Tag: trump tariffs
Orange Man Goes Green? How Trump's Attack On Iran Is Advancing Clean Energy

Orange Man Goes Green? How Trump's Attack On Iran Is Advancing Clean Energy

Donald Trump has an incredibly childish obsession with outdoing his predecessors, who he constantly derides as stupid and corrupt. There is, of course, no evidence for Trump’s charges, like the supposedly terrible economy he inherited from Biden, but Donald Trump is not a man who feels constrained by reality.

While Trump does everything he can to reverse policies to promote clean energy, overturn trade agreements (including his own), and undermine security pacts, there is one area where Trump looks to substantially outpace the work of his predecessors.

This is in promoting the transition to a non-fossil fuel-based economy. As much as Trump loves oil and coal and seems to relish the prospect of destroying the planet for our kids, his reckless attack on Iran will do a hundred times more to promote clean energy worldwide than all the incentives in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

There is both the direct effect of higher oil and gas prices resulting from the closing of the Straits of Hormuz, but also a more important indirect effect. Trump has shown the world that it is dangerous to rely on imported oil and natural gas as energy sources.

This applies not only to imports from the Middle East, which apparently any jerk can shut down on a whim. The risks probably apply even more strongly to reliance on the United States as an exporter, Trump’s preferred outcome.

In his tariff games, Trump showed he can be incredibly arbitrary and capricious. He claimed that countries were “ripping us off” because they sell us stuff. There is nothing resembling logic to Trump’s claim. Do Walmart or Costco rip people off when they buy things from those stores?

But it gets worse. He imposed 50 percent tariffs on Brazil’s exports because it prosecuted Trump’s friend for trying to overthrow the government. India also faces 50 percent tariffs on its exports to the U.S. because its prime minister refused to nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. And Switzerland got hit with a 39 percent tariff because Trump didn’t like the way its president talked.

The rest of the world would likely much rather take its risks with countries like Iran and Libya than rely on getting oil and gas from Donald Trump’s America. At least there is usually some logic to when these countries threaten to reduce output or raise prices.

The rise in oil and gas prices following the closure of the Straits is making clean energy far more competitive than was already the case. Even with oil at $60 a barrel, and natural gas correspondingly cheap, the vast majority of electricity coming on-line across the globe was renewable. This shift will only accelerate, with oil prices up 70 percent and natural gas having close to doubled. While prices may fall back some if the Straits are reopened soon, they are unlikely to return to their pre-war levels for several years in almost any circumstances.

And the price of wind and solar energy continues to fall, driven primarily by low-cost Chinese manufacturers. Chinese electric vehicles will also become hugely more popular as a result of Donald Trump’s war. These cars are already cheaper to purchase than comparable traditional cars, and Trump has just added roughly $500 a year to the operating cost of a gas-burning vehicle. Already 60 percent of the cars sold in China are electric, with EVs holding a comparable share in Europe. The same is the case in many developing countries. The EV share will likely quickly move towards 100 percent thanks to Trump’s war.

It certainly was not the best way to promote a green transition, but no one can deny that Trump’s war is effective. Who knows how much damage the war will ultimately cause in terms of property destruction, the environment, and lives lost. The latter will include both direct effects from the war and likely much larger indirect effects from higher energy and food prices. But one positive outcome is that we will be moving far more rapidly toward a green economy.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.


Why America Is On Its Own: Slavery, Tariffs And Trump's Dire Strait

Why America Is On Its Own: Slavery, Tariffs And Trump's Dire Strait

Donald Trump is now pleading with other countries to rescue his war on Iran by helping to open the Strait of Hormuz — although Trump being Trump, his pleas for assistance take the form of threats. Regardless, help is not on the way. Germany, Australia and Japan have flatly said no, while Britain and France have been slightly equivocal but at most hinted at willingness to supply forces after the fighting stops.

Why this effectively unanmous rejection? A large part of the answer is that other countries couldn’t secure the Strait even if they wanted to. Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defense minister, was outright caustic in remarks Monday:

What does (...) Donald Trump expect a handful or two handfuls of European frigates to do in the Strait of Hormuz that the powerful U.S. Navy cannot do?

Beyond that, who wants to take risks in support of a U.S. government that nobody trusts, a government that neither shows gratitude for aid nor punishes those who do America harm?

Indeed, even as Trump begs in his graceless way for help, his administration is preparing to hit the very nations he is appealing to with another round of tariffs — tariffs that will be imposed based on an obviously false, bad faith, totally insulting argument.

As most readers probably know, almost a year ago Trump imposed tariffs on almost every other nation, including islands inhabited only by penguins, by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This use of IEEPA was blatantly illegal, and after dragging its heels for many months, the Supreme Court finally agreed with lower courts that the tariffs were, in fact, illegal.

One important point that isn’t emphasized enough is that in addition to being illegal under U.S. law, the IEEPA tariffs were a gross breach of contract. Most U.S. tariff rates were set in 1995, as part of the negotiations that among other things created the World Trade Organization. These tariffs were “bound” by international agreements, which have almost as much force as treaties. But the U.S. just ripped those agreements up, without even trying to make a case for its actions.

Now the IEEPA tariffs are gone, but Trump isn’t giving up. On Sunday night he posted a long, falsehood-filled rant about the Court, beginning with a condemnation of its tariff ruling. And while he can’t simply defy Supreme Court rulings — not yet, anyway — his officials have been scrambling for legal strategies to reimpose high tariffs.

And the main one they’ve come up with is a doozy. Under U.S. law the executive branch has the authority to impose tariffs without new legislation in certain specified circumstances. These include Section 232 tariffs to protect national security, the (spurious) basis for most of the tariffs that survived the Supreme Court’s ruling. (I’m ignoring the Section 122 tariffs currently in place to deal with a nonexistent balance of payments crisis, not because they’re legal — they clearly aren’t — but because they will expire this summer.)

Looking forward, however, Trump officials are planning to impose another major round of tariffs using Section 301, designed to cope with unfair foreign trading practices. In particular, they’re proposing tariffs on 60 (!) countries, including Canada, the UK and the European Union, that they accuse of violating rules against international trade in goods produced with forced labor.

Wait — is the administration accusing Canada and Europe of using slave labor to produce their exports? No, they’re saying that these countries’ governments are guilty of “failure to impose and effectively enforce a ban on the importation of goods produced with forced labor,” and that these failures “burden or restrict U.S. commerce.” In other words, they’re going to slap tariffs on Canada, not because they claim that Canada uses slave labor, but because China does, and they claim that Canada is hurting America because it isn’t doing enough to stop those slave-produced goods from entering its own market.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, believes this story. Nobody believes that Canada or Europe are worse at policing global slave labor than the U.S. is. In fact, nobody believes that the Trump administration even cares about slave labor. After all, the alleged concerns that are about to be used to raise tariffs were nowhere to be found until the Court ruled against IEEPA.

So this is nothing but an excuse for another attempted end-run around the law — an end-run that is also a massive insult to other democratic nations, the same nations Trump is pleading with for help in undoing the disaster he has created in the Persian Gulf.

The point is that it’s all of a piece. The current U.S. government has, as Trump would say, treated our erstwhile allies very, very badly in multiple ways, with the arbitrary, illegal imposition of tariffs the most consequential. And now those erstwhile allies have no inclination to help Trump out of the Iran trap he created for himself. Funny how that works.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

US Economy Has Lost Jobs Since 'Liberation Day,' But Fox Still Hypes Tariffs

US Economy Has Lost Jobs Since 'Liberation Day,' But Fox Still Hypes Tariffs

Fox’s increasingly desperate efforts to spin the disastrous economic impacts of President Donald Trump’s policies were on full display as the network discussed the latest monthly jobs report.

The February jobs report released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed a loss of 92,000 jobs in February, as well as significant downward revisions of 4,000 jobs for January and 65,000 jobs for December 2025 — bringing December’s total down to a net loss of 17,000 jobs.

As University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers pointed out, this means that the U.S. economy has fewer jobs today than it did in April 2025, when President Donald Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs, which the Supreme Court recently ruled were illegal taxes. In total, the U.S. has 19,000 fewer jobs today than it did last April.

Economic Policy Institute senior economist Elise Gould noted that manufacturing employment has declined by 100,000 jobs since Trump took office, despite his repeated campaign promises to revitalize the American manufacturing sector, with those job losses accelerating since Trump promised last April that “jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country.” Economic writer Joey Politano, meanwhile, displayed a graph showing 238,000 blue-collar job losses over the past year—employment sectors that Trump’s policies were purportedly intended to buoy.

EPI President Heidi Shierholz summed it up as: “A SNAPSHOT OF TRUMP'S ECONOMY—judged by his own goals: manufacturing jobs are down 100,000 since Trump took office, private-sector job growth is the weakest we’ve seen outside a recession in more than 20 years, and the unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers has increased.” Shierholz’s last point refers to an obsession among the MAGA right about native-born employment that they consistently mislead about.

Yet according to Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo, things have been great since April.

During her coverage of today’s jobs report, Bartiromo said: “If you bought stocks on April 2 of last year, on so-called ‘Liberation Day’ about the tariffs, you are up huge. When you look at some of those tech names, you have made a lot of money.”

Fox Business anchor Cheryl Casone then deflected from the disastrous February jobs report (-92,000 jobs) as well as the huge negative revision for December (revised down to -17,000 jobs) by hyping the so-called “blockbuster” January jobs report, which was itself also revised down slightly to a still-preliminary +126,000 jobs. Casone then attempted to pivot to a different jobs report released earlier this week by the private payroll firm ADP, which she claimed shows “private sector hiring is still strong.” That report beat weak expectations, but still showed private job growth of only 63,000 in February and contained negative revisions for January.

Ever since Trump announced his sweeping tariffs last April — even though they were illegal and have since been replaced by new global tariffs that are, unsurprisingly, also being challenged as illegal — Fox has been at the forefront in cheering on these higher taxes on American families.

Fox hosts have defended the chaos the tariffs initially unleashed in the stock market, and even as manufacturing employment has declined, Fox has continued to pretend that Trump’s tariffs are essential to restoring that sector.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

So Much Time, So Little Truth: Trump's Longest-Ever, Utterly Hollow Speech

So Much Time, So Little Truth: Trump's Longest-Ever, Utterly Hollow Speech

Well, that was exhausting — or would have been, if I had watched it. But I am not a masochist. I waited to read the transcript.

Trump’s State of the Union was historic in at least one respect: It was the longest SOTU ever. Was the plan to turn public opinion around by boring America into submission?

The address may also have been historic in another way, although it would be hard to quantify. Did any previous SOTU contain so many lies?

For the most part they weren’t Big Lies, lies that are persuasive because people can’t believe that anyone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”. They were, instead, small lies that added up to a false — and completely unpersuasive — portrayal of where we are.

On economics, Trump has catastrophic ratings even though the economy isn’t a catastrophe. Things aren’t great, but by most metrics they are about the same or a little bit worse than they were when he took office:

The last measure, the labor market differential, is the spread between people saying that jobs are “plentiful” versus “hard to get,” which has deteriorated substantially.

Why are people so negative when the economy isn’t that bad by conventional measures? Affordability, especially with regard to housing and health care, is a real problem, not fully captured by standard measures. And it’s a problem Trump didn’t address at all — instead, he’s doubling down on his massively unpopular tariffs, which make the problem worse.

Also, there are two big disconnects. First is the gap between what Trump promised — he was going to bring grocery prices down, cut energy prices in half — and what he has actually delivered. Second is the gap between his wild boasts about how great things are and the reality of a K-shaped economy that is leaving many Americans behind.

One other lie that struck me, although it may not matter much to voters, was Trump’s insistence that the world admires what he’s doing: “America is respected again, perhaps like never before.”

Trump’s desire for external validation is, frankly, pathetic. And the truth is that we are despised like never before. You can see this in surveys:

Source: Pew Survey

And foreign leaders have completely lost faith in America: We’ve become a country whose word can’t be trusted, a country that betrays its allies:

Source: Kiel Institute

It’s true that in some ways the world fears us in a way it didn’t before — in the same way that one steps carefully around a belligerent drunk in a bar. But we haven’t been this weak on the world stage since before World War II.

Anyway, that speech won’t pull Trump out of his downward spiral. Time to attack Iran?

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.


Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World