The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
@zpleat
MAGA Media Parrot Republican Lies About Medicaid Cuts

MAGA Media Parrot Republican Lies About Medicaid Cuts

Trump administration officials and Republican lawmakers are getting help from their MAGA media allies to deny the effects of their “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which passed the GOP-controlled House last month and is expected to kick millions of Americans off their Medicaid coverage while cutting taxes for the rich. Journalists and experts are calling out these Republicans for their lies that their bill won’t cut Medicaid.

Following this criticism, the administration is reportedly shifting its argument to falsely claim that the only people who will lose Medicaid coverage will be those who don’t deserve it, specifically “people who are here illegally” and “capable and able-bodied men who refuse to work.” This too, is a lie.

The vast majority (92 percent) of people on Medicaid already work or engage in caregiving or have disabilities or other statuses that would exempt them from a work requirement. The remaining eight percent of the population is overwhelmingly made up of women, not the hypothetical “capable and able-bodied men who refuse to work.” And furthermore, federal Medicaid funding already cannot be used to pay for coverage of undocumented immigrants; states that currently provide analogous health care coverage to undocumented immigrants do so with their own tax dollars.

Republican officials denied Medicaid cuts will result in enrollment losses

  • House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) said on NBC’s Meet the Press that “4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid unless they choose to do so.” Johnson was defending the work requirements the GOP legislation is adding to Medicaid. [NBC News, 6/1/25]
  • Trump Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on CNN’s State of the Union: “No one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.” Vought also defended the new Medicaid work requirements, stating: “We have able-bodied working adults that don’t have a work requirement that they would have in TANF or even SNAP. And those are something that’s very important to institute. That’s what this bill does.” [Politico, 6/1/25]
  • Trump Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a Politico interview, “We’re not cutting Medicaid.” Later in the interview, Oz agreed when interviewer Dasha Burns said that work requirements are “the biggest part of” how Republicans “want to kind of cut and cull” Medicaid. [Politico, 6/1/25]
  • Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) on CNBC’s Squawk Box: “There’s a lot of confusion that Democrats have lied about. They went out there, Joe, and said that we’re cutting Medicaid benefits.” [CNBC, Squawk Box, 6/2/25]
  • Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) told a constituent that “we are all going to die” in response to complaints about the GOP bill stripping Americans of Medicaid coverage. This comment followed her claim that only people ineligible for Medicaid would lose coverage. [NPR, 5/31/25]

Right-wing media amplify Republican lies that bill won't lead to losses in Medicaid coverage

  • Breitbart: “Speaker Johnson: ‘No Medicaid cuts in the big beautiful bill.’” [Breitbart, 6/1/25]
  • The Post Millennial posted clips of Johnson claiming “we’re not cutting Medicaid,” defending Medicaid work requirements, and framing those requirements as “strengthening the program.” [Twitter/X, 6/1/25, 6/1/25]
  • Daily Caller: “‘We’re not cutting Medicaid’: Dr. Oz seems to confirm Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ will not cut program.” [Daily Caller, 5/30/25]
  • Pro-Trump CNBC host Joe Kernen joined Mullin in denying that Republicans are cutting Medicaid, stating: “No one believes that.” [CNBC, Squawk Box, 6/2/25; Mediaite, 12/5/24]
  • Fox Business host Dagen McDowell: “Anybody on the left, Josh Hawley, anybody crying about Medicaid cuts, there are no cuts. Shut up.” [Fox Business, The Big Money Show, 6/2/25]
  • Newsmax chyron: “Dems lie about Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill.'” Newsmax host Carl Higbie aired clips of Democrats calling out Republican cuts to Medicaid and said, “They are not exactly telling the truth.” His guest, Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI), said, “Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security are not getting touched,” after Higbie said: “So no cuts there.” [Newsmax, Carl Higbie Frontline, 5/29/25]
  • Newsmax host Marc Lotter cited a Trump post claiming there will be “NO CUTS” to Medicaid when asking a guest, “Do you think, finally, Americans can actually separate the fact from fiction here?” Lotter added: “Democrats use this same rhetoric every time they oppose Republicans.” [Newsmax, Wake Up America, 6/3/25]

Media and issue experts call out Republicans for lies about the bill cutting Medicaid coverage

  • Rolling Stone: “Mike Johnson and Russ Vought continue to lie about Medicaid cuts.” The Rolling Stone article noted that Vought vastly exaggerated the rate of “improper” Medicaid payments, and falsely claimed that undocumented immigrants are “on the program.” Rolling Stone then cited multiple estimates showing millions of people losing Medicaid coverage if the GOP bill becomes law. A second Rolling Stone article on this topic declared, “Republicans are flat-out lying about their Medicaid cuts.” [Rolling Stone, 6/1/25, 6/2/25]
  • Washington Post economics columnist Catherine Rampell mocked the Republican dissembling about Medicaid coverage losses from their bill. Rampell wrote: “OP response to credible estimates that ~8m people will lose insurance due to Medicaid cuts: 1) no one will lose coverage 2) only the freeloaders and bums will lose coverage (not deserving people like you!) 3) look we're all going to die anyway.” [Twitter/X, 6/1/25]
  • Public Notice’s Aaron Rupar: “Vought blatantly lies about Medicaid cuts on CNN, claiming ‘no one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.’” [Twitter/X, 6/1/25]
  • Rupar: “Mike Johnson blatantly lies on Meet the Press: ‘You can underscore what I'm about to tell you -- there are no Medicaid cuts in the big beautiful bill.’” [Twitter/X, 6/1/25]
  • Rupar: “CNBC allows Markwayne Mullin to lie with impunity that Republicans aren't cutting Medicaid benefits (they are cutting Medicaid benefits).” [Twitter/X, 6/2/25]
  • Chamber of Progress director of economic analysis Tahra Hoops: “This is incredibly false. Millions would lose their coverage under this bill, there is no other result should this pass.” [Twitter/X, 6/1/25]
  • KFF executive vice president for health policy Larry Levitt: “You can’t argue that cuts to Medicaid of over $700 billion over a decade won’t result in people losing coverage.” [Twitter/X, 6/1/25]
  • The Atlantic contributing writer James Surowiecki: “If no one will lose Medicaid coverage as a result of the budget bill, then Republicans are telling extraordinary lies about the spending cuts in the bill.” [Twitter/X, 6/2/25]
  • Bloomberg columnist Matthew Yglesias: “The CBO says that approximately 7,600,000 people will lose coverage as a result of the bill’s Medicaid cuts.” Yglesias was responding to a clip of Vought denying losses of Medicaid coverage in his CNN interview. [Twitter/X, 6/1/25]

Independent estimates predict millions of Americans will lose their Medicaid coverage if the bill passes

  • Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Republicans’ tax bill would cut $1.1 trillion from Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and SNAP to fund tax cuts for people earning more than $500,000 annually. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/16/25]
  • Politico: The Congressional Budget Office estimated that “the Medicaid portions of the GOP megabill would lead to 10.3 million people losing coverage under the health safety net program and 7.6 million people going uninsured.” According to Politico, this was a partial estimate released by Republicans. [Politico, 5/13/25]
  • CBPP: “Roughly 15 million people could lose coverage and become uninsured under House Republican plan.” The CBPP added the expected 7.6 million uninsured from the Medicaid cuts alone to estimates of coverage losses from the House GOP bill’s failure to extend premium tax credits and other cuts to the Affordable Care Act. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/29/25]
  • KFF: Forty states and the District of Columbia could see at least 13% of their Medicaid recipients kicked off their insurance, with rates of loss as high as 32%. This is a high-end estimate of state-by-state Medicaid coverage losses from KFF. [KFF, 5/16/25]
  • Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: New work requirements alone could put “9.7 million to 14.4 million people at risk of losing Medicaid coverage in 2034.” CBPP explained, “Evidence shows that much of the coverage loss due to work requirements would occur among people who work or should qualify for an exemption but nevertheless would lose coverage due to red tape.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/13/25]
  • Economic Policy Institute: “Work requirements effectively function like a cut to programs.” EPI explained that “while work requirements do not reliably increase employment, they do significantly increase the administrative burden and costs of applying for safety net programs. This increased administrative burden, in turn, reduces access and take-up.” EPI further explained, “In many cases, the sheer amount of additional administrative burdens levied on adults seeking benefits, and on case workers screening to ensure that work requirements are met, is a major driver in the decline in participation.” [Economic Policy Institute, 1/24/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Kevin Hassett

As Trump Recession Looms, Fox Hastily Rewrites Economic History

During a March 12 appearance on Fox, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett rosily predicted strong growth for the American economy in the first quarter of 2025 and dismissed consumer confidence surveys indicating fears of a looming recession. Hassett boldly stated: “I'll give you an expectation that GDP growth is going to be 2-2.5% in the first quarter, at least,” even as the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s GDPNow estimate at the time predicted a contraction.

Now that the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ advance estimate has shown that GDP “decreased at an annual rate of 0.3 percent in the first quarter of 2025,” Fox anchor Sandra Smith has acknowledged that it was “a reversal from 2.4% growth in the fourth quarter [of 2024].”

However, Smith also downplayed the contraction, saying, “Some might say that wasn’t as big a drop as anticipated considering the sharp change in policies.”

Yet, as University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers noted on April 21, dozens of economic forecasters had been consistently downgrading their expectations of economic growth since President Donald Trump took office in January.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

American Manufacturers Debunk Fox News Defense Of Trump Tariffs

American Manufacturers Debunk Fox News Defense Of Trump Tariffs

As President Donald Trump’s chaotic tariff policy begins to divide his right-wing media supporters and prompt them to search out scapegoats and distractions, Fox personalities have clung to messaging that the tariffs will ultimately lead to a renaissance in American manufacturing.

However, multiple surveys of manufacturers in recent months show that Trump’s tariffs are making their operations more difficult and expensive. Additionally, experts have said the expectation that the tariffs will lead to substantially higher domestic manufacturing is unrealistic, and may lead to a further decline in manufacturing employment.

Fox claims Trump’s tariffs will help grow American manufacturing

  • Fox host Jesse Watters: “Tariffs can unwind years of bad deals. Americans want to reindustrialize.” Watters also dismissed former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen saying that the goal of tariffs bringing American manufacturing back is “a pipe dream.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 4/14/25]
  • Fox host Laura Ingraham on skepticism that Trump’s tariffs will reignite U.S. manufacturing: “Simplistic does not begin to describe this level of analysis.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 4/14/25]
  • Fox Business host Elizabeth MacDonald on media skepticism that tariffs will help U.S. manufacturing: “The liberal media making it clear they are not focused on why it is necessary to bring back American manufacturing jobs.” [Fox Business, The Evening Edit, 4/14/25]
  • Fox host Rachel Campos-Duffy claimed that “the working class are going to benefit from both” Trump’s border security and tariff policies, which will be “bringing the manufacturing here.” She explained, “The tariffs are about cheap labor overseas, and the open border was about cheap labor coming here domestically. … Closing the border means wages that were — the illegals who were coming over were competing for the lower end jobs with Americans. That's going to raise the wage and so is bringing the manufacturing here.” A chyron during the segment read “Trump rolls out sweeping tariffs to protect U.S.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 4/5/25]
  • In the same segment, Fox News correspondent Griff Jenkins argued, “The purpose of these tariffs is to realign the global trade that has been so unfair and imbalanced … while bringing American manufacturing jobs — thousands, tens of thousands of them — back to the U.S.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 4/5/25]
  • Fox Business host Larry Kudlow argued the tariffs plan “makes a lot of sense” because they may lead to more factories built in America, “particularly if we get these tax cuts through as rapidly as possible.” Kudlow claimed, “The United States has been on the short end of the stick — tariffs, nontariff barriers, currency depreciation, you name it.” He added, “Mr. Trump is placing significant tariffs, baseline tariffs, and reciprocal tariffs on nations who are most offensive to us, and if you make their goods more expensive at home, then hopefully Americans will buy America, produce America, build factories in America. That's the plan.” [Fox Business, Kudlow, 4/2/25]
  • MacDonald claimed Trump “is trying to bring back American manufacturing, reignite a manufacturing golden age, ending a disastrous post-Cold War era.” MacDonald added: “History shows [in] President Trump's first term, higher tariffs did not trigger inflation. The stock market boomed due to his pro-growth strategies.” [Fox Business, The Evening Edit, 4/2/25]

Multiple surveys show Trump’s tariffs make manufacturing more difficult and expensive

  • The first-quarter 2025 National Association of Manufacturers outlook survey “reveals growing concerns over trade uncertainties and increased raw material costs.” According to the survey, “Trade uncertainties surged to the top of manufacturers’ challenges, cited by 76.2% of respondents, jumping 20 percentage points from Q4 2024 and 40 percentage points from Q3 of last year. Increased raw material costs came in second, cited by 62.3% of respondents.” [National Association of Manufacturers, 3/6/25]
  • The Hill: “Makers of chemical products, electronics, metals, machinery, foods and transportation equipment all expressed concerns about tariffs” in an April 1 Institute for Supply Management survey. The Hill quoted multiple manufacturers complaining about how tariffs are negatively impacting their businesses. [The Hill, 4/1/25]
  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas’ February Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey showed multiple complaints from manufacturers about tariffs. One business replied that “tariff threats and uncertainty are extremely disruptive.” Another explained that it has “lost business opportunities for production of goods that goes to other countries as a result of tariffs.” A third company cited tariff changes to announce its likely closure. Many other businesses expressed concerns about Trump’s tariffs as well. [Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2/24/25]
  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s March manufacturing survey also featured multiple complaints from manufacturers about tariffs. One manufacturer was quoted as saying: “The uncertainty of the tariffs is having a direct impact on our business as well as the overall economy. We will be raising prices significantly for our imported products.” Another one stated: “Tariffs may cause problems with the ability for suppliers to deliver product at competitive prices.” [Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 3/27/25]
  • The OECD manufacturing Business Tendency Survey showed a steep drop in confidence indicators for the U.S. since January. [Federal Reserve Economic Data, 4/15/25]
  • A new CNBC survey of manufacturers revealed that “Trump tariffs won’t lead supply chains back to” the U.S. CNBC wrote in a report on its new Supply Chain Survey that “the Trump administration says a reshoring boom is coming, but most companies that responded to the survey told CNBC that bringing back supply chains could as much as double their costs and that instead a search for low-tariff regimes around the world will commence.” According to the survey, “consumer demand, raw material prices, and the ‘current administration’s inability to provide a consistent strategy’ were cited as key supply chain concerns, in addition to the tariffs.” [CNBC, 4/14/25]

Experts explain why Trump’s tariffs won’t lead to a manufacturing renaissance

  • Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome: “The Philadelphia Fed's latest (April 2025) survey of regional manufacturers shows that their plans for future capital expenditures have fallen off a cliff since January. Gee, I wonder what happened.” [Twitter/X, 4/17/25]
  • Bloomberg’s Joe Weisenthal: “Dismal expectations for the economy in the NY Fed's survey of regional manufacturers. Basically every line -- new orders, employment etc. -- is going down, with the exception of prices (received, and paid) which are going up.” Weisenthal quoted from the survey’s summary in another post: “Firms expect conditions to worsen in the months ahead, a level of pessimism that has only occurred a handful of times in the history of the survey.” [Twitter/X, 4/15/25, 4/15/25]
  • Former Federal Reserve chair and Biden Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen: “I don’t understand the rationale for the tariffs. … Perhaps it’s to bring back American manufacturing, but I really think that’s a pipe dream and not something that is likely to be accomplished.” Yellen said, “To me, President Trump is taking a sledgehammer — not only is he pounding our allies with this, but he’s pounding the U.S. economy with this sledgehammer.” [CNBC, 4/14/25]
  • University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers: “Trump's tariffs made it hard for American manufacturing firms to import critical minerals, so China responded by making it harder.” [Twitter/X, 4/14/25]
  • Wolfers on the April 1 ISM survey: “The manufacturing sector isn't responding well to the tariffs designed to help the manufacturing sector.” [Twitter/X, 4/1/25]
  • Former Labor Department chief economist Betsey Stevenson: “Manufacturing jobs for people are going away due to technology. You can't try to save that industry through tariffs.” [Twitter/X, 4/4/25]
  • American Enterprise Institute Director of Economic Policy Studies Michael Strain wrote, “The president is wrong: His tariffs will not lead to a manufacturing renaissance.” [Twitter/X, 4/4/25]
  • Strain: “These tariffs will reduce manufacturing employment.” Strain added, “They will reduce the competitiveness of manufacturing firms. They will raise prices. They will increase unemployment. They will likely cause a recession.” [Twitter/X, 4/8/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Peter Navarro

MAGA Media Blame Advisers For Trump Tariff Nightmare

Numerous right-wing media figures are placing blame for the chaos and confusion over Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs on two of his top economic appointees — senior trade adviser Peter Navarro and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick — rather than on Trump himself.

When announced, Donald Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs amounted to one of the largest tax hikes in American history, and despite being labeled “reciprocal,” they had absolutely nothing to do with foreign tariff rates. These new rates, the highest in more than 100 years, caused widespread market volatility and are projected to raise costs for the average American family by thousands of dollars while also increasing the risks of a recession — if they go into effect.

A week after announcing the various tariff rates on dozens of countries, Trump announced a 90-day “pause” — after his press secretary previously called reports of such a pause “fake news” — aside from a universal 10% rate on every country except China, which now has a 145% tariff rate. The Trump administration then amended the tariff rate for Chinese-exported consumer electronics to 20%. This followed comments from Lutnick about a different tariff for electronics, specifically a sectoral tariff on semiconductors.

Pro-Trump media figures on Fox and elsewhere have been blaming Lutnick and Navarro for tariff-related confusion over the past week:

  • Fox reporter Jacqui Heinrich: “Some confusion was spurred from the mixed messaging” from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Heinrich aired a clip of Lutnick saying on ABC’s This Week that consumer electronics will be “exempt from the reciprocal tariffs” but will soon receive their own sectoral tariff. Earlier in the segment, Heinrich reported that Trump “said they are still subject to that 20% charge he imposed over fentanyl.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/14/25]
  • Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo blamed confusion on Lutnick and Navarro saying different things on different news programs. In an interview with Trump National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, Bartiromo said: “You had some of your colleagues out — Howard Lutnick was on one show, Peter Navarro was on the other show — and, you know, with some of them saying, well, there are no exemptions. And then somebody else saying, well, they’re going to be in a different bucket. It created some confusion.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria, 4/14/25]
  • Fox Business anchor Cheryl Casone: “I'm so glad he made that clarification on Air Force One. That's why it’s so good to have the president himself come out, because they’ve had some messaging missteps — not him, people underneath him.” Host Maria Bartiromo agreed with a guest who said, “I think this back-and-forth, this confusion that I feel after reading about this all weekend long is definitely part of the strategy in keeping the other side guessing what’s going on.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria, 4/14/25]
  • Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon: “Let me be blunt. Lutnick, who was Elon’s pick for secretary treasury, I think he’s close to being an unmitigated disaster. We should see a lot less of Lutnick on TV.” [Real America’s Voice, War Room, 4/14/25]
  • Fox Business host Charles Payne: “Mixed and confusing messaging” from Navarro and Lutnick “has the same gut-wrenching impact as an unnecessary holding penalty that negates a touchdown.” Payne also wrote: “Some people said I was too hard on my old friend Peter Navarro on Wednesday, but I was hard on messaging from him and Lutnick.” [Twitter/X, 4/13/25]
  • Fox Business senior correspondent Charles Gasparino quoted an anonymous “senior Wall Street executive w ties to the Trump White House,” saying: “Susie (Wiles) needs to get control of Lutnick. He is a wrecking ball.” Gasparino added that his source “described @howardlutnick’s comments about the temporary nature of the tariff exemptions as ‘off message.’” Gasparino’s quote continued: “Now the market will open way down again since it appears the administration is totally confused.” [Twitter/X, 4/13/25]
  • The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro: “If you wanna see a real bull market, the president should fire Peter Navarro today.” Shapiro added: “It would be stupid to continue running full speed into a wall in the name of Peter Navarro's benighted idiocy with regard to trade.” [The Daily Wire, The Ben Shapiro Show, 4/10/25]
  • Shapiro: Navarro “should be nowhere near trade policy.” Shapiro also said: “Peter Navarro, who is the architect of much of this trade policy, a man who used to be a zero-growther, actually, in his early career, and then called himself Ron Vara in his own writings to create a fake name under which to attribute many of his writings. It was like Voldemort. His last name is Navarro. Get it? Ron Vara? Get it? You don't? It's dumb.” [The Daily Wire, The Ben Shapiro Show, 4/9/25]
  • MAGA personality Ian Miles Cheong: “Navarro is out. He f’d everything up.” In an earlier post, Cheong wrote: “Navarro needs to go. Thank God Bessent was there.” [Twitter/X, 4/10/25, 4/9/25]
  • Trump operative Roger Stone: “The economy? More Bessent, less Lutnick.” [Twitter/X, 4/9/25]
  • Washington Examiner senior writer David Harsanyi: “Navarro is the Fauci of finance. I hope he's done.” [Twitter/X, 4/9/25]
  • Fox Business host Dagen McDowell ridiculed Navarro for “his reciprocal trade-girl math that's kneecapping the United States.” McDowell added: “The quicker that they get him off of TV and away from numbers, the better.” Co-host Jackie DeAngelis agreed, adding: “I actually think they realize that. I think they realize Bessent should be the point person on this, and they're putting him out there. I think they're gonna pull back on Lutnick, I think they're gonna pull back on Navarro a little bit too. They need to get clear on their messaging and make sure there's no nuance in there.” [Fox Business, The Bottom Line, 4/7/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Fox Vs. Fox: Trump Toadies Defend Tariff Chaos While Experts Freak Out

Fox Vs. Fox: Trump Toadies Defend Tariff Chaos While Experts Freak Out

Following days of historic stock market chaos after President Donald Trump's so-called “Liberation Day” announcement of massive global tariffs on April 2, financial professionals and market analysts have warned Fox News and Fox Business audiences about the dire consequences of a global trade war. Meanwhile, Fox’s roster of professional Trump apologists and sycophants have continued to spew their pro-Trump and pro-tariff propaganda, assuring audiences that the short-term pain will be worth it in the long-term.

Bloomberg explained that “the market crash Trump has stoked is one for the history books,” pointing out that the “Nasdaq 100 has plunged into a bear market. More than $5 trillion was wiped off the value of all US shares in two days.” CNN reported that “the awfulness of the past two days of trading were matched only by the 1987 crash, the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid crash of 2020,” reporting that “the S&P 500 had lost 15 percent of its value since Inauguration Day as of Sunday night.”

Comparing the current sell-off to the 2001 market crash caused by the dot-com bubble the year before, CNN noted: “Trump, on the other hand, inherited a bull market. … Indeed, it is quite easy to say that Trump is directly responsible for the dive under his presidency given how much of it occurred since Liberation Day.”

Finance professionals on Fox expressed alarm over Trump’s tariffs and warned of recession

  • Fox Business guest Brad Gerstner: “These were not reciprocal tariffs, right? This was a Navarro nuclear-style assault on American business.” Gerstner, a hedge fund manager, reserved special condemnation for Trump’s Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro, labeling the White House’s trade war “The Navarro nuclear approach to tariffs” that “is going to land us squarely in a recession.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 4/7/25]
  • Fox Business guest James Iuorio: “I think we're going into recession now.” Iurio, the managing director of a financial services firm, continued: “So, do I think recession is coming? Yes, I think we're probably already there. If you take the buying power out of the people's hands who were driving inflation, who are driving the expansion, let's say, of course it's gone away.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 4/7/25]
  • Fox Business guest Ryan Payne: “Talk to any economist in the country, and you’re definitely going to slow the economy, and you’re definitely looking at a possible recession.” When asked directly by host Stuart Varney if he was worried about a recession, Payne, an investment planning strategist, responded, “Yeah, I think 100%,” but later hedged his prediction by saying, “There's going to be some backtracking, and there’s going to be negotiations.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 4/7/25]
  • Fox Business guest Dennis Gartman on the negative effects from the tariffs: “This is going to get much worse. I am really quite fearful that things are coming apart.” On the stock market, economist and long-time investment analyst Gartman added: “I think we're going to go down quite a good deal further before this is over.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 4/4/25]
  • Fox Business guest Ken Mahoney: Trump has “put us in a really bad situation” with his tariffs. Mahoney, an asset management CEO, pointed out that Trump voters are being hurt by the crash as well, saying: “Those same people that voted for him, played by the rules, put away money for taxes, put money away for retirement, are really feeling the brunt of collateral damage of this.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 4/4/25]
  • Fox Business guest Ed Yardeni: Trump's tariffs have “a real potential ... to add up to at least stagflation, if not outright recession.” Yardeni, an economist and financial investment strategist, added: “It's very likely for the next few months we'll see higher inflation” as a result of Trump's “ridiculous” tariffs and “disastrous trade policy.” [Fox Business, Making Money, 4/3/25]
  • On Fox Business, former GOP Sen. Pat Toomey warned Trump's tariffs will be “probably the largest tax increase on American consumers in the history of the country.” Toomey, who worked in banking before his tenure in Congress and now sits on the board of Apollo Global Management, added: “I think taxing American consumers when they buy imports is going to do much more harm than good.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 4/3/25]
  • Fox Business guest and financial analyst Darius Dale said he would “absolutely not” buy stocks the morning after Trump's tariff announcement. [Media Matters, 4/3/25]
  • Fox Business guest and hedge fund manager Jay Hatfield: Trump’s tariffs are “really too much, too soon” and “we’ll almost certainly have a recession” without Federal Reserve interest rate cuts. [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 4/3/25]
  • Steve Forbes on Fox Business: “You've got a lot of small companies with small margins that are going to be hurt by this, put out of business.” Forbes, the editor-in-chief of the business magazine Forbes and a long-time conservative economic commentator, later warned of the upward pressure Trump’s tariffs would have on domestic automobile prices. [Fox Business, The Bottom Line, 4/2/25]

Fox hosts dismissed stock market crash, defended tariffs, and said it's a good time to buy

  • Fox host Jesse Watters: “These tariffs are for the children.” Watters described Trump’s “vision” for his extreme tariffs as turning “the country into a place with thriving main streets and hometowns where American workers make American products sold to the American public. Doesn't that give you a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling inside?” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 4/4/25]
  • Fox host Laura Ingraham dismissed the stock market collapse over Trump’s tariffs: “You have to think beyond the short run.” During the segment, Ingraham aired a graphic advising viewers to “ignore the Dow doomsdayers.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 4/4/25]
  • Fox host Greg Gutfeld: Trump’s tariffs are “already a win. We are already getting results.” Co-host Jesse Watters added: “Vietnam called and they want to drop their duties down to zero.” [Fox News, The Five, 4/4/25]
  • On his radio show, Fox host Sean Hannity urged listeners to wait out the “minor pain” caused by Trump’s tariffs. Hannity continued: “For whatever short-term, minor pain that may be inflicted on us, the long-term benefits are going to be massive.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 4/4/25]
  • Watters: “If you're worried cars are going to cost more, buy American.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 4/3/25]
  • Ingraham: “I personally know a lot of people who are buying into this market. That's how people always make money. The panicked sellers always regret it.” Ingraham added: “I'm waiting to see how things play out in the next 3 to 6 months. That'll tell us a lot more than one day.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 4/3/25]
  • Fox host Jeanine Pirro: “I don't really care about my 401(k) today. You know why? ... I believe in this man.” Pirro also told viewers “don’t look” at the stock market “for the next few weeks.” [Fox News, The Five, 4/3/25, 4/3/25]
  • Hannity on Trump’s tariffs: “My level of confidence is pretty near 100% that this is all going to work out fine.” Hannity also said: “I am absolutely a thousand percent confident that things are going to work out in the end for everybody.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 4/3/25, 4/3/25]
  • Watters on Trump’s tariffs: “It's an exciting time to be alive.” Watters continued: “We've rewired the entire world in a way we haven't seen in 100 years. And it's great. And hopefully, it works out. I haven't looked at my 401(k) today. I'm going to look at it tomorrow — actually, maybe not, I won't look at it for another month.” [Fox News, The Five, 4/3/25]
  • Fox host Will Cain: “We should see” Trump’s tariffs “as a potential restructuring of the American spirit, the purpose of America.” Cain suggested that work will set us free from a “a depression of purpose”: “Americans need a reason to get up and work has been our primary purpose, and work has been destroyed for middle class Americans.” [Fox News, The Will Cain Show, 4/3/25]
  • Fox host Kayleigh McEnany: “These are enormous, they're historic, they're going to reset the American economy.” McEnany added: “I would not be surprised if the great negotiator has an endgame in mind here.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 4/3/25]
  • Hannity: Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs “will be remembered as a turning point and the start, I hope for every American, of a new golden age of American wealth and exceptionalism.” [Fox News, Hannity, 4/2/25]
  • Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo: Trump’s tariffs are “brilliant.” She continued, “I would be buying this market with both hands.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 4/2/25]

Economists also warn of enormous economic damage from Trump’s tariffs

  • Tax Foundation: Trump’s cumulative tariffs will shrink U.S. GDP by 0.7% and lead to the equivalent of 605,000 fewer jobs. The Tax Foundation also calculated that “the Trump tariffs will reduce after-tax income by an average of 1.9 percent and amount to an average tax increase of more than $1,900 per US household in 2025.” [Tax Foundation, 4/4/25]
  • Yale’s Budget Lab: “The price level from all 2025 tariffs rises by 2.3% in the short-run, the equivalent of an average per household consumer loss of $3,800 in 2024$.” The analysis added: “Annual losses for households at the bottom of the income distribution are $1,700.” [The Budget Lab, 4/2/25]
  • Budget Lab: “US real GDP growth is … -0.9pp lower from all 2025 tariffs.” The analysis continued: “In the long-run, the US economy is persistently … -0.6% smaller,” the equivalent of “$180 billion annually in 2024$.” [The Budget Lab, 4/2/25]
  • Peterson Institute for International Economics President Adam Posen: “US recession risk is going up, but expect inflation either way growth goes, up or down.” Posen added: “This will not generate a fraction of the rise in employment in US manufacturing that the administration claims. In fact, it will reduce US companies' share of global auto sales.” [Peterson Institute for International Economics, 4/3/25]
  • PIIE Executive Vice President Marcus Noland: “These tariffs are regressive, tilted toward low-income countries from which we source clothes and footwear, and will have a profoundly regressive impact on the US.” Noland continued: “They will contribute to slower growth, higher prices, and greater unemployment.” [Peterson Institute for International Economics, 4/3/25]
  • UCLA Law School tax policy professor Kimberly Clausing: Trump’s tariffs “risk economic catastrophe.” Clausing continued: “The largest tax increase in more than fifty years will burden US consumers, generating thousands of dollars in tax increases for the median household. Retaliation and the tariffs on intermediate goods (a majority of US imports) will harm US investment, production, and growth. Trump may wager that tariffs will return us to a better economic time but, in reality, they will leave behind only broken partnerships and economic devastation.” [Peterson Institute for International Economics, 4/3/25]
  • University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers: If Trump “sticks with the tariffs: 75% chance of recession within 12 months.” Wolfers added: “If he abandons the tariffs: 25% chance.” [Bluesky, 4/7/25]
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor Arindrajit Dube on the stock market crash: “At some point expectations will take over - and a combination of wealth loss and psychological shock will lead to drop in capex and consumer purchases, triggering a downturn.” Dube added: “At that point reversing the tariffs won't be enough, and we will be in deep trouble. We may be crossing the Rubicon soon.” [Twitter/X, 4/6/25]
  • Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi: “Unless sentiment recovers quickly, a recession is dead ahead. Indeed, I would put the odds of a downturn now at 60%.” [Twitter/X, 4/6/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Maria Bartiromo

Fox News Ignores $500B IRS Loss That Dwarfs DOGE 'Savings'

Fox News and Fox Business have seemingly ignored bombshell reporting from The Washington Post detailing how disruptions at the Internal Revenue Service created by the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency may result in the loss of half a trillion dollars of federal tax revenue this year.

This roughly $500 billion loss — which would represent nearly 10 percent of expected tax revenue to be gathered by the IRS by the April 15 tax filing deadline — dwarfs the alleged savings generated by DOGE from the firing of federal workers, closing of offices and agencies, and the cancellation of government contracts, which Fox personalities have enthusiastically promoted.

Fox’s refusal to inform viewers about how DOGE has crippled the IRS comes as no surprise given the network’s long track record of demagoguing against the agency.

Trump-driven IRS turmoil may cost 10 percent of federal revenue, which Fox ignored

In a March 22 story, The Washington Post reported that “staff cuts and disruptions related to the U.S. DOGE Service have officials bracing for a sharp loss of revenue” of up to a 10 percent decrease in federal tax receipts, a shortfall of over $500 billion. From the story:

Senior tax officials are bracing for a sharp drop in revenue collected this spring, as an increasing number of individuals and businesses spurn filing their taxes or attempt to skip paying balances owed to the Internal Revenue Service, according to three people with knowledge of tax projections.

Treasury Department and IRS officials are predicting a decrease of more than 10 percent in tax receipts by the April 15 deadline compared with 2024, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share nonpublic data. That would amount to more than $500 billion in lost federal revenue; the IRS collected $5.1 trillion last year. For context, the U.S. government spent $825 billion on the Defense Department in fiscal 2024.

…

The prediction, officials say, is directly tied to changing taxpayer behavior and President Donald Trump’s rapid demolition of parts of the IRS.

Fox has repeatedly promoted the comparatively meager DOGE savings reportedly totaling $130 billion as of March 28, a figure that reporting makes clear is hugely exaggerated. But according to a Media Matters review, Fox News has not covered this Post story showing a staggering loss in revenue due in part to DOGE. In a review of transcripts on Fox News and Fox Business from March 22 - 27, we found that Fox failed to report on the Post’s exclusive.

However, during this period, Fox Business anchor Liz Claman did acknowledge the importance of the IRS, saying: “I think we do need people at the IRS making sure people pay their taxes, because this country is not gonna run without tax revenue.”

Fox hyped DOGE’s supposed savings

Fox personalities have been eager to applaud DOGE’s efforts to upend much of the United States government, claiming the department is pursuing cost savings and efficiency.

  • Fox host Sean Hannity: “There’s $500 billion that was identified by Sen. Rand Paul … in previously approved spending that they believe they have the ability to cut. That's a big number.” Hannity continued, “We're getting into the trillions of dollars which was the goal originally.” [Fox News, Hannity, 3/5/25]
  • Fox host Jesse Watters celebrated “federal agencies getting DOGEd.” Watters emphasized that the DOGE “whiz kids” are “already saving a billion bucks a day.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 2/4/25]
  • Fox host Laura Ingraham: “DOGE ends the gravy train.” Ingraham asked, “Are there any sane Democrats left in Washington? Do any of them care about the billions being stolen from the U.S. taxpayers, stolen through waste, stolen through negligence, fraud, abuse?” Ingraham then celebrated an announcement of 167 contract cancellations. [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 2/14/25]
  • Fox & Friends hosts gushed over the supposed DOGE savings and supported a DOGE “dividend check” to Americans. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/20/25]
  • Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo celebrated that “DOGE has exposed so much wasteful spending” before suggesting “digging into Medicare and Medicaid.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 3/10/25]

Reports have shown DOGE’s savings are exaggerated

  • PBS’ News Hour: DOGE “has posted what it calls a wall of receipts on its Web site that claims it has saved billions by cutting certain federal contracts. But reports and government documents prove that many of these so-called savings are either misleading or incorrect.” PBS White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López explained: “As The New York Times first reported, five of DOGE's biggest contracts that they say have resulted in savings ended up being deleted from that wall of receipts after outlets pointed out that there were errors. And some of the biggest errors in savings are, as CBS first reported, a USAID contract for $650 million that was listed three times, as The Intercept first reported, a Social Security contract listed as $232 million, instead of $560,000, and an ICE contract that DOGE listed as $8 billion, when, in reality, it was $8 million.” [PBS, News Hour, 2/26/25]
  • AP: “Nearly 40% of the federal contracts that President Donald Trump’s administration claims to have canceled as part of its signature cost-cutting program aren’t expected to save the government any money.” A February analysis by The Associated Press found that “more than one-third of the contract cancellations, 794 in all, are expected to yield no savings.” [The Associated Press, 2/25/25]
  • Gizmodo: “DOGE Just Keeps Deleting Its ‘Savings.’” Gizmodo reported on March 3 that DOGE “has repeatedly had to pull examples of so-called savings down after it was revealed that it actually didn’t save taxpayers anything.” According to the article, DOGE “changed or removed more than 40% of the more than 1,000 contracts it claimed to have canceled over the previous week, according to the New York Times. Included in that overnight alteration was the outright removal of five of the seven largest contracts it claimed to have cut.” [Gizmodo, 3/3/25]
  • NY Times: DOGE removed identifying information from its website to make its claimed savings harder to fact-check, before reversing course. The New York Times reported that DOGE “began making its new mistakes harder to find” following news outlets’ reporting on the group’s “error-filled data that inflated its success at saving taxpayer money.” The Times reported that DOGE began posting claims of new cuts without identifying information, and that it later removed the identifying information from the publicly available source code, making its claims nearly impossible to verify. The Times reported in a later story that DOGE “added some of the missing details,” allowing the public to check its claims of savings again. [The New York Times, 3/13/25, 3/18/25]

Fox has long demagogued against the IRS

  • Fox pushed a lie about increased IRS funding in the Inflation Reduction Act hundreds of times. In August 2022, Fox promoted the false claim that the IRA added 87,000 employees to the IRS at least 203 times, and House Republicans used these lies to justify a push to cut billions in enforcement funding from the agency. Some of the funding was successfully used to collect taxes owed by the richest Americans who otherwise may not have paid what they owed. [Media Matters, 6/7/24]
  • Fox also pushed unhinged demagoguery about the extra IRS funding, claiming that it would fund a militia to “hunt down and kill middle class taxpayers.” Then-Fox host Tucker Carlson claimed, “They're hiring another 87,000 armed IRS agents just to make sure that you obey. Got it?” Others on Fox described the potential wave of IRS hiring as an “economic, financial militia against regular people” deployed by those who “want to control you”; a “new army”; a “new Gestapo” Biden will use in an “abusive, corrupt manner”; “a Praetorian Guard that will be unleashed again” to “grab all the cash they can by any means necessary”; and “part of an orchestrated campaign to target Americans and have the federal government be at war with those Americans.” [Media Matters, 8/16/22]
  • During the Obama administration, Fox manufactured a scandal over the IRS scrutinizing political nonprofits. Before it came out that the IRS had also investigated progressive-aligned nonprofit organizations, Fox worked in concert with Republican politicians in an attempt to manufacture a scandal about the IRS supposedly targeting conservative nonprofits. [Media Matters, 8/20/13]

Methodology

Media Matters searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original programming on Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network for either of the terms “IRS” or “Internal Revenue Service” from March 22, 2025, when The Washington Post published its exclusive reporting that tax revenues could drop by 10% compared to 2024, through March 27, 2025.We timed segments, which we defined as instances when the possible IRS revenue shortfall was the stated topic of discussion or when we found significant discussion of the possible shortfall. We defined significant discussion as instances when two or more speakers in a multitopic segment discussed the possible shortfall with one another.We did not time passing mentions, which we defined as instances when a single speaker in a segment on another topic mentioned the possible IRS shortfall without another speaker engaging with the comment, or teasers, which we defined as instances when the anchor or host promoted a segment about the possible shortfall scheduled to air later in the broadcast.We rounded all times to the nearest minute.

Why Would Ted Cruz Try To Cripple A Major Anti-Bribery Statute?

Why Would Ted Cruz Try To Cripple A Major Anti-Bribery Statute?

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Fox Business Blames Media For Popular Rejection Of Trump Tariffs

Fox Business Blames Media For Popular Rejection Of Trump Tariffs

As President Donald Trump’s erratic tariff policies continue to take shape, multiple public opinion, consumer sentiment, and manufacturer and business surveys show that Americans generally disapprove of them. These surveys also show that Americans expect that the tariffs will raise prices and weaken the economy. With public support for Trump's economic interventions slipping, Fox Business has pivoted to attacking mainstream media coverage of Trump’s tariffs — even as experts warn that his policies will grievously harm the U.S. economy.

Surveys show widespread disapproval over Trump’s handling of tariffs and trade

  • A Fox News poll found that a majority of voters oppose tariffs on Canada (61 percent) and Mexico (56 percent). Fox News’ write-up of its poll stated that tariffs “are viewed mostly through a negative lens, with voters thinking they are more likely to harm the U.S. economy (53 percent harm vs. 28 percent help) and make products more expensive (69 percent more vs.sefven percent less).” [Fox News, 3/20/25]
  • An Echelon Insights poll found that when Americans were told that tariffs increased prices, 55 percent opposed them. [Twitter/X, 3/19/25]
  • A Morning Consult poll found 48 percent of voters oppose Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, and the same plurality disapprove of his tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico. [Morning Consult, 3/19/25]
  • Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell said “both market- and survey-based measures” are showing that “some near-term measures of inflation expectations have recently moved up,” with respondents “mentioning tariffs as a driving factor.” In Powell’s March 19 remarks, he also repeatedly used the phrase “tariff inflation” when describing how the Fed will account for price disruptions resulting from Trump’s tariff policies. [U.S. Federal Reserve, 3/19/25]
  • Cato Institute: Trump’s tariffs are causing an increase in small business’ uncertainty. A Cato Institute article explained: “The administration’s basket case approach to tariffs and global trade is fueling economic uncertainty. According to the February survey from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), its uncertainty index rose to its second-highest recorded reading.” The article additionally displayed a chart from the FedEx Small Business Trade Index which “shows that American small businesses are highly dependent on imports.” [Cato Institute, 3/14/25]
  • Reuters: The March University of Michigan consumer survey showed that “U.S. consumer sentiment plunged to a nearly 2-1/2-year low in March and inflation expectations soared amid worries that President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, which have ignited a trade war, would boost prices and undercut the economy.” Reuters reported that this result “mirrors similar concerns in some business surveys” and added: “The uncertainty created by Trump's on- and off-again tariffs as well as an escalation in trade tensions risks derailing the economic expansion.” [Reuters, 3/14/25]
  • A Quinnipiac poll showed that 56 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of trade with Mexico, and 58 percent disapprove of his handling of trade with Canada. Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said: “Icy exchanges on tariffs chill a longstanding friendship and voters make it clear they feel that's no way to treat our neighbors to the north.” [Quinnipiac University, 3/13/25]
  • A CNN poll showed that 61 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of tariffs. [CNN, 3/12/25]
  • The first quarter 2025 National Association of Manufacturers outlook survey “reveals growing concerns over trade uncertainties and increased raw material costs.” According to the survey, “Trade uncertainties surged to the top of manufacturers’ challenges, cited by 76.2 percent of respondents, jumping 20 percentage points from Q4 2024 and 40 percentage points from Q3 of last year. Increased raw material costs came in second, cited by 62.3 percent of respondents.” [National Association of Manufacturers, 3/6/25]
  • The February Institute for Supply Management survey showed that “worries about duties on imports dominated commentary from manufacturers.” Reuters’ report on the survey further explained that “a measure of prices at the factory gate jumped to nearly a three-year high and it took longer for materials to be delivered, suggesting that tariffs on imports could soon undercut production.” [Reuters, 3/3/25]
  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas’ February Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey showed multiple complaints from manufacturers about tariffs. One business replied that “tariff threats and uncertainty are extremely disruptive.” Another explained that it has “lost business opportunities for production of goods that goes to other countries as a result of tariffs.” Another business cited tariff changes to announce its likely closure. Many other businesses expressed concerns about Trump’s tariffs as well. [Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2/24/25]
  • A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 59 percent of Americans opposed Trump’s tariffs on Canada and 56 percent opposed his tariffs on Mexico. [Ipsos, February 2025]

Fox Business repeatedly attacked media coverage of Trump’s tariffs

  • Fox Business host Charles Payne: “The media lost its collective mind and began peppering Powell with nonstop questions about tariffs.” Payne added that the media had waged a “horrific campaign of horror” against tariffs. [Fox Business, Making Money, 3/20/25]
  • Payne: “The media has gone to war with President Trump and made tariffs the scariest thing in the world.” Payne added that widespread concern over tariffs is “a media creation,” and declared that “we have never had this much negative news associated with the economy outside of COVID, the peak of COVID.” [Fox News, America Reports, 3/18/25
  • Fox Business host Dagen McDowell: “There’s this media minion fixation on tariffs to foment fear, because they’re panic-peddlers at heart.” [Fox Business, The Big Money Show, 3/20/25]
  • McDowell: “All the media minion chicken scratchers can do is try and frighten the American people and report … the tariffs tantrums over and over and over again.” [Fox Business, The Bottom Line, 3/18/25]
  • Fox Business host and former Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow: “This whole business about tariffs and the liberal media, ‘tariffs are inflationary, tariffs are recessionary,’ I think it’s all hogwash.” [Fox Business, Kudlow, 3/20/25]
  • Kudlow: “The Wall Street and liberal media hysteria over inflationary tariffs is a lot of hoo-ha.” [Fox Business, Kudlow, 3/19/25]
  • Kudlow: “The media is trying desperately to use tariffs to hammer Trump and say his policies are a failure.” [Fox Business, Kudlow, 3/19/25]

Experts have warned that Trump’s tariffs will hurt the economy


  • The Tax Foundation’s March 12 estimate of Trump’s various tariff policies found that they will “reduce US GDP by 0.4 percent and hours worked by 309,000 full-time equivalent jobs, before accounting for foreign retaliation.” These figures do not account for Trump’s separately announced so-called “reciprocal” tariffs, tariffs on the European Union, automobiles, agricultural products, or semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. [Tax Foundation, accessed 3/21/25]
  • Yale’s Budget Lab analysis of tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico found that Trump’s policies would raise prices by “1.0-1.2%, the equivalent of an average per household consumer loss of $1,600–2,000 in 2024$.” The analysis also found that “real GDP growth is 0.6 lower in 2025. In the long-run, the US economy is persistently 0.3-0.4% smaller, the equivalent of $80-110 billion annually in 2024$.” [The Budget Lab, 3/3/25]
  • Yale’s Budget Lab director of economics Ernie Tedeschi on Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs: Inflation will rise “1.7-2.1% depending on foreign retaliation and assuming the Fed doesn't react. That's the equivalent of an annual consumer loss averaging $2,700-$3,400 per household in 2024$.” The full study from The Budget Lab additionally explains that if American consumers substitute items for the higher prices, “the effect on prices settles somewhat, to 1.5-1.6%, still a $2,400-$2,600 average consumer loss per household.” [Twitter/X, 2/18/25; The Budget Lab, 2/18/25]
  • Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: The higher inflation rate from Trump’s tariffs means “central banks will raise interest rates,” possibly “leading to the worst of possible outcomes – interest rates going up with stagflation, interest rates going up in the face of a weak economy.” [The Guardian, 1/31/25]
  • Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi: Trump’s tariffs “will result in higher prices for the things that we import. … It will add to inflationary pressures.” [CNN, 1/31/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

MAGA Media Knew Trump Would Wreak Economic Havoc --- And Now He Is

MAGA Media Knew Trump Would Wreak Economic Havoc --- And Now He Is

For months, MAGA sycophants and right-wing media personalities have been warning that President Donald Trump’s agenda to gut the federal government and institute widespread tariffs could devastate the economy, which they attempted to spin as an important step to restoring the balance supposedly missing from the strong economy Trump inherited from the Biden administration.

With many of Trump’s policies going into effect or scheduled to begin soon, economists, analysts, and news organizations are already pointing to new indicators of a pullback in consumer spending, weak consumer confidence, worsening inflation expectations, and higher than expected weekly jobless claims as evidence that the promised economic mayhem is already beginning.

Economists and news outlets say new economic indicators show economic trouble ahead

  • University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers: Census Bureau data shows that “Americans responded (sharply!) to the Trump tariffs *before* they were even imposed” by importing extra goods to avoid “paying the higher prices that would occur when he was in office.” Wolfers added: “This also gives you a sense of who to blame for somewhat higher inflation in January. No, he wasn't in office yet. But suppliers know buyers need to buy ahead of future tariff-afflicted price hikes, and so likely felt little pressure to offer their usual discounts.” [Bluesky, 2/28/25, 2/28/25]
  • University of California, Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein: “It seems almost unavoidable at this point that we are headed for a deep, deep recession” due to Trump’s policies. Rothstein wrote: “Just based on 200K+ federal firings & pullback of contracts, the March employment report (to be released April 4) seems certain to show bigger job losses than any month ever outside of a few in 2008-9 and 2020.” [Bluesky, 2/18/25]
  • Washington Post economic columnist Heather Long, citing new data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, wrote: “Warning sign for the economy: Big drop in consumer spending in January. Personal consumption expenditures *decreased* 0.2%.” Long added: “Look at the categories with big drops -- car parts, recreational stuff, appliances, furniture, clothing -- a lot of this is ‘nice to haves’ that people cut first when times get tough.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25]
  • Center for Economic and Policy Research senior economist Dean Baker noted that “January had the largest drop in consumption spending in four years,” and called it a “recession-type drop in spending.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25, 2/28/25]
  • Former Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jared Bernstein: The drop in consumer spending is “concerning and consistent with consumer angst re tariffs, uncertainty.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25]
  • Center on Budget and Policy Priorities senior director for federal fiscal policy Brendan Duke on the drop in consumer spending: “Do wonder if a big economic effect of the Trump Administration's attacks on federal employees and contractors is that they and their families are pulling back on consumer spending because they are *worried* about losing their jobs even if they haven't lost them yet.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25]
  • Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on the drop in consumer spending: “Consumers already seem worried about policy madness, and they ain't seen nothing yet.” [Bluesky, 2/28/25]
  • According to two surveys, consumer confidence has slumped to a level that “usually signals a recession ahead.” Two consumer confidence surveys for February, released just days apart, indicated that public perceptions of the economy have worsened significantly since Trump took office, with fears of “tariff-induced price increases” dragging down consumer sentiment in a survey published by the University of Michigan, and nagging worries about “income, business, and labor market conditions” driving down sentiment in a survey published by The Conference Board. Both surveys were weaker than economists had expected, with the University of Michigan’s index registering the highest inflation expectations since 2023, and the Conference Board’s survey falling to a level that “usually signals a recession ahead.” [The Wall Street Journal, 2/21/25; The Conference Board, 2/25/25]
  • CNN: “The stock market had its worst week of Trump’s presidency – the Dow lost 1,200 points over the course of Thursday and Friday” as “investors grew fearful that the weakening consumer sentiment could lead to a pullback in Americans’ shopping habits.” CNN also quoted FWDBonds chief economist Chris Rupkey telling investors, “The public’s fears have soared in just the last two weeks showing the blizzard of changes coming from the president’s desk have spilled over the line between pro-growth into the realm of pro-inflation. … Once inflation expectations start moving higher it is only a matter of time before actual inflation takes off.” [CNN, 2/24/25]
  • CNBC: “Weekly jobless claims jump to 242,000, more than expected in latest sign of economic softening.” On February 27, CNBC reported that “jobless claims for the week ended Feb. 22 totaled a seasonally adjusted 242,000, up 22,000 from the previous week’s revised level and higher than the Dow Jones estimate for 225,000.” CNBC explained that “the level of claims matched the highest since early October 2024 and comes amid questions over broader economic growth and worrying signs in recent consumer sentiment surveys” and amid Trump “taking aggressive measures to reduce the federal workforce.” [CNBC, 2/27/25]
  • Bloomberg: “Trump Risks American Consumer Backlash Over Tariffs, Poll Shows.” Bloomberg reported that a Harris Poll found that “almost 60% of US adults expect Trump’s tariffs will lead to higher prices,” and “44% say the levies are likely to be bad for the US economy.” [Bloomberg, 2/27/25]
  • CNBC: “The Federal Reserve’s favorite recession indicator is flashing a danger sign again.” CNBC reported: “The 10-year Treasury yield passed below that of the 3-month note in trading Wednesday. In market lingo, that’s known as an ‘inverted yield curve,’ and it’s had a sterling prediction record over a 12- to 18-month timeframe for downturns going back decades.” [CNBC, 2/26/25]

Trump supporters have been warning that his agenda calls for “hardship”

  • Elon Musk said during an October 25 telephone town hall that Trump’s agenda “to reduce spending to live within our means … necessarily involves some temporary hardship.” Since then, Musk has become the embodiment of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is reportedly responsible for many federal firings and spending freezes. [The New York Times, 10/29/24; The Associated Press, 2/21/25]
  • Musk later agreed with an X user who wrote that there will be an “initial severe overreaction in the economy” and that the “market will tumble” as Trump enacts his agenda. Musk replied on October 29, “Sounds about right.” [The New York Times, 10/29/24]
  • Fox News host Laura Ingraham: Trump’s agenda will be “tough for the economy. There is no doubt about it.” Ingraham added: “People have to get, as my father would have said, real work, real jobs. People are going to have to get jobs and they're going to be scrambling.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 11/20/24]
  • Podcaster Jason Calacanis: “DOGE is going to require collective sacrifice.” He wrote: “Getting Americans & their representatives to decline funding the government has ALREADY promised them, and that they fought hard to get, is going to be an extremely difficult task.” [Twitter/X, 11/22/24; Vox, 11/12/22]
  • Then-Fox contributor Tammy Bruce (now a government spokesperson): People are going to lose their jobs, “and it's going to be good, because yes, more jobs will be created in the private sector for them.” [Fox News, Hannity, 12/5/24]
  • Fox host Todd Piro: “Now, admittedly, we're going to have some tariffs, and that's going to raise prices. But the overall impact on the economy, hopefully, when Trump takes over, will make people feel better. And then when people feel better, the economy is better.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 12/11/24]
  • Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore on government jobs: “I guarantee you that number is going to be down next month, because we’re already seeing the Trump administration really shred jobs in the government sector.” [Media Matters, 2/7/25]
  • Fox Business host Charles Payne: “States are going to have a lot of their own sort of comeuppance, if you will” from the Trump administration cutting spending. Payne also claimed the Biden administration “tried to goose these numbers” with “a lot of money [that] was parceled out to states.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 2/7/25]
  • Faulkner on DOGE gutting the federal government: “There will be some fallout, because people will be losing their jobs.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 2/18/25]
  • MAGA radio host Dan Bongino: People need to “take it on the chin” and “sacrifice for a little bit” for Trump’s policies. Bongino said: “We’re just asking you to sacrifice for a little bit for the long-term prosperity of the United States. Now’s the time. … We’re all going to take it on the chin a little bit. Rich guys, poor guys, middle class guys, someone’s going to lose their tax cut. It is time to take it on the chin. We have to fix this thing now, not tomorrow.” [The Dan Bongino Show, 2/18/25]
  • Payne suggested it could be positive if Trump creates a recession. After a guest pointed out that President Ronald Reagan “came into office in 1981, that he slashed federal head count and actually put the economy back into the double dip recession of 1980 and 1981,” Payne responded: “I agree with you 1,000% that when you change something that's like this, lot of cash floating around, maybe there's a little temporary pain. We also end up calling it investing.” [Fox Business, Making Money, 2/26/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

'Wall Street Journal' Blames Trump For Risking Auto Industry 'Bloodbath'

'Wall Street Journal' Blames Trump For Risking Auto Industry 'Bloodbath'

The Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial board, fresh off calling out President Donald Trump for backing down for minor concessions when he delayed his announced tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports, is now explaining to Trump that implementing his tariff vision would devastate the U.S. auto industry.

Industry and economic analysts agree that Trump’s various proposed tariffs would greatly harm the U.S. auto industry, after Trump dubiously warned during the 2024 presidential election of a “bloodbath” in the industry if he wasn’t elected.

Trump warned of a “bloodbath” in the auto industry if he lost the election

In March 2024, Trump sparked a controversy by saying during a campaign rally: “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”

Trump’s campaign and media defenders claimed that Trump’s comment was about the auto industry rather than another instance of his violent rhetoric.

Even then, Trump was lying. The auto industry was in excellent shape during the Biden administration. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that more people were employed in auto manufacturing late in the Biden administration than at any time since December 2006, with a peak of about 1.03 million Americans employed in the industry under Biden. BLS data also showed that wages throughout the auto industry reached record highs under Biden.

Additionally, Trump’s first-term steel tariffs “hampered the U.S. auto industry, sparking the loss of thousands of jobs,” according to PolitiFact.

A Wall Street Journal editorial warned “Trump’s tariffs will punish Michigan”

On February 25, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote of a new study that shows how Trump’s tariffs will “damage the U.S. car industry, even as the economy slows and uncertainty spreads.” The Journal continued: “If the goal is to harm U.S. auto workers and Republican prospects in Michigan, then by all means go ahead, Mr. President.” According to the editorial, the study from the Anderson Economic Group found that Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports would cause vehicle prices to soar:

Start with auto prices. The study estimates that a 25% tariff on the U.S. neighbors would increase the cost of a full-size SUV assembled in North America by $9,000 and a pickup truck by $8,000. The cost of an electric-vehicle cross-over would increase by $12,200. Canada is the biggest supplier to the U.S. of nickel, a key critical mineral in lithium-ion batteries.
…
Mr. Trump says tariffs will force auto makers to make more cars in the U.S. Not likely, and that would take time in any case. Domestic demand for some vehicle models—especially sedans—isn’t sufficient to justify the cost of building new U.S. factories. Auto makers will have to absorb the tariff, increase prices on cars, or stop selling some models because they are too expensive.

The Journal also wrote that “U.S. auto workers will pay, too, if auto sales drop as a result of higher prices.”

In response, Trump ranted about the Journal in general and this editorial in particular on Truth Social, writing:

I don’t understand The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, never have. They come to my aid when I least expect it, sometimes strongly, and I greatly appreciate that — Very meaningful! But then they come out with some real CLINKERS, like today’s Editorial that my Auto Tariffs will hurt the Michigan Automobile Business. They are sooo WRONG, in fact, it is just the opposite.

Experts agree Trump’s tariffs will hurt the industry and raise car prices

Trump has announced multiple tariffs that would drastically affect the auto industry.

Trump’s 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico would, according to the Cato Institute, “harm US automotive operations and workers, as well as American car consumers” because of the integration of both countries in the U.S. auto market.

Next to be announced were 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, which of course are used car manufacturing. Lastly, Trump announced a 25 percent tariff on all automobiles (along with pharmaceuticals and computer chips) imported into the country.

Experts have made clear that these tariffs, either separately or together, would have devastating effects on the U.S. auto industry.

  • Bloomberg: Ford CEO Jim Farley warned that Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico alone would “blow a hole” in and be “devastating” to the U.S. auto industry. [Bloomberg, 2/11/25]
  • Bloomberg: Tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports could raise new-car prices by $3,000. Bloomberg also reported that the tariffs “could add $60 billion in costs to the sector, according to consultant AlixPartners,” much of which would be “passed on to consumers, which could see new-vehicle prices rise by about $3,000, Wolfe analysts have estimated.” [Bloomberg, 2/11/25]
  • AP: “President Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel imports … could wreak havoc on American auto manufacturing, industry leaders say.” AutoForecast Solutions analyst Sam Fiorani told The Associated Press that “raising the price of what is among the most important components of the vehicle is only going to raise the price of an already expensive product.” [The Associated Press, 2/11/25]
  • CNN: “Consumers are expected to feel most of the burn by the new import taxes on automobiles, as prices of cars could jump by thousands of dollars, experts have warned.” CNN additionally reported that “nearly half of vehicle sales in the US last year, including cars and light trucks, were imported from foreign countries.” [CNN, 2/19/25]
  • Quartz: “A 25% duty on the average $25,000 cost of a vehicle imported from Mexico and Canada would add $6,250 in costs, S&P Global Mobility said.” Quartz added: “Cars that have parts imported from either country — such as a Ford F-series pickup with a Canadian engine — would also see a price increase.” [Quartz, 2/26/25]
  • Quartz: Anderson Economic Group estimates that Trump’s “announced duties on imports of aluminum and steel would add another $250 to $800 per gas-powered vehicle and up to $2,500 on EVs” and stated that it was “inevitable” that there would be job cuts. Additionally, according to Quartz, the group’s study showed “vehicles made in Europe and Asia would see a $800 to $1,600 price hike.” [Quartz, 2/26/25]
  • Yale’s Budget Lab: Trump’s 25 percent tariff on automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and computer chips would mean “average automobile and pharmaceutical prices would rise 8.5-10.5 percent, accounting for the tariffs themselves, potential dollar appreciation, and domestic price hikes.” [The Budget Lab, 2/25/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

As Prices Rise, Fox Hosts Struggle To Hide Trump's Inflation Fail

As Prices Rise, Fox Hosts Struggle To Hide Trump's Inflation Fail

Donald Trump’s supporters in right-wing media, particularly at Fox News, repeatedly hyped his oft-repeated campaign promise to quickly bring down consumer prices, and especially the cost of groceries, if he was reelected.

These promises included immediate price decreases, with Trump saying during the campaign, “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on day one,” and, “Prices will come down. … They’ll come down fast.”

But after Trump took office, prices not only didn’t come down, they continued rising for many people and businesses. News organizations swiftly contrasted Trump’s lofty promises of immediate relief with the reality that he hasn’t been keeping those promises. The Trump administration’s illegal impoundment of congressionally authorized spending and his announcements of universal tariffs, nation-specific tariffs, and product-specific tariffs are already leading to higher costs and price hikes for Americans and are reportedly leading consumers to expect further price increases.

And as Trump’s inflationary policies begin to take effect, both the Trump administration and Fox figures have begun providing excuses for why Trump failed in his promise to “immediately bring prices down.”

Fox repeatedly promoted Trump’s promise of lower prices if he was reelected

  • During a phone interview, Fox & Friends co-host Lawrence Jones gushed over Trump’s focus on lowering prices. During a March 5, 2024, phone interview with Trump, Fox & Friends co-host Lawrence Jones said: “Mr. President, a lot of people believe that you’re at your best when you’re fighting for the American people. And we just heard in the diners, we heard immigration, but the other top issue is the economy. What are you going to do to give us some relief when it comes to this inflation?” Trump responded by talking about oil production and saying “energy’s going to bring it all down.” [Media Matters, 3/5/24]
  • Fox host Sandra Smith: Trump “had me at let’s address this inflation nightmare.” This followed a clip of Trump’s Republican National Convention speech where he said, “I make this pledge to the great people of America: I will end the devastating inflation crisis immediately." [Fox News, The Five, 7/19/24]
  • Fox News host Sean Hannity: Voting for Trump will result in “next to zero inflation, lower gas prices and energy prices.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 8/22/24]
  • Fox host Laura Ingraham: “The debate is over. Trump wins on the issues that matter most: inflation, economy, and border security. Don't let the regime media fool you!” [Twitter/X, 9/24/24]
  • Hannity: Because of Trump’s victory, “we're gonna pay lower prices in the grocery store, pay a lot less for gasoline.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 11/7/24]
  • Fox Business host Taylor Riggs said Scott Bessent’s nomination as treasury secretary would lead to “lower prices, maybe immediately.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends First, 11/26/24]
  • Then-Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt on Fox & Friends said Trump “is going to get to work to day one ... to bring down the cost of living and energy in the country” and will “deliver on that promise.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/6/25]
  • Fox guest Ari Fleischer on Trump promising to lower prices: “The real answer is he’s going to accomplish it first off because of one phone call, his first phone call to the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. Just watch, Laura — they’re going to increase oil production.” Fleischer added: “The price of energy is going to come down.” (OPEC+ announced it would not increase oil production more than it already planned to after Trump called on the group to lower oil prices.) [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 1/27/25; Oilprice.com, 2/12/25]

Fox is now providing excuses for Trump not meeting his pledge to immediately lower prices

  • A guest on Fox Business said that the “data is going to come out more depressed now that the Trump administration is in” and answered affirmatively when anchor Maria Martiromo asked if that’s because the Biden administration was “cooking the books.” The panel cited routine revisions to jobs estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which led to conspiracy theorizing from right-wing media. [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 1/30/25; Media Matters, 8/21/24]
  • Fox guest Stephen Moore preemptively blamed Biden for an expected increase in prices. On America Reports, Moore said: “The problem for Trump is that, in the last few months that Biden was president, we saw inflation rising again, Sandra. I think this next report we get out later this week is going to show a pretty significant bump in prices. And obviously Trump wasn't even in office when that happened, so it will take, I think, about, you know, three to six months to start seeing the effect of Trump's policies on inflation.” [Fox News, America Reports, 2/10/25]
  • Fox anchor Dana Perino on prices continuing to rise: “People realize that Joe Biden caused the inflation and then ignored it.” Perino continued: “So I think that people look at that and say come on, sit down, and give President Trump a little bit of time. It's been three weeks.” [Fox News, The Five, 2/10/25]
  • Fox Business host Jackie DeAngelis complained that expecting immediate price decreases (like Trump promised) “isn’t necessarily possible or rational.” [Fox Business, The Big Money Show, 2/12/25]
  • Fox host Laura Ingraham complained that Democrats are calling out Trump for not immediately lowering prices like he promised. Ingraham said: “President Trump hasn't been in basically a month or so and yet the Democrats are making it seem like there should be monumental change on the economy right away, immediately.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 2/12/25]
  • Fox Business anchor David Asman: “What Donald Trump has inherited is much worse than the numbers that we were looking at before. It makes a lot of people wonder whether those numbers were cooked.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 2/13/25]
  • Fox Business guest Jacob Sonenshine of Barron’s said an additional percentage point of inflation from Trump’s tariffs “doesn’t really matter” because “the market’s going to power right through it.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 2/13/25]
  • The Five co-host Jeanine Pirro: “Don't you think it's rather ridiculous for the Democrats to be complaining, ‘It's just four weeks, and the economy isn't better.’” She added: “It's just four weeks and eggs haven't come down. How ridiculous is that?” Co-host Kayleigh McEnany responded: “Totally ridiculous.” [Fox News, The Five, 2/21/25]

News organizations report that Trump has abandoned his pledge to lower prices and pushed policies that would likely increase them

  • CNN: “Trump pledged to bring down food prices on Day One. Instead, eggs are getting more expensive.” CNN reported that egg prices continued to rise during the first week of the Trump administration as “Day One has turned into Day Seven,” and that Democratic lawmakers have complained that “despite a flurry of executive actions, Trump’s price-related promises have gone unfulfilled.” CNN additionally reported that “Trump’s frequent price-dropping pledges have long been countered by economists who have noted that broad-based price declines not only would be outright dangerous for an economy by creating a deflationary ‘doom loop,’ but, also, that they’d be improbable to achieve.” [CNN.com, 1/28/25]
  • AP reported that the Department of Agriculture predicts egg prices will “soar another 20 percent this year.” [The Associated Press, 2/18/25]
  • Politico: “Trump’s pledge to lower prices is already facing a reality test.” Politico noted that Trump’s various promises to lower prices face “practical limitations,” citing the soaring price of eggs, the problem with his pledge to increase oil production to a degree which oil companies aren’t likely to desire, and his “sweeping tariffs that could be placed on products from every U.S. trading partner, risking another uptick in costs.” [Politico, 1/29/25]
  • Reuters: “Trump tariffs to stoke US food inflation despite pledge to lower costs.” Reuters reported that economists said “U.S. consumers grappling with soaring prices for beef and eggs will face even higher costs for meat, vegetables and fruit if President Donald Trump imposes tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports,” even though Trump “pledged to bring down costs for ordinary Americans.” [Reuters, 1/31/25]
  • NPR: “Prices were a key issue in 2024, but Trump makes clear they're not his top priority.” NPR reported that in the beginning of the Trump administration, “one particular thing has been conspicuously absent: a focus on lowering prices. Trump's promises to bring down the cost of living were a big reason he was elected, but since taking office he has now twice said that's not his top priority.” [NPR, 2/1/25]
  • The Guardian: “Inflation picks up speed after Trump promised to ‘rapidly’ bring down prices.” The Guardian noted that “since his election victory last November, however, Trump has appeared to soften his pledge,” citing a December Time interview where he said that “it’s hard to bring things down once they’re up.” The Guardian additionally explained that “many economists have warned that Trump’s tariff strategy risks exacerbating inflation.” [The Guardian, 2/12/15]
  • NY Times: “With High Prices Persisting, Trump Tempers Tone on Slaying Inflation.” The New York Times reported that despite Trump’s pledge to lower prices on “Day 1,” his administration has “become more measured in how they discuss their efforts to tame inflation,” “downplaying the likelihood that consumer costs like groceries will decline anytime soon, reflecting the limited power that presidents have to control prices.” [The New York Times, 2/12/25]

Trump began walking back his pledge to immediately reduce prices even before taking office

  • In a December Time interview, Trump said of his pledge to bring down prices: “I'd like to bring them down. It's hard to bring things down once they're up. You know, it's very hard.” Trump said this in response to the question, “If the prices of groceries don't come down, will your presidency be a failure?” [Time, 12/12/24]
  • Trump said twice that he prioritizes immigration over inflation. NPR reported that on the day of Trump’s inauguration, he told supporters: “They all said inflation was the No. 1 issue. I said, 'I disagree. I think people coming into our country from prisons and from mental institutions is a bigger issue for the people that I know.' And I made it my No. 1.” Days later, Trump reiterated that lowering prices was not his main concern, saying during a Republican congressional retreat: “I always felt the border was first. I talked about that much more so than I did inflation. I mean, inflation was terrible. I think it was the worst in the history of our country, but you can only talk about it so long.” [NPR, 2/1/25]
  • Vice President JD Vance also recently backtracked on Trump’s pledge to immediately lower prices, saying in an interview: “Prices are going to come down, but it’s going to take a little bit of time.” [CBS News, Face the Nation, 1/26/25]
  • Trump press secretary Karoline Leavitt said when pressed on when prices would come down, “I don’t have a timeline.” [The New York Times, 2/12/25]
  • The NY Times reported that in a Fox interview, “Trump demurred when pressed about when families struggling with high prices would start to feel some relief.” The New York Times reported that Trump instead “suggested that his policies would make America a rich country, which would reduce the burden on consumers by, in theory, increasing their earnings.” [The New York Times, 2/12/25]

Many Americans are facing and expecting increased costs due to Trump’s actions

  • A Trump executive order to pause some federal spending led to surcharges on some Alabamans’ utility bills. [AL.com, 2/11/25]
  • Cato Institute vice president Scott Lincicome posted price increase notices from construction and appliance manufacturers in response to Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports. [Twitter/X, 2/14/25, 2/14/25, 2/14/25]
  • Wall Street Journal: “Tariffs Give U.S. Steelmakers a Green Light to Lift Prices.” The Journal reported that Trump’s steel tariffs could “enable domestic companies to raise their prices, too,” and followed up with an example of it already happening: “At Riverdale Mills, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of wire fencing and welded mesh used in lobster and crab traps, Chief Executive James Knott said his domestic suppliers of steel wire rod notified him two weeks ago that they are raising prices.” [The Wall Street Journal, 2/4/25]
  • Reuters reported that steel prices have increased costs for manufacturers in anticipation of Trump’s tariffs. Reuters explained: “While President Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum are only slated to start on March 12, the action is already reverberating through the network of producers and builders that rely on the metals to make their goods. And not in a good way.” Reuters additionally reported: “Steel prices in the U.S. have surged in recent days, adding to gains since Trump became president. Hot rolled coil prices in the Midwest have jumped 12% to $839 per short ton during the two weeks to Thursday and climbed 20% since Trump took office on January 20, according to data provider Fastmarkets. By contrast, the price of that type of steel has risen only 6% in northern Europe and was barely changed in eastern China since January 20.” [Reuters, 2/24/25]
  • Major PC and laptop manufacturer Acer responded to Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports with a 10% price increase for its computers. Acer CEO Jason Chen said: “We will have to adjust the end user price to reflect the tariff. We think 10 percent probably will be the default price increase because of the import tax. It’s very straightforward.” [PC Gamer, 2/21/25]
  • WSJ: “U.S. Consumer Confidence Falls Back on Fears of Tariff-Induced Price Increases.” The Wall Street Journal reported that the “University of Michigan’s index of consumer sentiment tumbled to 64.7 at the end of February, well below January’s 71.7. It also was weaker than economists’ expectations of 67.8 from a Wall Street Journal poll.” The Journal further reported that “as a symbol of renewed concerns among U.S. consumers, year-ahead inflation expectations jumped to 4.3% this month from 3.3% in January, the highest reading since 2023 and now well above the range seen in the two years prior to the pandemic.” [The Wall Street Journal, 2/21/25]
  • CNN: “The stock market had its worst week of Trump’s presidency – the Dow lost 1,200 points over the course of Thursday and Friday” as “investors grew fearful that the weakening consumer sentiment could lead to a pullback in Americans’ shopping habits.” CNN also quoted FWDBonds chief economist Chris Rupkey telling investors, “The public’s fears have soared in just the last two weeks showing the blizzard of changes coming from the president’s desk have spilled over the line between pro-growth into the realm of pro-inflation. Once inflation expectations start moving higher it is only a matter of time before actual inflation takes off.” [CNN, 2/24/25]

Economists warned that Trump’s policies of tariffs and mass deportation would reignite inflation

  • Trump’s earliest acts included a major focus on mass deportation and announcing 25% tariffs on America’s biggest trading partners and industrial metals. According to the American Immigration Council, “on the first day of his second term of office, President Donald Trump issued ten executive orders and proclamations seeking to change the face of U.S. immigration law and policy” to “scale up a ‘mass deportation’ operation that everyone without legal status in the United States will be highly vulnerable to.” Trump also initially announced 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada, as well as universal 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum. [American Immigration Council, 1/22/25; Media Matters, 2/4/25, 2/11/25]
  • Economists across the political spectrum warned that Trump’s mass deportation and tariff policies would worsen inflation. These included conservative economists Casey B. Mulligan, Doug Holtz-Eakin, and Michael Strain. Progressive and nonpartisan economists, such as Dean Baker, Claudia Sahm, and Josh Bivens also said Trump’s trade and immigration policies would worsen inflation. [Media Matters, 6/18/24]
  • Sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists released a letter in June warning that Trump’s re-election “will have economic repercussions for years, and possibly decades, to come” and that his policies “will reignite … inflation.” The letter cited “nonpartisan researchers, including at Evercore, Allianz, Oxford Economics, and the Peterson Institute,” who “predict that if Donald Trump successfully enacts his agenda, it will increase inflation.” [Media Matters, 6/27/24]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Fox Hosts Reject Reality On Crime, Inflation, Energy And Migration

Fox Hosts Reject Reality On Crime, Inflation, Energy And Migration

In recent weeks, multiple Fox personalities have been in denial of objective reality that under the Biden-Harris administration, especially in recent months, violent crime has declined, inflation is steadily declining, oil and natural gas production are at record highs, and unauthorized border crossings have plummeted.

Statistics show violent crime dropped since 2021, but Fox is claiming the opposite

On September 23, the FBI released its annual crime statistics estimates, which showed a three percent decline in violent crime nationwide, including an 11.6 percent drop in “murder and non-negligent manslaughter.” These statistics were widely reported, and The New York Times noted that this continues a pattern of declining murder rates under the Biden-Harris administration, with the decline in murders showing “the largest year-to-year decline since national record-keeping began in 1960.”

Yet Fox, which spent more than half the year running nearly 1,000 weekday segments on the bogus “migrant crime” narrative, has denied these statistics showing a drop in violent crime.

  • Fox News anchor Dana Perino: “So much for crime being down.” Perino, reacting to a chaotic video from Philadelphia, suggested it was evidence that statistics showing a drop in crime were not reflective of reality. Fox host Greg Gutfeld claimed, “The statistics that the FBI uses aren't taken seriously because they’re limited. They don't pass the smell test.” [Fox News, The Five, 9/24/24]
  • Fox host Harris Faulkner confusingly suggested that statistics may not show a decrease in violent crime — immediately after acknowledging that they do. On her program, Faulkner said: “So crime down — what about violent crime? Because that’s the part that is changing people’s lives.” Moments prior to this, Faulkner said: “The White House is praising new FBI statistics which indicate violent crime is down across the nation. However, the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics have some numbers that tell a very different story.” [Fox News, The Faulkner Focus, 9/24/24]
  • Fox host Jeanine Pirro falsely claimed there has been an “increase in crime” and that Vice President Kamala Harris is responsible for it. [Fox News, The Five, 9/24/24]

Inflation has plummeted from its peak in 2022, yet Fox claims it's at “record highs”

Multiple measures of inflation have plummeted since their mid-2022 peak. Both the consumer price index and the personal consumption expenditures price index measures show 2.5 percent inflation — near the Federal Reserve’s two percent PCE target — and the producer price index measure shows a lower 1.7 percent. The improving inflation picture has at last galvanized the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, much to Fox’s displeasure. Yet Fox continues to cover inflation in a misleading manner, falsely claiming that it is currently at “record highs.”

  • Fox host Jesse Watters falsely claimed “inflation [is] at record highs.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 9/24/24]
  • Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt: “The truth is, inflation is high. That’s why prices are up.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/20/24]
  • Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo: Harris lacks a “plan to take inflation down because she doesn’t have an understanding of what took us to 40-year highs.” Prior to Bartiromo saying this, her program aired a graphic showing the annual CPI inflation measurement declining significantly from its peak of 9.1 percent more than two years ago to its current level of 2.5 percent. [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 9/20/24]

Data shows record oil and natural gas production over past two years, but Fox denies it

American energy production is experiencing record highs under the Biden-Harris administration. In addition, the U.S. is on track to be the world’s leading exporter of liquefied natural gas for the second year in a row and is the largest supplier of LNG to Europe. In 2023, U.S. crude oil production, at an average of 12.9 million barrels per day, surpassed the record set in 2019, and the Energy Information Administration has forecasted a new record of 13.25 million barrels per day this year.

  • Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade: “We’re not” leading in natural gas and oil production. Kilmeade continued: “Don't let anybody tell you our oil and gas production is high.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/25/24]
  • Kilmeade falsely claimed there was double the daily production of oil under Trump compared to the Biden-Harris administration. Kilmeade said: “When she talked about there’s more oil production under us than under you, she’s wrong. It was 4 million barrels a day under Trump. It was 2 million barrels under Biden-Harris. So, that's totally inaccurate.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/13/24]

Far fewer unauthorized border crossings, yet Fox uses legal immigration data to disprove it

Report after report has shown that unauthorized border crossings in the Southwest have plummeted in recent months compared to previous years in the Biden-Harris administration. Even Fox News reported a huge drop in apprehensions at the border.

Yet Fox continues to challenge the data showing a huge drop in unauthorized border crossings by insisting that the number of people using the administration’s programs to entice immigrants to enter legally should be added to border crossing numbers. This denial of reality and goalpost shifting bears similarities to the rhetoric of Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance, who has been purposefully referring to authorized migrants as “illegal aliens” after stirring up hate against Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, with false smears.

  • Fox correspondent Bill Melugin: Data showing “illegal crossings … have been down significantly” is “not a true reflection of the amount of people who are being allowed into the country.” Melugin suggested that data showing unauthorized border crossings plummeting in 2024 isn’t genuine, citing programs from the Biden-Harris administration to increase legal immigration. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 9/17/24]
  • Fox host Laura Ingraham: Harris can only claim “our numbers are down” for unauthorized border crossings because immigrants are “coming through the ports of entry” legally and “bringing in people under ‘legal’ cover … from four countries.” Melugin added: “We’re talking, like, 70,000 to 80,000 people per month between these two programs that come into the U.S. quote-unquote ‘lawfully,’ and they never get counted in the border numbers now. They’re not illegal crossings, so they don't show up in Border Patrol numbers. So yeah, those numbers have fallen off a cliff, but if you look at the port-of-entry numbers, those numbers are skyrocketing. They’re bringing tens of thousands of people in every single month via these lawful programs, and it’s been effective at pushing those illegal crossings down.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 9/9/24]
  • Fox host Rachel Campos-Duffy decried legal immigration programs: The administration “can artificially keep their numbers low and pretend that they're actually doing something on the border when, in fact, they're doing the opposite. They’re increasing them.” Campos-Duffy cited Fox contributor and former Trump administration Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Tom Homan to claim that legal immigration programs enacted by the Biden-Harris administration are “in place to change the numbers so those people … are not counted in the illegal crossings.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 8/31/24]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Late Night Exposes Trump's Mad Tariff Plan As Mainstream Outlets Fail

Late Night Exposes Trump's Mad Tariff Plan As Mainstream Outlets Fail

A week after Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump proposed restricting food imports when asked how he’d lower the cost of food and groceries, many major newspapers, newswires, and broadcast news programs continue to ignore his proposal, which would lead to higher food prices for American consumers. And while broadcast news programs failed to report on the question and Trump’s long, rambling response, NBC late night host Seth Meyers and CBS late night host Stephen Colbert both highlighted Trump’s incoherence.

During a September 17 town hall in Flint, Michigan, an audience member asked Trump how he would “bring down the cost of food and groceries.” After Trump rambled about unrelated energy prices and Federal Reserve interest rates, he responded:

“We gotta work with our farmers. Our farmers are being decimated right now. They’re being absolutely, absolutely decimated. And you know, one of the reasons is we allow a lot of farm product into our country. We’re gonna have to be a little bit like other countries. We’re not gonna allow so much come — we’re gonna let our farmers go to work.”

Media Matters noted previously that several economists explained that Trump’s proposal would raise food prices, not lower them.

Some national news outlets, including Axios, noted that “Trump’s vow to lower grocery costs will backfire,” and writing in The Atlantic, the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome and Sophia Bagley described the folly of “Trump’s deranged plan to lower food prices by raising them.” MSNBC prime-time host Chris Hayes also mentioned Trump’s response to the food price question.

But many of the most prominent and influential major news organizations in the country failed to cover Trump’s comments at all.

Factiva searches turned up no coverage at all from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, and Reuters between September 17 and noon on September 24.

A SnapStream search of the same time frame also turned up no coverage from the broadcast morning and evening news programming of ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS, along with the corporate networks’ Sunday political talk shows.

Instead, CBS’ Evening News and PBS' NewsHour covered Trump’s farming-focused September 23 event in Pennsylvania, during which he threatened farm equipment manufacturer John Deere with 200% tariffs.

NBC’s Nightly News and Today covered Trump’s prearranged visit to a Pennsylvania grocery store the same day, where he gave $100 to a potential voter as a campaign stunt (a possible federal crime).

And The Associated Press reported on both September 23 events. These reports, however, failed to mention Trump’s incoherent answer on food prices from the previous week, even though he specifically mentioned that he would restrict imports of “farm product.”

Meanwhile, two of these networks’ late night comedy shows did cover his rambling response.

Both NBC’s Late Night with Seth Meyers and CBS’ Late Night with Stephen Colbert drew attention to the incoherent nature of Trump attempting, and failing, to explain how he would lower food prices, while their networks’ news programs ignored it.

Seth Meyers even helpfully contextualized the actual reason that grocery prices spiked in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting both the incoherence of Trump's rambling response and the ease with which a news network could have informed its viewers about the topic.

Methodology

Media Matters searched print articles in the Factiva database from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, and Reuters for any of the terms “Trump,” “former president,” “nominee,” or “candidate” within the same headline or paragraphs as any of the terms “food,” “energy,” “interest” or “rate” or any variation of either of the terms “grocery” or “farmer” from September 17, 2024, when GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump answered a question about how he would lower food prices during a Michigan town hall, through noon on September 24, 2024.

We also searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original episodes of ABC's Good Morning America, World News Tonight, and This Week; CBS' Mornings, Evening News, and Face the Nation; NBC's Today, Nightly News, and Meet the Press; and PBS’ NewsHour for for any of the terms “Trump,” “former president,” “nominee,” or “candidate” within close proximity of any of the terms “food,” “energy,” “interest” or “rate” or any variation of either of the terms “grocery” or “farmer” from September 17, 2024, through noon on September 24, 2024.

We included articles, which we defined as instances when Trump’s comments responding to a question about lowering the cost of food were mentioned in the headline or lead paragraphs in any section of the newspaper or newswire.

We also included segments, which we defined as instances when Trump’s comments responding to a question about lowering the cost of food were the stated topic of discussion or when we found significant discussion of the comments. We defined significant discussion as instances when two or more speakers in a multitopic segment discussed the comments with one another.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Right-Wing Media Praise Vance For Spreading Toxic Myths About Migrants

Right-Wing Media Praise Vance For Spreading Toxic Myths About Migrants

Right-wing websites are celebrating Republican vice presidential nominee and Ohio Sen. JD Vance for spreading a longstanding xenophobic trope in a CNN interview that “communicable diseases like HIV and TB have skyrocketed” in Springfield, Ohio, because of Haitian immigrants in the city. This falsehood follows his debunked smear that Haitian residents of the city were eating people’s pets, a lie reportedly linked to recent bomb threats.

Vance had already spread this smear in a September 10 post on X, formerly known as Twitter. But it was Vance repeating the falsehood in a CNN interview shortly after the ABC News presidential debate which right-wing websites are celebrating.

SEN. JD VANCE: And again, whether those exact rumors turn out to be mostly true, somewhat true, whatever the case may be, Kaitlan, this town has been ravaged by 20,000 migrants coming in. Health care costs are up, housing costs are up, communicable diseases like HIV and TB have skyrocketed in this small Ohio town. This is what Kamala Harris' border policies have done.

Vance repeated this smear in a September 13 post on X as well.

Right-wing blogs have responded to Vance's misinformation with widespread praise.

A Townhall post which quoted his smear that Haitian immigrants are widely spreading disease in Springfield declared his CNN appearance “masterful,” adding, “Bravo, sir.” The Media Research Center’s NewsBusters embedded a clip of Vance’s CNN interview, declaring: “JD Vance SCHOOLS CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Immigration and Cat Memes.” And RedState included a transcript of Vance’s disease smear in its post congratulating him for making “a very real and damning point about the media,” adding: “When you come at JD Vance, you better get ready for a fight. CNN's Kaitlan Collins certainly wasn't.”

For all of their congratulations to Vance over continuing to push this smear, these right-wing blogs missed the reality that Vance is simply lying. Making it up.

Data from the Ohio Department of Health and Clark County Combined Health District — which Vance presumably could easily obtain, given that he’s one of the state’s senators — shows that there are barely any new cases of either TB or HIV in Clark County, of which Springfield is the county seat.

The most recent data available, for 2018-22, shows that in 2018, Clark County reported 10 new HIV infections. Six new HIV infections were reported there in 2019, six again in 2020, 12 in 2021, and 13 in 2022. These five years of data reveal that between 2018-22, the county had a cumulative total of 322 HIV diagnoses — while the state’s cumulative total during this time period was 39,729 HIV diagnoses. To put it simply, Clark County, which includes Springfield, represented less than 1% of all HIV diagnoses in Ohio during this time period.

A December 2022 report of TB cases in Clark County prepared for the Clark County Combined Health District goes back a full decade, showing several incidences of 1, 2, 3, and sometimes zero cases of active TB in the entire county each year.

Clark County Combined Health District Commissioner Chris Cook told NBC News that Vance’s claim of a surge in diseases there is false: “Overall, we have not seen a substantial increase in all reportable communicable diseases. In fact, if you look at all reportable communicable diseases together (minus COVID) for the year ending 2023 you will see that we are at our lowest rate in Clark County since 2016.” And according to Bruce Vanderhoff, the director of Ohio’s Health Department, the state isn’t seeing a “measurable or discernible increase” in vaccine-preventable illnesses, further debunking Vance’s smear.

As Advocate explained, Vance is reinforcing “historical stigmas, stoking xenophobia and racial fear.” Right-wing media may be celebrating Vance pushing these cruel lies, but legitimate media organizations should be prepared to call him out.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Jerome Powell

Trump's Lackeys Blame Harris For Rate-Induced Market Drop

On Monday, stocks tumbled globally following Friday’s release of a weaker-than-expected jobs report, which economists have pinned on the Federal Reserve for not cutting interest rates earlier. According to CNN, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and NASDAQ each plunged by several percentage points when trading opened.

Yet former president and current GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump used his Truth Social account to baselessly cast blame on likely Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris for the market tumble. Following Trump’s posts on the “Kamala Crash,” right-wing media figures also picked up this framing.

Financial news outlets reported that stock markets declined globally in reaction to weaker-than-expected jobs report

According to CNBC, “Fears of a U.S. recession were the main culprit for the global market meltdown after Friday’s disappointing July jobs report.” The Wall Street Journalsimilarly reported on the market decline that “concerns about a slowing U.S. economy are front and center after job growth slowed sharply in July.” Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at The Budget Lab at Yale, explained that the U.S. is currently not in recession.

Both outlets also reported worries that the Federal Reserve was too slow to cut interest rates. Professor Jeremy Siegel of The Wharton School said on CNBC in response to the market selloff that the Fed should make a large emergency rate cut. Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman also suggested that the time is ripe for an emergency rate cut by the Fed.

Recently, multiple economists have been blaming the Trump-appointed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for his failure to timely cut interest rates prior to the weaker-than-expected jobs report last Friday. Trump sycophants tried to blame the weak jobs report on Harris, too.

Trump and MAGA media try to blame stock market drop on Harris


  • Trump posted on Truth Social: “Of course there is a massive market downturn. Kamala is even worse than Crooked Joe. Markets will NEVER accept the Radical Left Lunatic that DESTROYED San Francisco and California, as a whole. Next move, THE GREAT DEPRESSION OF 2024! You can’t play games with MARKETS. KAMALA CRASH!!!” Trump blamed the market decline on Harris in multiple other posts as well, including one that read simply, “TRUMP CASH vs. KAMALA CRASH!” [Truth Social, 8/5/24, 8/5/24, 8/5/24, 8/5/24]
  • Former Trump official and current Newsmax analyst Ric Grenell: “The Kamala Crash.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • Rumble host Donald Trump Jr.: “It's the #KamalaCrash!!!!” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • Project 2025 contributor Stephen Moore said on Fox News, “I think a lot of people on Wall Street … are a little worried about the agenda she [Kamala Harris] would bring in.” When co-anchor Sandra Smith asked, “Do you think a lot of this is about what’s to come with the election?” Moore replied: “Yeah, I do. … If you look at what Kamala Harris is saying, she wants to double the capital gains tax, she wants to tax unrealized capital gains, she wants to re-regulate virtually anything that moves in the economy. And she’s basically totally embraced the Biden agenda.” [Fox News, America Reports, 8/5/24; The Guardian, 2/29/24]
  • Newsmax guests echoed Trump, blaming Harris for the stock market decline. On Newsmax’s The National Report, GOP strategist Jennifer Nassour argued that the markets were “clearly” reacting to Harris “being the pick, the potential nominee for the Democratic Party.” Another guest, RNC youth advisory council chair Brilyn Hollyhand, added: “This is the Kamala crash, just like President Trump’s saying.” [Newsmax, The National Report, 8/5/24]
  • Newsmax host Sebastian Gorka: “The markets around the world are saying, hang on, this Kamala is not going to fix things for us.” Appearing as a guest on Wake Up America, Gorka added: “The world has just voted a big negative on her candidacy with this ripple through the stock market.” Co-host Sharla McBride agreed, saying, “Yeah, you’re exactly right.” [Newsmax, Wake Up America, 8/5/24]
  • Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk: “Today, markets are reacting directly to Kamala Harris.” Kirk continued: “I encourage all of you, do not look at your stock portfolio today. Do not look at your 401k. That is all brought to you by Kamala Harris.” [Rumble, The Charlie Kirk Show, 8/5/24]
  • Kirk: “The NASDAQ had never been down 1,000 points in its entire history, until two weeks after Kamala Harris becoming president became a serious possibility.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • Popular right-wing X account Election Wizard shared Trump’s Truth Social post, writing “‘Kamala Crash!!!’” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • GOP strategist Alex Bruesewitz: “President Trump is spot on. THIS IS THE KAMALA CRASH!” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • GOP strategist Steve Guest: “brat summer ➡️ crash summer #Kamalanomics.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • The Post Millennial ran an article under the headline “'I told you so': Trump slams Biden, Harris over global stock, crypto crash.” [The Post Millennial, 8/5/24]
  • MAGA cartoonist Ben Garrison posted a cartoon appearing to show Biden leading people off a cliff while talking about the economy, adding: “Bidenomics… Kamala Krash.” In a separate post, Garrison wrote, “I bet a lot of people are pretty pissed off about the Kamala Crash today!” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24, 8/5/24]
  • Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast chief financial and operating officer Grace Chong: “Kamala Krash.” [Twitter/x, 8/5/24]
  • Gab CEO Andrew Torba: “The Kamala Crash.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • Right-wing commentator Bill Mitchell: “Thanks Kamala. That Bidenomics is really working.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • Right-wing podcast host and serial plagiarist Benny Johnson: “KAMALA CRASH.” Johnson also called Trump’s “TRUMP CASH vs. KAMALA CRASH!” post “great messaging.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24, 8/5/24]
  • Former Project Veritas affiliate Eric Spracklen: “Trump is on fire this morning 🔥 KAMALA CRASH!” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Joseph Stiglitz

Why Nobel Economists Spoke Up To Warn Public On Trump Policies

Sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists, led by Joseph Stiglitz, released a letter this week warning the American public of the devastating effects of former president, convicted felon, and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump’s second term agenda. Stiglitz specifically cited concern over polling showing that Americans “think Trump would be better for the economy” than President Joe Biden as his impetus for organizing the letter, which argues that a Trump victory would be enormously harmful to the economy and would actually make inflation worse.

This letter follows several months of Media Matters reviews of the print news stories on inflation from five top U.S. newspapers, which showed absurdly little coverage of inflationary policies and proposals promoted by Trump and his advisers.

Economists warn that Trump will “reignite this inflation” if elected

The letter, first reported by Axios on June 25, stated, “While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we all agree that Joe Biden’s economic agenda is vastly superior to Donald Trump’s.” Concerning inflation, the signatories wrote:

Many Americans are concerned about inflation, which has come down remarkably fast. There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation, with his fiscally irresponsible budgets. Nonpartisan researchers, including at Evercore, Allianz, Oxford Economics, and the Peterson Institute, predict that if Donald Trump successfully enacts his agenda, it will increase inflation.

The outcome of this election will have economic repercussions for years, and possibly decades, to come. We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.

In a later interview with CNBC, Stiglitz credited Biden for the quick decline in the inflation rate, saying: “Inflation has been brought down, actually, remarkably quickly. I would say it’s because of Biden.”

Indeed, President Biden's signature domestic policy (the Inflation Reduction Act) was passed just as inflation peaked in the Summer of 2022, and all traditional measures of inflation show that prices have largely stabilized over the past year after temporarily spiking in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic:

Major newspapers ignored Trump’s inflationary policies in their reporting on inflation

Even though multiple news outlets, including some top newspapers, have featured stories citing experts to draw attention to the inflationary effects of Trump policy proposals, this reporting has been left out of the vast majority of print newspaper coverage of inflation.

Studies by Media Matters (here, here, here, and here) found that between January 11, 2024, and June 11, 2024 — the periods between the releases of the December 2023 and May 2024 CPI reports — only 11 out of 325 (three percent) print news articles about inflation from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times included any mention that past or proposed policies from Trump and/or his advisers would likely worsen inflation. Twice as many articles included criticism of the Biden economy from Trump or his campaign as included any context about Trump’s own inflationary agenda.

Stiglitz wants to correct mistaken idea that Trump would perform better on the economy

Stiglitz told CNBC that “he felt compelled to initiate the letter based on a flurry of recent polling in which voters said they trusted Trump over Biden to manage the U.S. economy,” saying: “I thought it would be important for Americans to know that at least a group of credible economists differs very strongly.”

Two of the newspapers covered in the Media Matters studies — The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times— included reporting on one of these polls in their print editions. Yet neither of the articles mentioned that Trump’s policies would worsen inflation. Separately, one Washington Postprint article headlined “Skyrocketing rents and home prices may be pivotal in the 2024 election” not only failed to inform its readers about Trump’s inflationary policies, it absurdly claimed that “Trump has mainly proposed reducing inflation” as a solution.

The nation’s top newspapers are failing to properly inform their readers of a crucial issue in the lead-up to the 2024 elections, and they should heed the warning raised by these Nobel Prize-winning economists to provide better reporting on Trump’s inflationary policy proposals. Additionally, there is voluminous evidence demonstrating that the economy has performed better under Democratic presidencies than under their Republican counterparts throughout the past century. The public deserves to know these facts.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Planning Trump's Agenda, Heritage Foundation Slates Huge Social Security Cut

Planning Trump's Agenda, Heritage Foundation Slates Huge Social Security Cut

The Heritage Foundation, which has played a central role in organizing the planned extremist takeover of the federal government known as Project 2025 for the next Republican president, is now calling for the Social Security retirement age to be raised to 70. Heritage fearmongered about a possible future benefit cut in order to argue for cutting benefits now.

On May 6, the Social Security board of trustees released their annual report outlining the short- and long-term financial projections of the Social Security insurance programs serving retirees, survivors of deceased workers, and people with disabilities. This year, the report actually noted that the program’s long-term financial outlook had improved somewhat over the past year. According to the report, with no changes to current law, the retirement trust fund will continue to be able to pay out full benefits until 2033, at which time the trust fund will become depleted and would require an across-the-board benefit cut of 21% in order to reflect the amount of Social Security revenue still coming in.

A June 17 Heritage Foundation post used this possible future benefit cut to demand that more immediate cuts to benefits be made by raising the retirement age and changing the program’s inflation adjustment:

If Congress does nothing to address Social Security’s shortfalls, benefits will be cut by 21 percent, across the board beginning in just nine years—in 2033. That means that anyone who is of Generation X or younger will not receive a single full benefit. Even Baby Boomers and Silent Generation retirees will be subject to cuts.
…
To restore Social Security’s intent, policymakers should gradually increase the normal retirement age from 67 to 69 or 70—moving the age up by one or two months per year—and index it to life expectancy.
…
While updating Social Security’s retirement age is an important component of reform, it would only solve about 20 percent to 30 percent of the program’s shortfalls. A more accurate inflation adjustment would solve another 20 percent to 25 percent of the program’s shortfalls.

Heritage also waxed poetic about the virtues of people spending longer in the workforce, with Roe Institute senior research fellow Rachel Greszler arguing that “older workers’ wisdom and experience provides an invaluable insight and mentorship to younger workers.”

However, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained prior to the release of this year’s trustee report, raising the Social Security retirement age would have the effect of cutting benefits by about the same amount as the projected 2033 benefit cut under current law:

The irony of that argument is that over time, raising the retirement age would yield the same result that they purport to want to avoid — a large, across-the-board benefit cut. Raising the retirement age to 70 would ultimately cut average lifetime benefits for new retirees by nearly 20 percent, whereas if Social Security’s reserves are depleted, congressional inaction would force a 23 percent cut for all beneficiaries.

Calls by The Heritage Foundation to reduce Social Security benefits should raise alarm bells. Heritage is not just some right-wing think tank; it is the driving force behind Project 2025, which aims to radically change the federal government in numerous regressive ways should former President Donald Trump win his reelection bid in November:

The Heritage Foundation’s nearly 900-page policy book, titled Mandate for Leadership: A Conservative Promise, describes Project 2025’s priorities and how they would be implemented, broken down by departments in the federal bureaucracy and organized around “four pillars that will, collectively, pave the way for an effective conservative administration: a policy agenda, personnel, training, and a 180-day playbook.” Written primarily by former Trump officials and conservative commentators connected to The Heritage Foundation, these proposals would severely inhibit the federal government’s protections around reproductive rights, LGBTQ and civil rights, climate change efforts, and immigration.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Right-Wing Media Back Trump's 'Deranged' Plan To Replace Tax With Tariffs

Right-Wing Media Back Trump's 'Deranged' Plan To Replace Tax With Tariffs

During a June 13 meeting with Republican elected officials on Capitol Hill, disgraced former president, convicted felon, and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reportedly floated a proposal for a second term that could involve replacing income taxes with tariffs (taxes on imported goods). Republican attendees later confirmed that Trump had proposed using tariffs (which increase costs for consumers) to cut or even replace income taxes.

Tax and economic policy experts from across the political spectrum criticized Trump's proposal, which could severely disrupt international commerce and the domestic economy while supplanting the United States' existing system of progressive income taxation with regressive consumption taxes.

Some in media blasted the idea as impossible and even “deranged,” pointing out that it would be impossible to replace income tax revenue with tariffs, with experts highlighting that the plan would amount to a huge tax increase for middle class and lower-income Americans. Yet, some in conservative media offered support for the unworkable idea.

Media outlets explain that Trump’s idea just can’t work

Business-focused news organizations such as Bloomberg and even the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal noted in their reporting of Trump’s idea that replacing income taxes with tariffs is simply unworkable. On cable news, MSNBC called out Trump’s idea as “bananas,” “deranged,” and devastating for working Americans.

  • Bloomberg: “Using tariff increases to offset income taxes is a tall order, because the US brings in much more money from levies on individuals than on imported products.” Bloomberg noted that “customs duties still make up just 2% of federal revenues — while the individual income tax made up almost half of federal receipts in 2023, according to the Office of Management and Budget.” Bloomberg further explained that “increasing tariffs to pay for even a modest tax cut would require a massive hike in import levies that would mean a big increase on consumer prices.” [Bloomberg, 6/13/24]
  • The Wall Street Journal: Trump’s idea of “replacing the entire income tax system with tariffs” is “an arithmetically challenged plan that would reverse more than 100 years of progressive taxation and is virtually assured to raise consumer prices.”The Wall Street Journal further explained that “Trump’s tariffs—or any tariffs—are almost certainly too small to replace the entire income tax. The U.S. imports less than $4 trillion of goods annually and it collects $2.5 trillion in individual income taxes, which means it would take tariff rates of 70% or higher to fill the void left by repealing income taxes. It depends, too, on how much demand for imported goods changes as tariffs rise.” [The Wall Street Journal, 6/14/24]
  • MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle: Trump’s policy pitch “was bananas.” One of her guests, CNBC senior analyst Ron Insana, replied that “it would launch a global trade war because you’d get retaliatory tariffs from every other country on the planet.” He added, “We import $3.8 trillion worth of goods. We take in $2.5 trillion in revenue from individual income taxes. So, do the math. You’d have to basically almost put 100% tariffs on all imported goods coming to the United States, which would exacerbate inflation, launch a global trade war, possibly spark a recession or worse.” [MSNBC, The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle, 6/13/24]
  • MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: “Donald Trump proposed one of the most deranged policies I have ever heard.” [MSNBC, All In with Chris Hayes, 6/13/24]

CHRIS HAYES (HOST): Today, behind closed doors, outside of the view of cameras, Donald Trump proposed one of the most deranged policies I have ever heard. He told Republican lawmakers behind closed doors he wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it entirely with tariffs, effectively taking us back to the 19th century. This idea makes as much sense as ripping up the entire Interstate Highway System and replacing it with canals.

Economist Paul Krugman did some back of the envelope math and estimates the policy, quote, “would require an average tariff of 133%.” Not 10%. That is a 133% tax hike on all imported goods that would be passed on to consumers. A sales tax of 133%. It would cost Americans hundreds of millions of dollars. Former senior policy adviser to the National Economic Council Brendan Duke explained further, quote: “Another way to put Trump's latest incredibly unworkable idea. One—” get this, “It would raise taxes by $5,000 for a typical family,” if you’re a working person who buys stuff. “It would cut taxes for the average family in the top 0.1% by $1.5 million.”

This proposal would jack up everything, everywhere for normal people, crushing the average American's wallet, while giving the wealthiest folks who no longer have to pay an income tax and don't buy that much relative to their income, an enormous windfall. Millions and millions of dollars. This is the man who has a 50-50 shot of taking the White House, in large part because of the macroeconomic conditions that produced high inflation. And he is seriously, quite seriously and earnestly, currently running on the most insanely inflationary platform I’ve ever seen. Higher prices, higher taxes, for everyone. It would make what we’ve seen over the last few years look like nothing.

Experts from across the political spectrum explain how Trump’s proposal would raise prices and taxes on the middle class and why it can’t replace the income tax

  • Senior fellow Kyle Pomerleau of the conservative American Enterprise Institute wrote: “Fundamentally unserious stuff. … The price of imports would rise, but so would the [dollar], leading to lower sales and income for exporters.” [MarketWatch, 6/13/24]
  • Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget senior vice president Marc Goldwein: “U.S. imports total ~$3.5 trillion per year, while total income tax revenue is about $3 trillion ($2.5t individual). You’d be well on the wrong side of the tariff Laffer Curve if you tried this.” Goldwein’s Laffer Curve comment reflects the hypothesis that setting high tariffs (as a tax) would end up reducing the economic activity it is taxing, thus reducing the amount of revenue. [MarketWatch, 6/13/24; Cato Institute, 11/21/23]
  • Tax Foundation senior economist and research director Erica York: “The individual income tax raises about $2 trillion annually on a tax base of personal income of roughly $15 trillion. Customs duties currently raise about $80 billion annually on imports of $3.4 trillion.” [MarketWatch, 6/13/24]
  • Former White House Council of Economic Advisers chief economist Ernie Tedeschi: “The most important takeaway from the last 48 hours of tax talk is that President Trump is seriously toying with a large, broad additional tariff as a central component of our tax system. Regardless of the specific rate, that means a substantially higher middle class tax burden.” [Twitter/X, 6/14/24]
  • Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman: “My first-pass estimate” on Trump’s idea of replacing the income tax with tariffs “is that this would require an *average* tariff rate of 133 percent.” Krugman added: “So how is it that in the 19th century the federal government largely paid its way with tariffs? Because back then the government was much, much smaller. Believing that we can go back to those days is just ignorant.” [Twitter/X, 6/13/24, 6/13/24]
  • Brendan Duke, senior director for economic policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund wrote: “It shifts taxes from wealthy people to low- and middle-income people and people who buy groceries and people who go to Target.” In a thread posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, Duke also explained how Trump’s idea could have negative “effects on democracy and transparency” as well, including by potentially granting “tariff exemptions to supporters & people who give him money” and raising “tariffs on his supporters' foreign competitors,” which would “dovetail” with “the Trump/Project 2025 project of eliminating the bureaucracy's guardrails from political interference.” [The Wall Street Journal, 6/14/24; Twitter/X, 6/14/24, 6/14/24]
  • Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell: With millions of Americans who pay no income taxes paying tariffs instead, “this sounds like a huge tax increase on the lower/middle income classes.” [CNBC, 6/13/24]
  • Economic analyst Steven Rattner: “Swapping all income tax for tariffs would be unbelievably regressive.” [MarketWatch, 6/13/24]

Right-wing and fringe media endorse Trump’s impossible idea

    • Heritage Foundation economist and former Trump adviser Stephen Moore: Trump’s 10% earlier tariff proposal could instead pay for extending the Trump tax cuts, or the revenue could be dedicated to “lower[ing] the payroll tax—which deters work and hiring.” Moore's pivot to the payroll tax is telling, as it is the dedicated funding source for Social Security, a long-time target of right-wing devotees committed to altering and eventually eliminating the crucial benefit program for retirees. [The Wall Street Journal, 6/14/24; Media Matters, 3/13/24]
    • Moore on Newsmax: “If you could actually eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with an across-the-board tariff, that would be a very good thing for the economy.” Moore continued with his full-throated endorsement of the idea: “Obviously, it would mean, you know, we wouldn't have 40, 50, 70%, you know, progressive income tax rates. You'd be taxing people on their consumption rather than their investments and savings. So, it'd be rocket fuel for the economy if you could do it.” Moore concluded: “For the first 100 and almost 150 years of this country, we had no income tax and we funded most of our government through tariffs. And that was a much more efficient way to fund government than through our crazy income tax right now.” [Newsmax, The National Report, 6/14/24]
    • On Fox Business, Moore retreated from humoring Trump’s idea as a replacement for the income tax: “This is a perfect example of where the left takes Trump literally and not seriously.” Moore watered down Trump’s idea, saying: “He wasn't saying we’re going to completely eliminate the income tax. What he meant to say is that with the tariff revenue that we bring in, if he does that 10% across-the-board tariff, we could use some of that money to reduce income taxes. You could maybe reduce the — you could probably get rid of the entire gift and estate and the death tax. You could maybe cut the capital gains tax. Maybe you could reduce the payroll tax on workers a little bit.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 6/17/24]
    • Fox Business host and former Trump adviser Larry Kudlow admitted Trump’s tariff idea can’t replace individual income tax, but pushed it as a replacement for corporate taxes. On his show, Kudlow said “the numbers don’t work” to replace individual income taxes with tariffs before adding: “But the corporate income tax numbers work.” [Fox Business, Kudlow, 6/14/24]
    • Fox & Friends First co-host Todd Piro: “Could Trump get rid of the income tax?” Fox Business anchor Cheryl Casone replied, “I want to say that sounds good, but — OK, let me explain this. It sounds good.” She continued, “Former President Trump is now floating the idea of the U.S. eliminating income taxes, replacing it with tariffs on imported goods. He also says that tariffs could be negotiating leverage against bad actors out there.” Casone then suggested the idea was a way for Trump to get campaign financing from Wall Street, but did not say that the idea would be unworkable. [Fox News, Fox & Friends First, 6/14/24]
    • Fox Business host Charles Payne: “It’s one of these things that … sounds nuts, that sounds far fetched. … Except if — most Americans don’t realize we didn’t always have an income tax.” Payne lamented the initial creation of the income tax structure a century ago, proclaiming “when government got bigger, it got hungrier for power” after the two World Wars. Payne acknowledged “it couldn’t work completely now” but seemed to express nostalgia for when America “actually had an economy driven by zero income taxes.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 6/14/24]
    • Fox Business correspondent Hillary Vaughn: “If the side effect of all of this … is the government being cut down to size, Republicans probably won’t see that as a downside.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 6/14/24]
    • Gateway Pundit referred to Trump’s idea as “a bold proposal” and “bombshell proposal” to “abolish income tax and implement an ‘all tariff policy.’” [The Gateway Pundit, 6/13/24]
    • Townhall: “Trump Gets Positive Feedback After Floating Proposal of Eliminating Income Tax.” Townhall’s idea of “positive feedback” appears to consist of posts from several random pro-Trump social media users who agreed with the idea. [Townhall, 6/13/24]
    • Students for Trump founder Ryan Fournier: “Eliminating the income tax and replacing it with tariffs doesn’t sound like a bad idea.” [Twitter/X, 6/13/24]
    • Multiple QAnon figures endorsed Trump’s idea. QAnon John wrote: “This would be a MASSIVE BLOW to the Central Bank Cabal. Quite possibly THE single most devastating blow Trump could bring to the Globalists. With a cessation of income tax feeding the fiat debt machine, the Federal Reserve would be FORCED to dissolve into the abyss. It would be the END OF THE FED & DEBT SLAVERY. THAT IS HOW YOU MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. BRING. IT. ON.” Woke Societies wrote: “Who’s going to say no to this? Trump just won.” Jordan Sather wrote: “How can you not support this?” [Gab, 6/13/24; Telegram, 6/13/24, 6/14/24; Media Matters, 4/18/22]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.