. And unless the government shutdown ends this week, which seems basically impossible, federal support for SNAP will be cut off this Saturday (November 1)."

Krugman's takeaways are: (1) "This is a political decision — specifically, a Republican decision," (2) "The pain from lost food aid will, if anything, hurt Republican voters worse than Democrats," (3) "Despite what Republicans believe, SNAP recipients aren’t malingerers," and (4) "Food stamps are an investment in the future."

"Why are Republicans hostile to a program that benefits tens of millions of Americans?," Krugman argues. "Pay attention to right-wing rhetoric about food stamps, and you'll hear again and again assertions that SNAP beneficiaries are lazy malingerers — the 'bums on welfare' who should be forced to go out and get jobs. But that myth is punctured by a quick look at who gets SNAP. The fact is, the great majority of SNAP recipients can't work: 40 percent are children; 18 percent are elderly; 11 percent are disabled."

Krugman adds, "Furthermore, a majority of recipients who are capable of working do work. They are the working poor…. Which brings us back to the impending cutoff of SNAP. It's gratuitous: Republicans could easily avoid this cutoff if they wanted to. It's cruel: Millions of Americans will suffer severely from the loss of food aid. And it's destructive: Depriving children, in particular, of aid will cast a shadow on America's economy and society for decades to come. So of course the cutoff is going to happen."

Paul Krugman's full Substack column is available at this link.

During former President Joe Biden's four years in the White House, the U.S. Supreme Court's GOP-appointed 6-3 supermajority relied heavily on the "major questions doctrine" — which, in essence, says that decisions by the federal government's executive branch require clear, explicit authorization from Congress if they create major economic or political changes. And more than once, the Republican justices argued that Biden overreached with executive orders that lacked approval from the federal government's legislative branch.

But since Donald Trump's return to the White House nine months ago, many of his critics — a combination of Democrats and right-wing Never Trump conservatives — have argued that his executive orders blatantly disregard Congress' constitutional role in the United States' system of checks and balances.

In an article published on October 27, New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak examines the role that the "major questions" doctrine could have when the High Court rules on Trump's steep new tariffs — which he is imposing by executive order, not bills in Congress.

"The Supreme Court used the 'major questions doctrine' to reject much of the Biden Administration's agenda, including its efforts to address climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic and student debt," Liptak explains. "The Court's commitment to the doctrine will be tested next week when it hears arguments about President Trump's tariffs program. The doctrine requires Congress to use plain and direct language to authorize sweeping economic actions by the executive branch. The 1977 law that Mr. Trump is relying on, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, might seem to fail that test, as it does not feature the word 'tariffs' or similar terms like 'duties,' 'customs,' 'taxes' or 'imposts.'"

The legal journalist continues, "Nor is there any question that the tariffs will have vast economic consequences, measured in the trillions of dollars. The sums involved are far larger than the roughly $500 billion at issue in President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s student loan forgiveness program, which Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, called 'staggering by any measure.'"

Liptak notes that although the High Court didn't actually use the words "major questions" in a major opinion until 2022, the late Justice Antonin Scalia embraced the idea when he said that Congress does not "hide elephants in mouseholes."

"There is some reason to think the doctrine may disappear in the tariffs case," according to Liptak. "In a concurring opinion in June in an unrelated case, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh proposed a distinction that could lay the groundwork for a decision in Mr. Trump's favor in the tariffs case. 'The major questions canon has not been applied by this court in the national security or foreign policy contexts,' he wrote, adding: 'The usual understanding is that Congress intends to give the president substantial authority and flexibility to protect America and the American people.'"

Read Adam Liptak's full New York Times article at this link.

The U.S. government shutdown has disrupted the release of critical economic data, including the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is essential for assessing inflation trends. The September CPI report, released on Friday, revealed that inflation rose to 3.0 percent year-over-year, up from 2.9 percent in August, primarily due to a 4.1 percent increase in gasoline prices. Core inflation, excluding food and energy, remained steady at 3.0 percent.

In an article for Salon published Sunday, writer Heather Digby Parton argued that inflation has become a "ticking time bomb" for Republicans, threatening to undermine their political standing despite claims of economic strength.

Parton wrote that while official statistics show inflation has decreased to 2.4 percent as of October 2024, public perception remains negative.

Factors such as rising beef prices and the symbolic impact of egg price spikes due to avian flu contribute to widespread dissatisfaction, even as some costs stabilize.

Parton highlighted that many voters, particularly those who remember the economic conditions of Trump's first term, are disillusioned by unmet promises to reduce living costs.

Despite Trump's assertions that tariffs have strengthened the economy, polling indicates that inflation is his lowest-rated issue, with approval ratings in the mid-30s and declining. The administration's trade policies, including the imposition of tariffs, have led to higher consumer prices, contradicting claims of economic improvement.

Economist Paul Krugman is cited in the article, noting that the economy appears stagnant, with businesses hesitant to invest amid uncertain trade policies. The government's shutdown has further delayed the release of comprehensive economic data, leaving the job market's status unclear.

The Consumer Price Index for September showed a 3 percent annual increase, the fastest pace since the beginning of the year, suggesting that inflation may be rising again.

Parton noted that the disconnect between economic indicators and public perception presents a significant challenge for Republicans.

She asserted that even Trump's persistent messaging cannot overcome the negative "vibes" felt by voters who are experiencing higher costs and stagnant wages. The situation, she argued, is a "perfect storm" of the administration's own making.

In an article for The New York Times published Sunday, economic commentator Kyla Scanlon argued that President Donald Trump has turned the United States into a “casino economy” — one driven by speculation, risk and illusion rather than real investment in workers or industry.

Scanlon, author of In This Economy? How Money & Markets Really Work, wrote that despite Trump’s campaign promises to revive American manufacturing, his policies have fostered an economic system built on wagers and froth, where both markets and government decisions resemble high-stakes gambling.

"What he has ushered in instead is a casino economy, built on speculation and risk. Across markets and policy, wagers on the future are being made with other people’s money at a cost that could prove catastrophic," Scanlon wrote.

She pointed to examples across sectors: the explosion of A.I. investment fueled by borrowed money, the proliferation of memecoins, the use of tariffs as political poker chips, and the growing use of digital assets as loan collateral.

Scanlon argued that the private sector is “rolling dice that the foundations of the U.S. economy will hold,” while the public sector has retreated from its role as a stabilizer. Safety nets such as Medicaid and Social Security have been weakened, she noted, leaving ordinary Americans exposed when those bets go bad.

A.I. spending, she warned, has become one of the largest speculative bubbles in history, driven by trillion-dollar wagers from Big Tech firms like Microsoft and Nvidia.

Meanwhile, tariffs and erratic currency policies have made global trade more volatile. The result, Scanlon wrote, is an economy where the rich and powerful collect the winnings while average Americans bear the losses.

“Casinos run on illusion,” she concluded. “But economies don’t have to.”

During his first presidency, Donald Trump was highly critical of cryptocurrencies —arguing that Bitcoin "seemed like a scam" and was "based on thin air." But these days, Trump is an aggressive promoter of digital currencies.

In an op-ed published by the New York Times on October 24, Finn Brunton — author of the 2019 book "Digital Cash: The Unknown History of the Anarchists, Utopians, and Technologists Who Created Cryptocurrency" — is highly critical of Trump's relationship with cryptocurrencies.

"Cryptocurrency has found its hero in Mr. Trump," Brunton argues. "And in this unlikely moment of triumph, its most powerful proponent has laid bare the paradox at the heart of this brave new world of 'new money.' Crypto was supposed to free us from the chains of government control, but now, it is finally revealing what that freedom really means: removing all checks on the power of the wealthy to do what they want, discharged at last from law, supervision and civic obligation — even if the result is autocracy. Mr. Trump, with his thirst for money and power, has, in one fell swoop, both exposed and embraced the corruption at the heart of digital currencies — a corruption inherited from the libertarian ideals that created them."

When Brunton uses words like "corruption" in connection with cryptocurrencies, he sounds a lot like Trump did when he was using the words "scam" and "thin air" to describe them during his first presidency. But Trump is now all in for cryptos, and Brunton warns that nothing good can come of it.

"Along with money," Brunton explains, "Mr. Trump's commitment to crypto got him a new voting bloc whose interests were straightforward. Some 50 million people owned crypto in 2024, according to one research firm, and Mr. Trump had a 12-point lead among that group in the months before the election, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University polling — a lead that was not connected with Republican Party membership. Mr. Trump won."

The author continues, "Almost immediately after taking office, he ushered crypto's biggest backers into the highest echelons of power. David Sacks, a close associate of (Peter) Thiel, was appointed 'AI and crypto czar,' tasked with designing the new regulatory framework for the industry…. The (Trump) Administration then set about destroying Biden-era efforts to control crypto."

Brunton adds, "Many regulations, investigations and enforcement cases against the industry have been rolled back or dropped. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which had sought oversight of crypto payments to address scam and fraud complaints, was ordered to halt activities…. With regulators defanged and oversight gone, Mr. Trump and a handful of tech backers have been able to seize power and merge their interests with the country's resources as they see fit. Over the past nine months, Mr. Trump has turned crypto into an efficient and powerful cash-in machine to grow the family fortune."

Finn Brunton's full op-ed for The New York Times is available at this link (subscription required).

As Americans are feeling the pain of President Donald Trump’s economic policies, including the US leader’s global tariff war, Minneapolis-based Target told employees Thursday that the retail giant is pursuing its first major job cuts in a decade.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Michael Fiddelke, Target’s incoming CEO, said in a memo to staff that the company will lay off around 1,000 of its approximately 22,000 corporate employees and cut 800 open positions, mainly in the United States.

“The truth is, the complexity we’ve created over time has been holding us back,” wrote Fiddelke, who is set to take over for CEO Brian Cornell in February. “Too many layers and overlapping work have slowed decisions, making it harder to bring ideas to life.”

A Target spokesperson told CNBC that no roles in stores or the company’s supply chain will be impacted. The last time the company announced mass cuts was March 2015, when it laid off 1,700 people and declined to fill 1,400 open jobs.

The Journal pointed out that “Target has reported 11 consecutive quarters of falling or weak comparable sales growth,” and CNBC highlighted that “its shares have fallen by 65% since their all-time high in late 2021.”

As CNBC also detailed:

Compared to retail competitors, Target draws less of its overall sales from groceries and other necessities, which can make its business more vulnerable to the ups and downs of the economy and consumer sentiment. About half of Target's sales come from discretionary items, compared to only 40% at Walmart, according to estimates from GlobalData Retail.As a result of that and other company-specific challenges, Target's sales trends and stock performance have diverged sharply from competitors. Shares of Walmart are up about 123% in the past five years, compared to Target's decline of 41% during the same time period.

Target is among several that responded to Trump’s return to office and executive order on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives by ditching its DEI policies. The decision caused some shoppers to boycott Target. While experts have debated the impact of the protest, it has certainly drawn attention to the company’s financial state.

“When Target reported $23.85 billion in first-quarter sales, it missed analyst expectations by nearly $500 million. Foot traffic has declined for 11 straight weeks, with Placer.ai data showing consistent year-over-year drops since the boycott began,” Investopedia reported last month. “Comparable sales in the second quarter fell 1.9%, with both transaction frequency and spending per visit declining. Operating income dropped by a fifth (19.4%) to $1.3 billion in the second quarter, while earnings per share fell about 20% to $2.05.”

While acknowledging the DEI boycott, Bloomberg on Thursday also noted other issues, including that “many customers have pointed to long wait lines, empty shelves, and less distinctive items.”

“Getting back on track won’t be easy,” Bloomberg added. “Shoppers remain selective, with consumer sentiment remaining subdued on concerns around inflation and the job market.”

With federal data expected to show rising inflation, President Donald Trump is facing backlash on his handling of the economy as the job market weakens and American exporters suffer from his trade agenda, according to The Hill.

Data set to be released Friday is expected to show annual inflation hitting 3 percent for the first time since President Joe Biden's administration — a full percentage point higher than the Federal Reserve’s target, The Hill says.

Economists are also projecting the consumer price index (CPI) report to show higher inflation in September "largely due to climbing energy and food prices — two of the hardest areas for Americans to cut costs," they explain.

Prices have risen steadily since the second half of the year due to Trump's tariffs, despite the president's denial. Businesses are also hiring far fewer workers than in recent years, pushing the unemployment rate higher, with millions of Americans suffering financially, The Hill says.

"The combination has brought Trump’s ratings on the economy down to historic lows, according to a new poll," they write.

U.S. job growth has slowed from an average of 150,000 per month at the start of 2025 to just 25,000 by August, according to analysis from Elsie Peng, research economist at Goldman Sachs.

According to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday, only 38 percent of voters approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, "the lowest level he’s received since February 2017," The Hill notes.

Fifty-seven percent of voters said they disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy.

“With a nearly 20-point gap between approval and disapproval on President Trump’s handling of the economy, it’s a low watermark for a president who promised a vibrant and muscular economy,” says Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy.

The government shutdown, for which a majority of Americans blame Trump and the Republicans, has yet to fully impact these numbers, The Hill explains.

“The economic impact of the government shutdown and its disruption to data collection has not yet been fully felt,” writes Stephen Kates, financial analyst at Bankrate, in a Tuesday analysis.

“Federal layoffs or the absence of backpay would drag down spending and worsen labor conditions, especially in the local areas most affected,” he continues. “The longer the shutdown continues, the larger our blind spot will be.”

Steve Bannon, host of the "War Room" podcast and former White House chief strategist in the first Trump Administration, describes his MAGA strategy as "flood the zone with s——." The idea, according to Bannon, is to wear down political opponents by inundating them with nonsense and trolling.

"Real Time" host Bill Maher has warned liberals and progressives about MAGA's strategy, urging them to stay focused on key issues and not "lose their s——" every time President Donald Trump trolls them or posts something offensive on social media.

In an article published on October 22, MSNBC White House reporter Akayla Gardner emphasizes that MAGA Republicans are using a flood-the-zone strategy during the current shutdown battle. The United States' federal government has been partially shut down since October 1, and so far, Democratic and GOP lawmakers have yet to reach a spending agreement that will end the shutdown.

"White House digital staffers have unleashed a social media strategy full of taunting memes and fake videos, following President Donald Trump's lead in a bid to bolster his base as the government shutdown drags on," Gardner explains. "The amped-up tactics are meant to mock Democrats for their proposal to reverse recently passed restrictions on Medicaid, which the GOP falsely claims pays for health care for undocumented immigrants. The memes include a recurring stunt of placing animated sombreros atop images of Democratic leaders."

The MSNBC reporter adds, "Democrats, for their part, have not responded in kind on social media. Instead, they have mostly stuck to sharing their segments on cable news, and posting explainer videos on the health care tax credits they're pushing to extend in negotiations. They've also continued to criticize the president's social media activity."

Gardner notes that it remains to be seen "which approach wins out in the minds of voters" and "how long the shutdown continues."

Republican Bryan Lanza, a former Trump campaign senior staffer, told MSNBC that "controversy enhances message" was a "theory in Trump 1.0" and has "become a proven fact in Trump 2.0."

Gardner reports, "The key question is whether the White House's shutdown social strategy is catered to Trump's core or meant to win over the broader public. The answer matters, given the president faces an uphill battle to convince voters that Democrats are responsible for the lapse in government funding that has caused air-travel disruptions, museum closures and missed paychecks for thousands."

Read Akayla Gardner's full MSNBC report at this link.

In the United States' last three presidential elections, Donald Trump had a clear advantage in rural areas. But Trump's steep new tariffs are creating a great deal of hardship for many of the farmers who voted for him, and farmers are hoping that a bailout will enable them to make ends meet.

The New York Times' Michael Grunwald, in an op-ed published on October 21, points to the difficulties farmers are facing as an example of a pattern with Trump — who, according to Grunwald, creates a crisis, then proposes a solution at taxpayers' expense.

"Once again, President Trump says he's preparing an emergency bailout for struggling farmers," Grunwald explains. "And once again, it's because of an emergency he created. China has stopped buying U.S. soybeans to protest Mr. Trump's tariffs on imports. In response, Mr. Trump plans to send billions of dollars of tariff revenue to U.S. soybean farmers who no longer have buyers for their crops. At the same time, Argentina has taken advantage of Mr. Trump's tariffs to sell more of its own soybeans to China — yet Mr. Trump is planning to bail out Argentina, too."

Grunwald continues, "This may seem nonsensical, especially since Mr. Trump already shoveled at least $28 billion to farmers hurt by his first trade war in 2018. But it actually makes perfect sense. It's what happens when Mr. Trump's zero-sum philosophy of trade — which is that there are always winners and losers, and he should get to choose the winners — collides with Washington's sycophantic approach to agriculture, which ensures that farmers always win and taxpayers always lose. In the end, Mr. Trump's allies, including President Javier Milei of Argentina and the politically influential agricultural community, will get paid — and you will pay. I didn't say it was good. I just said it makes sense."

Trump's view of economics, Grunwald notes, is outlined in his 1987 book "The Art of the Deal."

"The most important thing to know about the former real estate developer and casino operator in the White House is that he doesn't believe in mutually beneficial transactions," the Times journalist observes. "The central theme of his book, 'The Art of the Deal,' is that every deal has a winner and a sucker. On trade, Mr. Trump sees America as a perennial sucker, and he vows to make it win so much that you'll get tired of winning."

Trump's protectionist approach to trade, according to Grunwald, is "lousy policy for America" but "works nicely for Mr. Trump, because it gives him enormous power to reward or punish specific companies or industries."

"We do not live in a zero-sum world," Grunwald argues. "The nice thing about free markets and free trade is that voluntary transactions between individuals or nations really can make both sides better off. Or we can keep paying farmers to farm soybeans, pay them more to convert some of those soybeans into wildly inefficient fuels, pay them even more when they can't sell their soybeans because we're in a trade war with their customers — and then pay extra to bail out one of the countries replacing them in the marketplace. That only makes sense in Mr. Trump's Washington."

Michael Grunwald's full New York Times op-ed is available at this link (subscription required).

Rural voters, including farmers, favored Donald Trump in big numbers in 2024. After Trump narrowly won the presidential election and returned to the White House, he aggressively promoted steep new tariffs — which, many economists warned, would hit the agricultural industry hard. But Trump assured farmers that if his tariffs increased the cost of doing business, he would have a bailout for them.

In an article published on October 16, however, Politico reporters Myah Ward and Grace Yarrow emphasize that U.S. farmers aren't getting the financial relief they were hoping for.

"President Donald Trump promised a bailout for farmers reeling from the effects of his tariffs and the high costs for fertilizer and other equipment," Ward and Yarrow explain. "But the money hasn't come, and time is running out before farmers have to make crucial decisions about next year's planting season. The White House blames Democrats and the government shutdown for the delay of its multi-billion-dollar bailout, but that's just one of many problems the administration faces."

The reporters add, "Even if there were a quick end to the shutdown, it would likely take months to get money to the farmers who need it most, according to industry insiders and farm-state senators."

According to Ward and Yarrow, financial help for farmers is "complicated by an escalating trade war with China, from which the administration is loath to back down."

Conservative Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) told Politico, "Farmers are hurting financially. They're very troubled, there's some expectation for help. Emotionally, it would be great for something to happen soon. But financially, they need to be able to go to their bankers and say that help is on the way."

Also making business more complicated for farmers, Ward and Yarrow report, is Trump's "deportation agenda," which has "spurred backlash from farmers reliant on undocumented labor."

"Republican lawmakers have urged the White House to act quickly to slow the compounding concerns they warn could lead to a farm economic crisis similar to the one in the 1980s that triggered mass bankruptcies and rural flight," the Politico reporters observe. "Producers of crops like corn, soy and other grains experienced a major harvest yield this fall and are struggling to find places to store it while they hope for good news on new trade deals that Trump promised them."

Read the full Politico article at this link.

President Donald Trump, during a Wednesday afternoon, October 15 press conference, discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's tariffs case with reporters and said he may go to the High Court to watch the case.

Trump told reporters, "If we don't have the use of tariffs, we have no national security. This country will have no financial security, will not have national security…. But if we are not allowed to use what other people use against us, there's no defense. It'll be a disaster for America. That's why I think I'm going to go to the Supreme Court to watch it. I've not done that…. I think it's one of the most important cases every brought, because we will be defenseless against the world."

Trump's comments are generating a lot of comments on X, formerly Twitter.

Journalist Aaron Rupar, tweeting video of the press conference, observed, "Trump says lawyers challenging his power to impose tariffs are 'aligned with foreign nations' and adds that he plans to go to the Supreme Court to watch the arguments of the tariffs case."

X user Artie Vandelay commented, "Yes, a President of the United States of America sitting in the gallery of the United States Supreme Court deciding a case involving his administration is totally normal and not intimidating behavior in modern times. Or not."

Similarly, X user Rose Benson posted, "I plan to intimidate the SCOTUS justices."

Denison Barb wrote, "Instead of going to the Court to intimidate the Justices, I wish Trump would stay at the White House and try to lower my grocery, insurance and gas prices" — to which retired nurse Sharon Delgado responded, "Oh, he'll never do anything that might actually help the people, he's in it for glory and $$. You asked too much of him."

On Tuesday afternoon, October 14, U.S. President Donald Trump met with visiting Argentina President Javier Milei at the White House. Trump is offering the South American country, which has suffered major problems with its currency, a $20 billion bailout.

Trump, talking to reporters, made it clear that the bailout money is conditional on the right-wing Milei staying in office.

Trump told reporters, "If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina… I think he’s going to win. And if he wins, we're staying with him — and if he doesn’t win, we're gone."

$20 billion, however, may not be all the money Argentina receives from the U.S. According to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Argentina may receive as much as $40 billion from the U.S. when all is said and done.

As Semafor's Eleanor Mueller reports, "The Trump administration is 'working on a $20B facility that would be adjacent to our swap line' for Argentina, Bessent [told] reporters Wednesday.

"That would be a total of $40B for Argentina," Bessent added, according to Mueller.

The $40 billion figure and Bessent's comments are getting a lot of reactions on X, formerly Twitter.

MeidasTouch's Ron Filipkowski posted, "Now we are up to $40 billion for Argentina. Can anyone stop Bessent from unilaterally sending unlimited amounts of our money to South America? And Republicans won’t even negotiate with the Democrats on health care for Americans. Where is Congress?"

X user Jordan wrote, "America First is slashing SNAP funding for hungry American families while sending $40 billion to Argentina.

Another X user, Scott, commented, "Why doesn't congress have to approve 40 billion of our tax [money] going to Argentina? Can Bessent legally send our tax [money] there?"

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-New Mexico) tweeted, "Breaking news! 15 days into a government shutdown, and Trump has promised a $40 billion bailout to the Argentinian government on the backs of the American people using YOUR taxpayer dollars, while threatening to cut off food assistance to American families."

Self-described "straight, white alpha male" Politics Sloth wrote, "MAGA — 'We need to stop sending money overseas [and] use the money on Americans!' Support cutting government programs — bailing out a foreign country."

Some MAGA Republicans are speaking out as well, arguing that giving $40 billion to Argentina is inconsistent with the America First agenda.

America First proponent Kwasny posted, "Wow. Yesterday, it was $20 billion. Today, it is $40 billion? Sounds like you are pulling numbers from your rear end."

White House Xray wrote, "The Monroe Doctrine 2.0: Dollar Diplomacy edition. Trump's admin rebrands imperialism as 'philosophical charity' -—where foreign aid becomes a loyalty test administered through ATMs. They’ve tied $40 [billion] to Milei’s Oct 26 election, Trump admitting 'we don’t have to do it' (10/15). Yet during America’s 15th day of shutdown, farmers beg for relief while Medicaid gets $1 [trillion] cuts. Bessent calls this 'strategic interest' as Argentina’s market drops 30percent YTD - but US workers? 'Gone,' per Trump’s playbook. Priorities: ideological crusades abroad, austerity at home."

Inflation in general has been a sore spot with voters, possibly helping Donald Trump get past the finish line in the United States' 2024 presidential election. Trump hammered then-President Joe Biden and then-Vice President Kamala Harris nonstop on inflation, and according to polls, anxiety over rising prices was a key factor in many voters' decisions to vote for Trump — who didn't win by a "landslide," as he claims, but defeated Harris by roughly 1.5 percent in the national popular vote.

Now, almost nine months into Trump's second presidency, inflation is still on voters' minds. According to a Washington Post article published on October 15, a specific type of inflation — "soaring energy bills" — could sway elections that lie ahead.

"Anger over soaring utility bills is shaking political fault lines, as electricity shortages and price spikes take center stage in nationally watched gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia — and threaten to haunt candidates throughout the country in next year's midterm elections," Post reporter Evan Halper explains in the article. "Cheap, reliable electricity is no longer a given, with an energy crunch taking hold far and wide, and forecasts showing no price relief in sight. Average bills have jumped over 10 percent since last year in more than a dozen states — with some seeing increases beyond 20 percent — and more rate hikes have already been announced."

Halper adds, "Voters are demanding solutions, bringing to the forefront issues that long simmered in the political background, including the massive expansion of energy-hungry data centers, obscure surcharges on electric bills and mandates for clean energy generation."

Affordability is a prominent issue not only in the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, but also, in New York City's mayor race — which the progressive Democratic nominee, Zohran Mamdani, is expected to win.

Fairleigh Dickinson University has been tracking New Jersey voters' views on energy prices. The poll's director, Dan Cassino, told the Post, "People knew a problem was coming, but nobody expected it to emerge so sharply and quickly…. It is one thing people feel like their governor should have leverage to control."

Halper notes that both Democrats and Republicans view "ratepayer angst" as something they can "blame" on their opponents.

"Voters in GOP strongholds like Ohio, Indiana and Louisiana are among the hardest hit, putting President Donald Trump's allies on the defensive in the run-up to next year’s midterm elections as his cuts to energy programs drive prices up further," according to Halper. "In Utah, where rates are also rising fast, Republican Gov. Spencer Cox lashed out at the Trump Administration in a post on X, saying its decision to cancel a massive solar project in the Nevada desert 'is how we lose the AI/energy arms race with China.'"

Halper continues, "Voters in New Jersey and Virginia, who will choose new governors in November, are equally annoyed, campaign officials said, making electricity prices a key issue in states where Democrats have heavily influenced energy policy. Summer rates jumped 21 percent in New Jersey, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and rates for most Virginians will go up an average of 15 percent under increases utility Dominion plans to cover rising fuel costs and infrastructure upgrades."

Read Evan Halper's full article for The Washington Post at this link (subscription required).

Wall Street's reliance on the trade move that they have deemed "Trump Always Chickens Out" aka TACO is starting to make investors worried as the move, according to Axios, is becoming riskier.

Although the TACO move on tariff threats has been "keeping stocks afloat even as trade tensions with China heat up," Axios says, experts are starting to worry about its ultimate yields.

"Were there not a substantial expectation of TACO, the market moves here would be substantially larger," says Bob Elliott, CEO of Unlimited Funds.

While things right now may not look to mimic April, when the stock market plummeted nearly 20 percent after President Donald Trump announced his global tariff, Axios says that "it's a reminder of the risks that investors were happy to ignore in recent months."

Following Beijing announcement of plans for new export controls on rare earths, Trump fired back, "teasing out an additional 100% tariff on imports from China," Axios explains.

"On Friday, stocks sold off to the tune of $2 trillion, in the biggest one-day selloff since April. Then like clockwork, dip buyers showed up this week, until trade tensions returned," Axios says.

China's — not Trump's — escalations on trade this time is what makes TACO so problematic, Elliott says.

"The problem with TACO underpinning market resilience is that this time around, China is escalating tensions more than Trump," Elliott says. "That means any resolution is less within Trump's control, which is critical for the TACO trade that relies on the president changing his mind."

The economic backdrop, Axios says, is also bleak, with the "health of the labor market unclear given the government shutdown," as well as consumers feeling the sting of higher prices, and areas of the stock market "tied to the real economy" such as retail and homebuilders" starting to falter.

And while Big Tech stocks are currently driving the market, Axios says, AI stocks aren't making money yet.

"It's going to take a lot more than the AI narrative to be able to hold up the stock market if we see a combination of a meaningful weakening in domestic conditions plus escalating trade tensions," Elliott says.

While Dirk Willer, global head of macro strategy at Citi, tells Axios that the trade war heating up is "unnerving," he is hopeful the TACO move still plays well.

"We are still hopeful that this will play out the way it played out the last time, without a major rift" between the U.S. and China, he says.

José Torres, senior economist at Interactive Brokers, is buckling up for a bumpy ride.

"There will be turbulence along the way, but this will be part of the economy navigating to clearer skies," he says.

As millions of student loan borrowers settle into the school year, many are stressed about how they’ll pay for their degrees. These students may find that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the big tax and spending bill that President Donald Trump signed into law over the summer, could limit how much they can borrow.