June 4, 2025 • 27 mins
This week, we’re checking in on the status of Donald Trump’s trade war. Host Stephanie Flanders is joined by Anna Wong, chief US economist at Bloomberg Economics, for insight into the economic impact of the US president’s policies so far, and Bloomberg White House Reporter Josh Wingrove, who unpacks how the strategy is evolving. They analyze the legal battle over Trump’s tariffs and concern on Wall Street that the trade war could morph into a capital war.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
The administration is very nimble and flexible, and Trump himself
he has a sense of how hard to push the economy,
and he tends to pull back from the brain if
things get really bad. At this moment, the hard data
are not causing them to want to pull back.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
I'm Stephanie Flanders, head of Government and Economics at Bloomberg,
and welcome to Trump Economics, the podcast that looks at
the economic world of Donald Trump, how he's already shaped
the global economy and what on earth is going to
happen next. And this week, after a lot of discussions
and conversations with people, I wanted to sort of step
back and come back to our correspondence and economy to
(01:00):
ask where are we in Donald Trump's trade war. We're
taping this on Tuesday, June third, and just this morning,
the OECD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, released
a fresh warning that the US president's trade policies have
formerly tipped the world economy into a downturn. I thought
(01:22):
that gave us an excuse if we needed one, to
consider where things stand in Donald Trump's war on the
old fashioned global trading system. What impact it's had on
the real economy so far, particularly in the US, and
how that court challenged last week to Trump's whole tariff
strategy has added another layer of uncertainty. With me is
(01:46):
Anna Wong, chief US economist for Bloomberg Economics, who many
of you have heard many times before. Before she worked
for US, she worked at the Federal Reserve Board, the
US Treasury, and the White House Council of Economic Advisors
during Donald Trump's first term. Josh Wingrove also a regular
senior reporter for Bloomberg who covers the White House. Josh Anna,
(02:09):
always great to have you. I think the last time
we had both of you on it was a very
good conversation. Looking forward to it, Josh, we will talk
about that sort of bombshell International Trade Court ruling last
week in a little bit. But taking that to one side,
just remind us where we are in the various ceasefire
pauses negotiations in this trade war.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Well, as we sit here, we have about a month
until the expiration of several deadlines that that court case
is going to intersect with. But we also have tariffs
in place right We've got tariff's on steel, aluminum, autos,
auto parts, coming on several other products that are enacted
under different authorities that are not touched by that ruling.
(02:53):
In our scene is much more legally durable. Those are
not going anywhere. No one really thinks they're going anywhere.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
That they're going up.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
In some cases, Trump is announced exactly steal and aluminum.
The aluminum one in particular, seemed like kind of on
a whim, will double this week to fifty percent from
twenty five percent. Let's assume for a moment that those
court cases are not successful and those tariffs remain in place.
Those are that's a battle over AIPA authorities. That's what
Trump is used to pain with the broadest brush possible
(03:23):
and hit every country with tariffs of at least ten percent.
The deadline of July ninth means those go up from
ten if you don't have a deal. So for those
about five dozen countries including the EU as a block,
including China including others, they would snap back up if
there's no deal.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
To those rates that were on the big sort of
menu board that he had in them.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Or somewhere in between. It's it's murky, and it's I
think deliberately murky. But up not ten is the point.
So they're threatening, saying, hey, make a deal now, or
you're going to have a number higher than ten come July.
Of course, the other countries, you know, basically all of
them are sending signs of you know, fusion, hesitation. Some
are looking at the court ruling and wondering why they
(04:03):
would play their best cards right now when it's just
so uncertain what authority Trump has.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
We had all those claims about how many countries the
US would do deals with in that ninety day period
sort of went up every time they talked about it,
but I think it was like seventy or something, seventy
two or something. Anyway, just remind us how many of
those have actually been done.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
One, we've got one deal with the UK group.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Well, and actually, if you're sitting in the UK now,
you would say even that has not actually been sorted out.
So Josh has reminded us that this is an unholy mess.
And we could definitely spend another twenty minutes talking about
the variation. But Anna, obviously a lot of the focus,
or a lot of the interest is on how all
this activity and the tariffs that are already in place
(04:47):
is affecting the real economy. Talk us through the economic
impact that we're actually seeing so far.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Yeah, so the trade war version two genuinely started in February,
so now we have basically three months worth of price
data and activity data to engage its impact. So in
these three months, generally what happened is we see deflation
or even disinflation. For example, in the April inflation number,
(05:17):
Powells prefer inflation gauge is supercore. Actually saw deflation, So
what's going on there? It turns out that the services
categories are particularly discretionary services categories like travel, airfares, hotels,
car rentals are all going down. So basically the decrease
(05:40):
income optimism and general pessimism of economy is directly and
immediately translating to lower demand for these goods and as
a result overwhelms whatever tariffs passed through in the goods
sector in terms of inflation impact. So on net inflation
impact has in disinflation.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
So disinflation is when you just have a fall in
the inflation rate, and deflation is when prices are falling.
I mean, the headline from what you're saying is we
all expected inflation, but actually so far, because this kind
of supply side shock also affects confidence and activity, that
effect is actually more visible than the inflation effects.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Sor right correct so far, yes, But.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
In terms of expectations, I think we are seeing people
expecting inflation to pick up as a result of tariffs.
And of course Donald Trump would claim that economics in
the real world works differently from people expect and he's
kind of proven that by doing things that were supposed
to be very costly and have actually done all right.
And I'd have to say, listening to you so far,
you know, everyone said there was going to be inflation. No,
(06:46):
inflation's gone down. Everyone said that the economy be really hurt. Well,
if you look through the kind of ups and downs
of the first two quarters, which are very distorted by
this import activity, the economy doesn't seem to have been
very adversely affect And in fact, everyone predicted the dollar
would go up as a result of tariffs, and in
fact it's gone down significantly.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
So that was very surprising that.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
So he's right, the colnivists just don't know anything, and
he can reinvent the rules.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
And Stephany is too early. It's also too early in
the game going back to the import front running, so
we have until July where nothing happened. Everything can carry
on as usual. However, after this front running is over,
the question is will the firms restock at higher prices?
And if they do, then ultimately the firms will have
(07:40):
to decide should they pass it through or should they
just eat those in terms of profit compression. So the
firms did not need to have that stark choice right now.
We are not in that period. And this is why
you have FED Governor Chris Waller talking about how it's
kind of hard to see what is truly what truly
(08:00):
how is it impacting inflation until after July.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
I just wanted to signal this banana was But also
note that like Trump is bragging about this, right they're
they're bragging.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Probably it's not Biden's economy anymore.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Right Exactly, they are bragging about low gasoline prices, which
by the way, are at a rate where US drilling
is heavily disincentivized. There are signs of uncertainty, if not
even pullback that Trump is looking at a political positive.
So they are celebrating these things even if you look
at the trade data and think, well this is kind
(08:33):
of like a crash diet, right if I stop eating
for a month and might bemidrops. Like, is that is that, like,
you know, harbinger of a long term thing or is
that just me making bold choices? So we'll see how
this shakes out. But like Trump is and his allies
are proud of this. They are boasting about this. He
loves the tariff revenue. He believes it is driving domestic
(08:55):
investment in factories. And I think that people maybe still
haven't really wrap their head around how an evangelist he
is on this tariff issue. When the question of like
legal flights and are these teriffs going to stay or not?
So everyone you talk to around Donald Trump, he loves tariffs.
There's going to be tariffs. If it's not this authority,
it'll be another. It's going to be bumpy, but they're
(09:19):
going to be there.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
Yeah. On the trade thing, it reminds me there was
that old learn about I. I've been training my donkey
to not need any food, just as I'd trained him
to not need any food Adoly died. So we might
see that on the trade front. But Anna Josh is mentioning,
I guess there's a sort of macro micro thing because
macro we're still not seeing some of the impacts that
we might have expected to see. And you've said too
(09:41):
early to say, but you know, micro, we also have
a lot of stories and we have a lot of
reports from companies who are doing their sort of earnings
forecasts and things saying this is really affecting our ability
to get components, or at least we're having to really
think about rethink how we make stuff. I mean, how
much are we seeing that in terms of changing the
(10:03):
way companies are operating.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Yeah, I think that's the surprising part to me personally.
So ISM Manufacturing just release their semi annual survey that
asks manufacturing firms what are their plans in the next
six months, And interestingly, there are a pretty substantial list
of US industries that's reporting they're going to increase the
(10:29):
operation capacity in the US. And some of those industries
would surprise you because it's for example, it's things like Apparels.
I mean, why would one think that US would be
bringing back Apparels. And we also know that Apparels was
one of the most hardest hit by these terraffs on
China and Vietnam.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
So that would be the answer, but you wouldn't necessarily
expect the US to do it. But it has been
the sector that's been hit particularly.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Hard, exactly exactly, and the metals industries where seeing some
increase in employment in the metals industry, which is consistent
with what we saw in twenty nineteen and twenty eighteen too.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
I mean, just one of my questions for you was,
are the administration worried about the economic impacts we're seeing
as you've just said, they're actually quite excited so far
about some of the positive impacts.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
I think that for them it is always sort of
two steps forward, one step back. They're excited until they
have to have, for instance, a somewhat hasty cease fire
with China in Geneva, right like, everything's going great until
we have these hastily arranged and deals to claw everything
back and take the pressure off the market. So I
think that's sort of where they're at. They continue to
(11:43):
project sort of a Trumpian confidence, if you will, but
constantly the pressures to come back from it are just
going to be there. So I think the question is
like with the EU with Japan, with South Korea, with
major trading partners on which there really has not been
a lot of progress locations of progress. What happens if
there's no deal, like how high does Trump go to snap?
Speaker 3 (12:05):
At the same time, we had a lot of noise
about China's going back on its side of the bargain
with this deal, and we had the sort of very
rapid fire thing around doubling the steel and anominum tariffs.
So how did you read any of that? Insofar as
there is an underlying strategy.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
On the China thing, I think it is teeing up well.
As we sit here, we expect to be or at
least the Americans expect to be a call between President
and She and President Trump at some point this week.
All they've said is this week, a couple of officials
have said it publicly. We just don't know when that
will be. Those complaints appear to be heavily linked to
export controls around critical minerals that the Americans said publicly
(12:47):
would be like, you know, flowing freely, and China just
had a different view on that. So, whether it is
China renegging or an outcome that is different than the
publicly stated desired outcome of the Americans, is that open question.
I think on the steel aluminum, I mean, I don't
It's difficult not to see it as like a reaction
(13:08):
to the court ruling. He almost felt like he wanted
to flex his muscle and you know, enact Terris where
he could. And we should note, of course that they
renounced at US steel in the context of him celebrating
the sale of US steel to Japanese, the Japanese company
Nipon Steel, which he's not framing as a sale, but
essentially he's flipped his view on it. He used to
oppose it, he campaigned against it. Now he's blessing it
(13:28):
with certain you know, strings attached. So he's he's sort
of like washing down the reversal with oh, by the way,
I'm giving you more tariffs, which for Nipon Steel is
probably not bad because now they've got a great foothold
in the American industry and they will be terror free
for stuff made at US steel.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Anna. You know, Josh has mentioned that at least it
may have an impact on other countries that you've now
got this legal uncertainty around a lot of the tariffs
that we're using. The AIPA legislation. The idea of an
emergency that gives the president exceptional power. They push back
on that, but how significant do you think that ruling is?
(14:05):
Do you think it really sort of casts a question
mark over all of these things.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
No, So, first of all, they're going through all the
appeal options, and I think that the odds for a
successful appeal is pretty high given that there is a
president with Nixon's case. So in the nineteen seventies, Nixon
also invoked the predecessor of IEPA's power, also presidential powers
to impose a ten percent tariff, and he was also
(14:31):
challenged by the Trade Court, but then he won the
appeal because citing that the Trading with Enemy Act grants
the president emergency powers. Odds are decent for him to
win an appeal. In second even if he doesn't win,
all he needs is to buy some time until he
can switch over to these other options such as section
(14:54):
three three eight, one, two to two, which allow him
to immediately impose fifteen to fifty percent on anything immediately,
and then he could use Section two thirty two and
three or one, which takes longer, and all those are
already in motion. So basically, I just think that ultimately
the equal abround tariff, the endgame terroriff is still about
(15:16):
fifteen percent in our baseline.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Josh, is there actually an expectation that this could put
an end to at least a chunk of the terriffs.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
I think they're not popping champagne yet. I think the
most powerful sort of counterforce to Trump's tariffs have been
the people that have done it sort of out of
the public eye and have fought it in court rather
than on the airwaves. So I think the silence is conspicuous.
And I agree with Anna about the other powers here.
But if I can offer the sort of contrarian take here,
(15:45):
I mean Section one twenty two is capped at fifteen
percent for one hundred and fifty days, so lower, much
lower than he wants to go with some of these countries.
Section three thirty eight, that's the fifty percent power that
Anna referenced. It's never been enacted, it's been threatened, been used,
So like the legal footing of that is by definition untested.
(16:05):
Section two thirty two. They're already doing several investigations. There
are only so many people you can fit in the
tiny USTR buildings across from the eo B Friction three
oh one, those take a long time as well. There
are trade offs to this. There's a reason they used
AIPA in the first place, or tried to use it
in the first place. If they do pivot to these
other authorities, they all come with sort of caveats that
(16:27):
will either limit the height or term, or be unlegally
questionable or untested in their own authority, or just simply,
you know, pile more straws onto the camel's back at
USTR and force all these investigations which, if not done properly,
will be legally vulnerable. The whole point of view of
two three two is that you've got to dot your
eyes and cross your t's and then you get a
(16:48):
pretty iron cloud terraff authority. If they start fast tracking it,
they risk not doing that. So there's there's there's clouds
on the horizon.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
One thing that I thought was just worth mentioning, although
that really deserves its own episode, is various clauses in
the tax bill which seem to kind of extend the
trade war or at least open a new front for
Trumpian attax on the global trading and financial system, which
(17:18):
is these clauses which would impose sort of punitive or
much higher taxes on individuals and companies investing in or
holding US assets, but who come from countries that are
considered to have discriminatory or unfair tax regimes, regimes that
are unfair to the US. You know, it's just another
(17:38):
stick to beat other countries with, using the leverage of
other countries' desire to invest in the US in various ways. Anna,
There's been a lot of chatter about this, a lot
of discussion and analysis on Wall Street. Does this constitute
a sort of new front in Donald Trump's trade war?
Do you take it seriously?
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Read to me that it's very much targeting EU. And
we have known for a while that the Trump administration
sees EU's non tear of trade barriers as almost as
severe as China's barriers. So I think this is in
part a way to get at the Digital services tax
(18:20):
and the tax on intangibles, because even in the first
Trump administration was very much against this, and yet OECD
also has been supporting these DST and taxes on intangible
and these taxes have been collected for almost like at
least six years now. So I think it will be
very hard to negotiate with EU on reducing these DST taxes,
(18:46):
which disproportionately affect US tech firms. I mean, there's a
reason why many of these tech firms are supporting the
Trump administration this time around. So I just think that
this is a very specific country targeting bill as opposed
to a very broad range taxing on international inflows.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
I guess it's a chilling effect. I mean, we've talked
in the past about how investors were so overexposed to
some extent or sort of disproportionately invested in the US
after years and years of the US doing better than
other people other countries, that it doesn't take much for
them to think, oh, I should tilt in the other direction.
It should take some money out or reallocate. If that
(19:28):
brings down the dollar, then made the administrations happy about that.
But at some level, it's also going to constitute a
decline in investment flows into the US, which he's supposed
to you know, he wants to see more investments. Josh,
do you think this clause is going to go through
and do you think that it could be potentially quite damaging.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
All indications are that it will go through, but you know,
we're still waiting to see what the final PI looks
like once they rebake it in the Senate and send
it back to the House. They're still working with pretty
skinny margins here, but there's not been a lot about
cry about it. The Republican outcry has been focused on
other things. And so yeah, I think that ultimately Congress
(20:10):
is going to start trying to hand Trump more tools,
which is a change in tune from you in a
couple of months ago when Republican senators were objecting implicitly
or explicitly to Trump's sort of capturing of teriff authorities
that had historically rested more with Congress. So we'll see,
(20:30):
remember the clock sticking in Congress, right, They want to
sign this thing on July fourth, Independence Day, of course,
so we can go from Liberation Day to Independence Day,
which is fined for the tariff deadline. So I think
you're going to see rhetorically a lot of continued sort
of chest beating from the President and from the Republican administration.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
And I guess that's a positive for the President if
he actually gets some tools that are not sort of
questioned in the court and are legislated. And people have
said all along, if you really want to do these things,
you need to get Congress to legislate and give you
the power explicitly. But is it also a reflection that
the administration's not managing to do what it wanted to
(21:10):
do with the tools it had. Do you think they
feel like they're winning?
Speaker 2 (21:14):
So? I think that the administration is very nimble and flexible,
and Trump himself be as a sense of how hard
to push the economy, and he tends to pull back
from the brink if things get really bad, as we
could see in April, because the administration, the nec Kevin
has it and stuff, doesn't do talk to CEOs of
(21:38):
companies in the real economy.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
So I think that.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
They know that there's danger in there in their moments
of diceiness. But right now, at this moment, and I
do think it's reasonable to talk in moments because these
things change day by day. At this moment, the hard
data are not causing them to want pulled back. And
(22:01):
this view may change this Friday with the non farm payrolls.
If non farm payrolls, for example, shows really steep drop,
then you would see Trump pouting a call of presidency immediately.
And personally, I think there has been the whole taco trade.
Trump always chickens out. I think Wall Street is too
(22:24):
complacent on peak tariff. Having passed, my own interpretation of
why there was a Geneva agreement between you Os and
China is that the CEOs, Walmart and Target were very convinsing.
The fear of empty shelves caused Trump to want to
continue this trade for now until August, which is the
(22:46):
end of this ninety day pause, to fill the shelf
of the US to make sure that we get past
the holiday season. And I think China would easily agree
to because when you think about a game theoretic way
of having a war, when both sides can agree the
stakes are too high, it's very easy to find a
low hanging fruit. Okay, we agree, but after this peak
(23:07):
shipping season is over, stakes are down again. They could
have another tariff for until all the way until next
March and then settle down once they're about to get
into peak shipping season.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
And when you say peak, you mean that's Christmas season.
So you need to get all the toys on the shelves.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Yes, because empty shells are politically very unpopular, and so
I do not interpret the de escalation so far as
a taco trade. I actually would interpret as one of
the ebbs and tides of Trump's negotiation style. And what
we saw in Geneva is very uncharacteristic of him. It
(23:46):
is very uncharacteristic of him to immediately cave so soon.
I think what we saw is that he was pushed
to the brink, he pulled back, and then once things
settle in a couple of months, I think there's a
good chance that we'll see these China tariffs rise that again,
increase again.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
Josh, it's interesting because you've got Anna's I think will
we talked about how the economic impact so far was
not necessarily as negative as people are thought, and that
has produced a sort of feeling in the administration potentially
that at least on the domestic front, things are not
going too badly, but internationally, you'd have to say the
(24:27):
rest of the world seems to be doing pretty well
so far. I mean, and we talked at the beginning,
there's no very few deals done, and that sort of
back and forth with the Chinese over whether or not
there would even be a call between President she and
Donald Trump seems to me kind of symbolic of the
fact that China seems to have the upper hand in
(24:47):
that particular conversation, and my colleagues in Beijing and Hong
Kong are absolutely convinced that she will not want to
do a call or be very reluctant to do a
call this week, because that's not the way the Chinese work.
They want to have everything nailed down before or they
do a call, So the optics of that can't be
comfortable for the administration.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Yeah, the Chinese have calculated that they have the luxury
of patients here and the Americans are betting that the
American market is enough of a carrot on the stick
that eventually those strategies will converge. But I agree with that,
and right now we're not primed for a long time
truce anytime soon. I think we'll see sort of fits
(25:28):
and starts on this. And remember we all had a
panic about a month ago when Trump exampted a bunch
of consumer electronics from those Chinese tariffs. That's only because
he wants to hit them with another tariff, and so
in the meantime he could announce his two three to
two tariff on iPhones, on computer monitors, on everything. With
the semiconductor chip in it that hits China in a
(25:50):
different way. So you know, there are multiple fronts on
this trade war, where each settles on an e given month,
I think remains unclear. I totally agree that the view
of the retailers and the political impact that empty shelves
would have on it. And Trump got a lot of
blowback for saying like, maybe kids will have two dollars
instead of fifteen dollars, and you know, you can have
(26:10):
one pencil instead of fifty pencils. It's kind of that
he did instick Landing on that one, and he's got
blowback on it, so I think he will be sensitive
to that. But I also think that when it comes
to appetite among lawmakers, who have of course been very
deferential to Trump, to say the least, lawmakers in Washington
are keen to reset the relationship with China on both
(26:31):
sides of the aisle, Trump has a lot more leash
when it comes to a fight with China that he
does with the rest of the world. So I think
we continue to see China on a separate track from
the rest of his trade front.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
So I can't help thinking that we will have to
take stock of the trade more many more times before
we're done. But I feel like we have some interesting
takeaways on just where the economy is, even if we
do think there's a lot more coming down the track.
Josh Waen Grove, Ana Wong, thank you so much, thank you,
thank you, thank you for listening to Trumpanomics from Bloomberg.
(27:17):
It was hosted by me Stephanie Flanders, and I was
joined this week by our chief US economist, Anna Wong
and senior White House reporter Josh Wingrove. Trumpomics is produced
by Summer Sadi and Moses and Dam with help from
Chris mart Lou and Amy Keene. Special thanks to Rachel
Lewis Chrisky. Sound design is by Blake Maples and Brendan Francis.
(27:39):
Newnham is our executive producer. To help others find Trumpomics,
please rate it and review it wherever you listen.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
The administration is very nimble and flexible, and Trump himself
he has a sense of how hard to push the economy,
and he tends to pull back from the brain if
things get really bad. At this moment, the hard data
are not causing them to want to pull back.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
I'm Stephanie Flanders, head of Government and Economics at Bloomberg,
and welcome to Trump Economics, the podcast that looks at
the economic world of Donald Trump, how he's already shaped
the global economy and what on earth is going to
happen next. And this week, after a lot of discussions
and conversations with people, I wanted to sort of step
back and come back to our correspondence and economy to
(01:00):
ask where are we in Donald Trump's trade war. We're
taping this on Tuesday, June third, and just this morning,
the OECD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, released
a fresh warning that the US president's trade policies have
formerly tipped the world economy into a downturn. I thought
(01:22):
that gave us an excuse if we needed one, to
consider where things stand in Donald Trump's war on the
old fashioned global trading system. What impact it's had on
the real economy so far, particularly in the US, and
how that court challenged last week to Trump's whole tariff
strategy has added another layer of uncertainty. With me is
(01:46):
Anna Wong, chief US economist for Bloomberg Economics, who many
of you have heard many times before. Before she worked
for US, she worked at the Federal Reserve Board, the
US Treasury, and the White House Council of Economic Advisors
during Donald Trump's first term. Josh Wingrove also a regular
senior reporter for Bloomberg who covers the White House. Josh Anna,
(02:09):
always great to have you. I think the last time
we had both of you on it was a very
good conversation. Looking forward to it, Josh, we will talk
about that sort of bombshell International Trade Court ruling last
week in a little bit. But taking that to one side,
just remind us where we are in the various ceasefire
pauses negotiations in this trade war.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Well, as we sit here, we have about a month
until the expiration of several deadlines that that court case
is going to intersect with. But we also have tariffs
in place right We've got tariff's on steel, aluminum, autos,
auto parts, coming on several other products that are enacted
under different authorities that are not touched by that ruling.
(02:53):
In our scene is much more legally durable. Those are
not going anywhere. No one really thinks they're going anywhere.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
That they're going up.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
In some cases, Trump is announced exactly steal and aluminum.
The aluminum one in particular, seemed like kind of on
a whim, will double this week to fifty percent from
twenty five percent. Let's assume for a moment that those
court cases are not successful and those tariffs remain in place.
Those are that's a battle over AIPA authorities. That's what
Trump is used to pain with the broadest brush possible
(03:23):
and hit every country with tariffs of at least ten percent.
The deadline of July ninth means those go up from
ten if you don't have a deal. So for those
about five dozen countries including the EU as a block,
including China including others, they would snap back up if
there's no deal.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
To those rates that were on the big sort of
menu board that he had in them.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Or somewhere in between. It's it's murky, and it's I
think deliberately murky. But up not ten is the point.
So they're threatening, saying, hey, make a deal now, or
you're going to have a number higher than ten come July.
Of course, the other countries, you know, basically all of
them are sending signs of you know, fusion, hesitation. Some
are looking at the court ruling and wondering why they
(04:03):
would play their best cards right now when it's just
so uncertain what authority Trump has.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
We had all those claims about how many countries the
US would do deals with in that ninety day period
sort of went up every time they talked about it,
but I think it was like seventy or something, seventy
two or something. Anyway, just remind us how many of
those have actually been done.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
One, we've got one deal with the UK group.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Well, and actually, if you're sitting in the UK now,
you would say even that has not actually been sorted out.
So Josh has reminded us that this is an unholy mess.
And we could definitely spend another twenty minutes talking about
the variation. But Anna, obviously a lot of the focus,
or a lot of the interest is on how all
this activity and the tariffs that are already in place
(04:47):
is affecting the real economy. Talk us through the economic
impact that we're actually seeing so far.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Yeah, so the trade war version two genuinely started in February,
so now we have basically three months worth of price
data and activity data to engage its impact. So in
these three months, generally what happened is we see deflation
or even disinflation. For example, in the April inflation number,
(05:17):
Powells prefer inflation gauge is supercore. Actually saw deflation, So
what's going on there? It turns out that the services
categories are particularly discretionary services categories like travel, airfares, hotels,
car rentals are all going down. So basically the decrease
(05:40):
income optimism and general pessimism of economy is directly and
immediately translating to lower demand for these goods and as
a result overwhelms whatever tariffs passed through in the goods
sector in terms of inflation impact. So on net inflation
impact has in disinflation.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
So disinflation is when you just have a fall in
the inflation rate, and deflation is when prices are falling.
I mean, the headline from what you're saying is we
all expected inflation, but actually so far, because this kind
of supply side shock also affects confidence and activity, that
effect is actually more visible than the inflation effects.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Sor right correct so far, yes, But.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
In terms of expectations, I think we are seeing people
expecting inflation to pick up as a result of tariffs.
And of course Donald Trump would claim that economics in
the real world works differently from people expect and he's
kind of proven that by doing things that were supposed
to be very costly and have actually done all right.
And I'd have to say, listening to you so far,
you know, everyone said there was going to be inflation. No,
(06:46):
inflation's gone down. Everyone said that the economy be really hurt. Well,
if you look through the kind of ups and downs
of the first two quarters, which are very distorted by
this import activity, the economy doesn't seem to have been
very adversely affect And in fact, everyone predicted the dollar
would go up as a result of tariffs, and in
fact it's gone down significantly.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
So that was very surprising that.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
So he's right, the colnivists just don't know anything, and
he can reinvent the rules.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
And Stephany is too early. It's also too early in
the game going back to the import front running, so
we have until July where nothing happened. Everything can carry
on as usual. However, after this front running is over,
the question is will the firms restock at higher prices?
And if they do, then ultimately the firms will have
(07:40):
to decide should they pass it through or should they
just eat those in terms of profit compression. So the
firms did not need to have that stark choice right now.
We are not in that period. And this is why
you have FED Governor Chris Waller talking about how it's
kind of hard to see what is truly what truly
(08:00):
how is it impacting inflation until after July.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
I just wanted to signal this banana was But also
note that like Trump is bragging about this, right they're
they're bragging.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Probably it's not Biden's economy anymore.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Right Exactly, they are bragging about low gasoline prices, which
by the way, are at a rate where US drilling
is heavily disincentivized. There are signs of uncertainty, if not
even pullback that Trump is looking at a political positive.
So they are celebrating these things even if you look
at the trade data and think, well this is kind
(08:33):
of like a crash diet, right if I stop eating
for a month and might bemidrops. Like, is that is that, like,
you know, harbinger of a long term thing or is
that just me making bold choices? So we'll see how
this shakes out. But like Trump is and his allies
are proud of this. They are boasting about this. He
loves the tariff revenue. He believes it is driving domestic
(08:55):
investment in factories. And I think that people maybe still
haven't really wrap their head around how an evangelist he
is on this tariff issue. When the question of like
legal flights and are these teriffs going to stay or not?
So everyone you talk to around Donald Trump, he loves tariffs.
There's going to be tariffs. If it's not this authority,
it'll be another. It's going to be bumpy, but they're
(09:19):
going to be there.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
Yeah. On the trade thing, it reminds me there was
that old learn about I. I've been training my donkey
to not need any food, just as I'd trained him
to not need any food Adoly died. So we might
see that on the trade front. But Anna Josh is mentioning,
I guess there's a sort of macro micro thing because
macro we're still not seeing some of the impacts that
we might have expected to see. And you've said too
(09:41):
early to say, but you know, micro, we also have
a lot of stories and we have a lot of
reports from companies who are doing their sort of earnings
forecasts and things saying this is really affecting our ability
to get components, or at least we're having to really
think about rethink how we make stuff. I mean, how
much are we seeing that in terms of changing the
(10:03):
way companies are operating.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Yeah, I think that's the surprising part to me personally.
So ISM Manufacturing just release their semi annual survey that
asks manufacturing firms what are their plans in the next
six months, And interestingly, there are a pretty substantial list
of US industries that's reporting they're going to increase the
(10:29):
operation capacity in the US. And some of those industries
would surprise you because it's for example, it's things like Apparels.
I mean, why would one think that US would be
bringing back Apparels. And we also know that Apparels was
one of the most hardest hit by these terraffs on
China and Vietnam.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
So that would be the answer, but you wouldn't necessarily
expect the US to do it. But it has been
the sector that's been hit particularly.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Hard, exactly exactly, and the metals industries where seeing some
increase in employment in the metals industry, which is consistent
with what we saw in twenty nineteen and twenty eighteen too.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
I mean, just one of my questions for you was,
are the administration worried about the economic impacts we're seeing
as you've just said, they're actually quite excited so far
about some of the positive impacts.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
I think that for them it is always sort of
two steps forward, one step back. They're excited until they
have to have, for instance, a somewhat hasty cease fire
with China in Geneva, right like, everything's going great until
we have these hastily arranged and deals to claw everything
back and take the pressure off the market. So I
think that's sort of where they're at. They continue to
(11:43):
project sort of a Trumpian confidence, if you will, but
constantly the pressures to come back from it are just
going to be there. So I think the question is
like with the EU with Japan, with South Korea, with
major trading partners on which there really has not been
a lot of progress locations of progress. What happens if
there's no deal, like how high does Trump go to snap?
Speaker 3 (12:05):
At the same time, we had a lot of noise
about China's going back on its side of the bargain
with this deal, and we had the sort of very
rapid fire thing around doubling the steel and anominum tariffs.
So how did you read any of that? Insofar as
there is an underlying strategy.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
On the China thing, I think it is teeing up well.
As we sit here, we expect to be or at
least the Americans expect to be a call between President
and She and President Trump at some point this week.
All they've said is this week, a couple of officials
have said it publicly. We just don't know when that
will be. Those complaints appear to be heavily linked to
export controls around critical minerals that the Americans said publicly
(12:47):
would be like, you know, flowing freely, and China just
had a different view on that. So, whether it is
China renegging or an outcome that is different than the
publicly stated desired outcome of the Americans, is that open question.
I think on the steel aluminum, I mean, I don't
It's difficult not to see it as like a reaction
(13:08):
to the court ruling. He almost felt like he wanted
to flex his muscle and you know, enact Terris where
he could. And we should note, of course that they
renounced at US steel in the context of him celebrating
the sale of US steel to Japanese, the Japanese company
Nipon Steel, which he's not framing as a sale, but
essentially he's flipped his view on it. He used to
oppose it, he campaigned against it. Now he's blessing it
(13:28):
with certain you know, strings attached. So he's he's sort
of like washing down the reversal with oh, by the way,
I'm giving you more tariffs, which for Nipon Steel is
probably not bad because now they've got a great foothold
in the American industry and they will be terror free
for stuff made at US steel.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Anna. You know, Josh has mentioned that at least it
may have an impact on other countries that you've now
got this legal uncertainty around a lot of the tariffs
that we're using. The AIPA legislation. The idea of an
emergency that gives the president exceptional power. They push back
on that, but how significant do you think that ruling is?
(14:05):
Do you think it really sort of casts a question
mark over all of these things.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
No, So, first of all, they're going through all the
appeal options, and I think that the odds for a
successful appeal is pretty high given that there is a
president with Nixon's case. So in the nineteen seventies, Nixon
also invoked the predecessor of IEPA's power, also presidential powers
to impose a ten percent tariff, and he was also
(14:31):
challenged by the Trade Court, but then he won the
appeal because citing that the Trading with Enemy Act grants
the president emergency powers. Odds are decent for him to
win an appeal. In second even if he doesn't win,
all he needs is to buy some time until he
can switch over to these other options such as section
(14:54):
three three eight, one, two to two, which allow him
to immediately impose fifteen to fifty percent on anything immediately,
and then he could use Section two thirty two and
three or one, which takes longer, and all those are
already in motion. So basically, I just think that ultimately
the equal abround tariff, the endgame terroriff is still about
(15:16):
fifteen percent in our baseline.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Josh, is there actually an expectation that this could put
an end to at least a chunk of the terriffs.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
I think they're not popping champagne yet. I think the
most powerful sort of counterforce to Trump's tariffs have been
the people that have done it sort of out of
the public eye and have fought it in court rather
than on the airwaves. So I think the silence is conspicuous.
And I agree with Anna about the other powers here.
But if I can offer the sort of contrarian take here,
(15:45):
I mean Section one twenty two is capped at fifteen
percent for one hundred and fifty days, so lower, much
lower than he wants to go with some of these countries.
Section three thirty eight, that's the fifty percent power that
Anna referenced. It's never been enacted, it's been threatened, been used,
So like the legal footing of that is by definition untested.
(16:05):
Section two thirty two. They're already doing several investigations. There
are only so many people you can fit in the
tiny USTR buildings across from the eo B Friction three
oh one, those take a long time as well. There
are trade offs to this. There's a reason they used
AIPA in the first place, or tried to use it
in the first place. If they do pivot to these
other authorities, they all come with sort of caveats that
(16:27):
will either limit the height or term, or be unlegally
questionable or untested in their own authority, or just simply,
you know, pile more straws onto the camel's back at
USTR and force all these investigations which, if not done properly,
will be legally vulnerable. The whole point of view of
two three two is that you've got to dot your
eyes and cross your t's and then you get a
(16:48):
pretty iron cloud terraff authority. If they start fast tracking it,
they risk not doing that. So there's there's there's clouds
on the horizon.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
One thing that I thought was just worth mentioning, although
that really deserves its own episode, is various clauses in
the tax bill which seem to kind of extend the
trade war or at least open a new front for
Trumpian attax on the global trading and financial system, which
(17:18):
is these clauses which would impose sort of punitive or
much higher taxes on individuals and companies investing in or
holding US assets, but who come from countries that are
considered to have discriminatory or unfair tax regimes, regimes that
are unfair to the US. You know, it's just another
(17:38):
stick to beat other countries with, using the leverage of
other countries' desire to invest in the US in various ways. Anna,
There's been a lot of chatter about this, a lot
of discussion and analysis on Wall Street. Does this constitute
a sort of new front in Donald Trump's trade war?
Do you take it seriously?
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Read to me that it's very much targeting EU. And
we have known for a while that the Trump administration
sees EU's non tear of trade barriers as almost as
severe as China's barriers. So I think this is in
part a way to get at the Digital services tax
(18:20):
and the tax on intangibles, because even in the first
Trump administration was very much against this, and yet OECD
also has been supporting these DST and taxes on intangible
and these taxes have been collected for almost like at
least six years now. So I think it will be
very hard to negotiate with EU on reducing these DST taxes,
(18:46):
which disproportionately affect US tech firms. I mean, there's a
reason why many of these tech firms are supporting the
Trump administration this time around. So I just think that
this is a very specific country targeting bill as opposed
to a very broad range taxing on international inflows.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
I guess it's a chilling effect. I mean, we've talked
in the past about how investors were so overexposed to
some extent or sort of disproportionately invested in the US
after years and years of the US doing better than
other people other countries, that it doesn't take much for
them to think, oh, I should tilt in the other direction.
It should take some money out or reallocate. If that
(19:28):
brings down the dollar, then made the administrations happy about that.
But at some level, it's also going to constitute a
decline in investment flows into the US, which he's supposed
to you know, he wants to see more investments. Josh,
do you think this clause is going to go through
and do you think that it could be potentially quite damaging.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
All indications are that it will go through, but you know,
we're still waiting to see what the final PI looks
like once they rebake it in the Senate and send
it back to the House. They're still working with pretty
skinny margins here, but there's not been a lot about
cry about it. The Republican outcry has been focused on
other things. And so yeah, I think that ultimately Congress
(20:10):
is going to start trying to hand Trump more tools,
which is a change in tune from you in a
couple of months ago when Republican senators were objecting implicitly
or explicitly to Trump's sort of capturing of teriff authorities
that had historically rested more with Congress. So we'll see,
(20:30):
remember the clock sticking in Congress, right, They want to
sign this thing on July fourth, Independence Day, of course,
so we can go from Liberation Day to Independence Day,
which is fined for the tariff deadline. So I think
you're going to see rhetorically a lot of continued sort
of chest beating from the President and from the Republican administration.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
And I guess that's a positive for the President if
he actually gets some tools that are not sort of
questioned in the court and are legislated. And people have
said all along, if you really want to do these things,
you need to get Congress to legislate and give you
the power explicitly. But is it also a reflection that
the administration's not managing to do what it wanted to
(21:10):
do with the tools it had. Do you think they
feel like they're winning?
Speaker 2 (21:14):
So? I think that the administration is very nimble and flexible,
and Trump himself be as a sense of how hard
to push the economy, and he tends to pull back
from the brink if things get really bad, as we
could see in April, because the administration, the nec Kevin
has it and stuff, doesn't do talk to CEOs of
(21:38):
companies in the real economy.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
So I think that.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
They know that there's danger in there in their moments
of diceiness. But right now, at this moment, and I
do think it's reasonable to talk in moments because these
things change day by day. At this moment, the hard
data are not causing them to want pulled back. And
(22:01):
this view may change this Friday with the non farm payrolls.
If non farm payrolls, for example, shows really steep drop,
then you would see Trump pouting a call of presidency immediately.
And personally, I think there has been the whole taco trade.
Trump always chickens out. I think Wall Street is too
(22:24):
complacent on peak tariff. Having passed, my own interpretation of
why there was a Geneva agreement between you Os and
China is that the CEOs, Walmart and Target were very convinsing.
The fear of empty shelves caused Trump to want to
continue this trade for now until August, which is the
(22:46):
end of this ninety day pause, to fill the shelf
of the US to make sure that we get past
the holiday season. And I think China would easily agree
to because when you think about a game theoretic way
of having a war, when both sides can agree the
stakes are too high, it's very easy to find a
low hanging fruit. Okay, we agree, but after this peak
(23:07):
shipping season is over, stakes are down again. They could
have another tariff for until all the way until next
March and then settle down once they're about to get
into peak shipping season.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
And when you say peak, you mean that's Christmas season.
So you need to get all the toys on the shelves.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Yes, because empty shells are politically very unpopular, and so
I do not interpret the de escalation so far as
a taco trade. I actually would interpret as one of
the ebbs and tides of Trump's negotiation style. And what
we saw in Geneva is very uncharacteristic of him. It
(23:46):
is very uncharacteristic of him to immediately cave so soon.
I think what we saw is that he was pushed
to the brink, he pulled back, and then once things
settle in a couple of months, I think there's a
good chance that we'll see these China tariffs rise that again,
increase again.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
Josh, it's interesting because you've got Anna's I think will
we talked about how the economic impact so far was
not necessarily as negative as people are thought, and that
has produced a sort of feeling in the administration potentially
that at least on the domestic front, things are not
going too badly, but internationally, you'd have to say the
(24:27):
rest of the world seems to be doing pretty well
so far. I mean, and we talked at the beginning,
there's no very few deals done, and that sort of
back and forth with the Chinese over whether or not
there would even be a call between President she and
Donald Trump seems to me kind of symbolic of the
fact that China seems to have the upper hand in
(24:47):
that particular conversation, and my colleagues in Beijing and Hong
Kong are absolutely convinced that she will not want to
do a call or be very reluctant to do a
call this week, because that's not the way the Chinese work.
They want to have everything nailed down before or they
do a call, So the optics of that can't be
comfortable for the administration.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Yeah, the Chinese have calculated that they have the luxury
of patients here and the Americans are betting that the
American market is enough of a carrot on the stick
that eventually those strategies will converge. But I agree with that,
and right now we're not primed for a long time
truce anytime soon. I think we'll see sort of fits
(25:28):
and starts on this. And remember we all had a
panic about a month ago when Trump exampted a bunch
of consumer electronics from those Chinese tariffs. That's only because
he wants to hit them with another tariff, and so
in the meantime he could announce his two three to
two tariff on iPhones, on computer monitors, on everything. With
the semiconductor chip in it that hits China in a
(25:50):
different way. So you know, there are multiple fronts on
this trade war, where each settles on an e given month,
I think remains unclear. I totally agree that the view
of the retailers and the political impact that empty shelves
would have on it. And Trump got a lot of
blowback for saying like, maybe kids will have two dollars
instead of fifteen dollars, and you know, you can have
(26:10):
one pencil instead of fifty pencils. It's kind of that
he did instick Landing on that one, and he's got
blowback on it, so I think he will be sensitive
to that. But I also think that when it comes
to appetite among lawmakers, who have of course been very
deferential to Trump, to say the least, lawmakers in Washington
are keen to reset the relationship with China on both
(26:31):
sides of the aisle, Trump has a lot more leash
when it comes to a fight with China that he
does with the rest of the world. So I think
we continue to see China on a separate track from
the rest of his trade front.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
So I can't help thinking that we will have to
take stock of the trade more many more times before
we're done. But I feel like we have some interesting
takeaways on just where the economy is, even if we
do think there's a lot more coming down the track.
Josh Waen Grove, Ana Wong, thank you so much, thank you,
thank you, thank you for listening to Trumpanomics from Bloomberg.
(27:17):
It was hosted by me Stephanie Flanders, and I was
joined this week by our chief US economist, Anna Wong
and senior White House reporter Josh Wingrove. Trumpomics is produced
by Summer Sadi and Moses and Dam with help from
Chris mart Lou and Amy Keene. Special thanks to Rachel
Lewis Chrisky. Sound design is by Blake Maples and Brendan Francis.
(27:39):
Newnham is our executive producer. To help others find Trumpomics,
please rate it and review it wherever you listen.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.