Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
Editor's Picks
Trump has deployed his most disruptive weapon yet against China. Will it work? #PUPPETREGIME
Watch more of GZERO's award-winning PUPPET REGIME series!
Trump in front of a downward trending graph and economic indicators.
For someone who campaigned on lowering grocery prices on day one and rode widespread economic discontent to the White House, Donald Trump sure seems bent on pursuing policies that will increase that discontent.
If you don’t believe me, take it from the president himself, who refused to rule out a recession last Sunday and acknowledged that his sweeping tariff plans would cause “a little disturbance.” But, he added, “we are okay with that.”
Are we okay with that, though?
From Trump pump to Trump dump
Trump’s election victory unleashed “animal spirits” as many business leaders and investors hoped he’d follow through on his campaign promises to cut red tape and lower taxes while ignoring the more disruptive planks of his economic platform: tariff hikes and immigration restrictions. Surely much of it was posturing and bluffing, they thought, and Trump’s more extreme impulses would be checked by market-friendly advisers like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. In the worst-case scenario, they assumed Trump would course correct when confronted with sliding stock prices or signs of economic cracks.
Slowly but surely, they are starting to realize they got it wrong. Trump meant what he said and is less bound by constraints than during his first term. (I hate to say I told you so, but it wouldn’t have taken them so long to figure this out if they subscribed to this newsletter.)
The S&P500 has dropped by 8% over the last month (so far) as the president’s promised “golden age” of growth collided with the chaotic reality of Trumponomics. American equities are not only lower than they were before Trump’s inauguration but have erased all gains since he became the odds-on favorite to win the race in October. This represents the worst stock market performance in a president’s first 50 days since Barack Obama took office in the midst of the global financial crisis.
But it’s not just Wall Street that’s souring on Trump’s plans. Consumers, small businesses, and CEOs alike are all reporting sharp declines in confidence, largely due to record uncertainty about tariffs. Manufacturing activity is slowing, retail sales and construction spending are falling, and businesses of all kinds are paring back their investment plans as threats to the US outlook mount.
Inflation expectations are on the rise, with 60% of Americans believing Trump isn’t doing enough to bring down inflation and 68% fearing that his tariffs will lead to higher prices. Most Americans think the economy is on the wrong track and disapprove of the president’s handling of it. No wonder Trump’s net approval has taken a quick hit, his honeymoon ending faster than any other president’s save one: Trump 1.0.
It's the economic uncertainty, stupid
Businesses and investors have reason to worry.
In his first six weeks in office, Trump has made it clear that he is dead serious about building a “tariff wall” around America, not as a negotiating tool but to reshape global trade flows. The US effective tariff rate is set to rise to its highest level since the 1940s by the end of the year, raising prices for American consumers and businesses and slowing down growth. Trump has virtually closed the southern border and ramped up the pace of deportations, which will constrain the labor supply and lead to higher prices and lower growth. He has threatened to eliminate government subsidies, contracts, and grants that businesses, universities, and other organizations rely on. And he has empowered Elon Musk’s chaotic effort to purge, downsize, and capture the administrative state, threatening the delivery of critical public services, amplifying these macroeconomic shocks, and destroying US state capacity.
And yet, these first-order consequences of Trump’s policies are not the core reason why traders and boardrooms are freaking out about the outlook for the US economy. Don’t get me wrong, businesses prefer good policies to bad policies. But they can adapt to bad policies. You know what they can’t adapt to? Policies that can turn on a dime based on the president’s whims.
Maybe you agree with Trump that “trade wars are good and easy to win,” or perhaps you believe his policies will cause short-term pain but be worth it in the long run. But whatever you may think of the merits of his agenda, there’s no denying that the constant uncertainty he brings to the table is terrible for business.
Every business decision is a bet about the future. The one non-negotiable before making any investment is a bare minimum of predictability. When the rules of the game can change any day (and when they’re no longer applied impartially), the rational choice is to put off costly long-term investment plans – even if the possible payoffs are high.
That’s why the extreme policy arbitrariness, volatility, and uncertainty that characterizes Trump 2.0 – best exemplified by his on-again, off-again, on-again tariffs – is the ultimate economic dampener. Even if Trump walks back some tariffs or implements his pro-growth promises, uncertainty – by some metrics already higher than it was during the pandemic, the 2008 financial crisis, and 9/11 – will remain near all-time highs for the foreseeable future, discouraging investment, hiring, and consumption, and raising prices. Its chilling effect will compound the direct impact of the administration’s implemented tariffs, deportations, federal layoffs, and so on. As I warned in Eurasia Group’s Top Risks report, “in the long run this will risk undermining the predictability and performance of the world’s most dynamic economy, preeminent investment destination, and issuer of the global reserve currency.”
No more Trump put?
Trump seems to have no intention of backing off his plans or moderating his “move fast and break things” approach, even in the face of economic dislocation. “Markets are going to go up and they’re going to go down, but, you know what, we have to rebuild our country,” he said at the White House yesterday.
This contrasts sharply with his first term, when Trump considered the stock market a barometer of success. Back then, investors and business leaders knew they could count on the “Trump put” – the president’s tendency to curtail his most economically harmful policies when faced with financial turmoil. Now, Trump is openly saying he doesn’t care that investors believe his agenda could cause a recession and raise prices – because it might, and he’s convinced the sacrifice will be worth it for the greater good. “Will there be some pain?” he asked in February. “Maybe (and maybe not!) But we will make America great again, and it will all be worth the price that must be paid.”
So the Trump put either doesn’t exist anymore, or the threshold is significantly higher than it used to be. This makes sense when you consider the president doesn’t have to (read: can’t) run for reelection again. After being twice impeached, convicted, nearly assassinated, and taken for dead politically, the 78-year-old Trump is in a rush to cement his legacy before his “enemies” get another chance to take him down.
True, most presidents – even lame ducks – would consider avoiding a crippling economic meltdown, scoring a decent result in the midterms, and handing the reins to a same-party successor essential to a good legacy. But Trump is no ordinary president. He does not, for example, care much about the Republican Party (after all, he hasn't been a member for long). What he does care about is his own image. In that sense, he is still constrained by public opinion – or rather, his perception of it.
The key question is whether there’s anyone around him who can speak truth to power to a man who has famously little patience for being told he’s wrong. As I wrote in Eurasia Group’s Top Risks report:
Not only does the president-elect have unified government and consolidated control of the Republican Party, but he is building a more personally loyal and ideologically aligned administration than last time. His team will come into office ready to implement – rather than thwart – Trump’s agenda.
If his first 50 days are any indication, the US economy may be in for a lot more trouble until reality pierces his bubble … if it ever does. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. Marco Rubio heading to Saudi Arabia to talk with the Ukrainians. That's clearly the most important of a lot of moving parts geopolitically in the world right now. I say that because so much of what the Americans decide to do and not do with the Ukrainians is going to have massive impact on the transatlantic relationship, on NATO, on US-Europe relations, and on the nature of what has been the most important collective security arrangement in the world and is now experiencing crisis. It's very clear that the Ukrainians, as Trump says, lack the cards. And so the outcome is going to be determined largely by countries outside of Ukraine, not just the willingness and the capacity of the Ukrainians themselves to continue to fight. The United States, on the one hand, is pushing the Europeans to do a lot more. A lot more in terms of providing economic support, providing military support, and having a security backstop for a post-ceasefire environment that the Americans are not prepared to participate in.
Now, if all of that happens, and of course that's a big if, but certainly the Europeans are moving in that direction, then the interesting point is the Americans aren't going to determine the outcome. In the sense that the ultimate ceasefire terms will be driven not by the United States, who's basically saying, "We're washing our hands of it." But instead by the Europeans and the Ukrainians, in concert with Russia. And first of all, that's analogous to what's been happening in the Middle East. Everybody remembers that Trump said, "We're going to own Gaza and all the Palestinians are going to leave," and of course, that's not where we're heading. And the eventual outcome will be determined overwhelmingly by the countries that are prepared to spend the actual money and provide the security and figure out the politics. And that means the Arab States, that means Egypt and Jordan, it means Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and it means the potential for blocking by Israel.
That's the environment that we are increasingly going to be seeing on the ground in Ukraine. That the Europeans are going to be doing the driving. The Ukrainians are going to have to align with that and the blocking potentially by Russia. The big difference, of course, is that in the case of Ukraine, the United States is also very interested in doing a deal with Russia over the head of the Ukrainians and the Europeans. There's no equivalent in the Middle East at all. And here, the reason it's so important is because the ability of the Ukrainians to continue to engage in their willingness with the US and Europe together will determine in large part whether a deal between the US and Russia involves a ceasefire with Ukraine or doesn't. If Trump can say, "Hey, the reason we didn't get a deal and the reason they're still fighting is because Ukraine refuses to be a part of it," then a deal with Russia is actually much easier to get to by Trump. Because it involves just re-engagement diplomatically, investment by the US and Russia, joint projects, reopening of arms control conversations, and doesn't involve a Ukraine ceasefire.
Trump has said, "Not only does Ukraine not have cards, but Russia doesn't have cards." Of course, the reality is that if the Russians are willing to do the fighting for a longer period of time, and the Americans don't care and the Europeans can't stand up, then the Russians are the ones with the cards. That is where we are heading. And if the Americans are prepared to do a deal with the Russians irrespective of what happens on the ground in Ukraine, and that is being tested very much over the coming days, that's perhaps the most important outcome of what we see from the US-Ukrainian talks in Saudi Arabia, then the transatlantic relationship is in a lot more trouble than it is right now.
So I think those are the pieces that we're talking about here. It is very clear that the Americans see alliances and see allies as expendable, that it's not that important for the Americans to treat allies with respect. If they're smaller, if they're less powerful, you can do whatever you want. And we saw that with Elon Musk beating up on Poland and the Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, someone I've been actually friends with for a very long time, and I think that's not a smart way to conduct business. Poland's been a steadfast ally, they're spending upwards of 4% of their GDP on defense, heading towards 5% going forward. They've housed millions of Ukrainian refugees. They've done far more on the ground in Ukraine per capita than the Americans have on pretty much every front. And also, by the way, there are a lot of Polish Americans that vote, and some of them vote Republican. Far more important than the Ukrainian vote, for example, and that seems to matter too, but maybe not to Elon.
I think that these sorts of insults are unnecessary, and they damage American allies. But I think the Trump administration's perspective is as long as the US is the most powerful country in the world, that America alone is stronger than America with friends, and it's probably the area of greatest geopolitical disagreement that I have with this administration. But we will see how it plays out. I certainly agree that there will be a lot of wins that we will continue to see, because less powerful countries do not want to get into a big fight with the United States. But long-term, I think this is going to play out badly. And I particularly think that's true in the transatlantic relationship where permanent damage is being done irrespective of what happens after Trump. Anyway, a lot to talk about, a lot of moving pieces. We'll talk real soon, and that's it from me.
President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 4, 2025.
Does Donald Trump’s revolutionary start make the grade?
On Tuesday, America once again celebrated the great presidential tradition called “marking your own homework,” also known as the Joint Session of Congress address. You didn’t need to sit through all 99 minutes of Trump’s peroration to know that he gave himself an A++ on his first six weeks in office.
“We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years, or eight years, and we are just getting started,” Trump said, causing half the room to explode in applause while the other side sat and waved little paper signs of protest.
The thundering braggadocio of the speech came across with all the subtlety of a revving Harley-Davidson on the Vegas Strip, but give Trump this: He promised radical change, and he has overdelivered. Bigly. Too many politicians promise roses and deliver thorns.
Trump is doing what he has always done: go over the top. His biggest win so far has been the southern border, where his policies have brought illegal migration to a crashing halt. Democrats blew that issue and paid the price. With over 100 executive orders and 400 executive actions, public brawls with world leaders, a pivot into the open claws of Vladimir Putin, and the daily grumblings of his imperialist appetite for land expansion, the transition to Trump has been a transformation of Washington. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue looks more like Fury Road in the “Mad Max” series, complete with a chain-saw-wielding sidekick.
Democrats look helpless, trying to choke down one half-digested policy—cancel USAID, cut off US intelligence to Ukraine, buy Gaza — as another one is jammed down their throats. You could give their entire party a political Heimlich maneuver, and they still wouldn’t be able to catch their breath.
Trump’s Deal Chaos
The rapid-fire, jump-cut scenes of Trump interventions — 25% tariffs on everything from Canada … except energy … and wait … not on cars for a month … or agriculture … or now … BREAKING NEWS today with Trump suspending tariffs for Mexico and Canada on anything that falls under the USMCA, but only until April 2 — might as well come with those photosensitivity warnings you see before shows that include flashing lights: Ladies and gentlemen, the barrage of conflicting policy announcements may cause Democratic seizures.
One thing is certain: The volatility is causing seizures in the markets, which are whipsawing up and down.
But if Trump gets to grade himself, maybe it’s time for a more objective report card. Let’s use two criteria: Trump as a dealmaker and Trump as a manager.
The Platonic ideal of Trump, taken from his ghostwritten book, “The Art of the Deal,” is that he is the greatest dealmaker in history. Want to end the war in Ukraine? Easy-peasy. That should take 24 hours. Well, that deal, whatever it was supposed to be, never materialized.
Trump is now trying to hustle a mineral deal out of Ukraine by shaking down President Volodymyr Zelensky in public, falsely claiming that Ukraine started the war and that Zelensky is the dictator. Trump says that he and his pal Vladimir Putin (“We had to go through the Russian hoax together”) are trying to pin Zelensky down for peace. The president claims the US has given $300 billion in aid to Ukraine, when it is actually $175 billion—and much of that going to US companies. Still, he’s demanding a $500 billion rare earth mineral deal as compensation and the key to a peace deal. “And they shall beat their swords into … Promethium, and their spears into Scandium,” to twist the old biblical saying.
In any case, that deal also fell through after he and Vice President JD Vance berated Zelensky in a stunning public press conference last Friday in the Oval Office. But it is the substance of the deal, not just the politics, that is also in question. Does Ukraine really have rare earth materials that could be worth that kind of money? Is there really a big prize here? Not according to expert Javier Blas, who wrote in Bloomberg that “Ukraine has no significant rare earth deposits other than small scandium mines.” He points out that the US Geological Survey also doesn’t confirm that Ukraine has any rare earth reserves. “Simply put, ‘follow the money’ doesn’t work here,” Blas writes. “At best, the value of all the world’s rare earth production rounds to $15 billion a year … That’s equal to the value of just two days of global oil output. Even if Ukraine had gigantic deposits, they wouldn’t be that valuable in geo-economic terms.”
So, even if Trump gets the mineral deal, what’s it worth? It is a political win at best, but at the expense of ditching US allies in Europe, letting down Ukraine, and handing Putin a massive victory.
Is that a good deal?
Trump’s Tariff-ization
What about tariffs? So far, the tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China have proven to be an economic downer, and now Trump is rolling them back, fudging, and shifting as the trade war escalates. States like Kentucky that export to Canada are getting hurt. Prices are going up. The premier of Ontario is threatening to put 25% tariffs on electricity exports to three northern US states. Is this the deal people wanted?
And even if tariffs do bring back some US jobs in the long run, which is very possible, Trump has made the United States an unreliable trading and security partner. Who wants to sign a trade deal with him now, knowing he could rip it up or change his mind at any moment? What company wants to invest in long-term deals if there is no promise of stability? Do NATO countries still trust that the US would be a backstop? A deal today is gone tomorrow.
Perhaps this is all just the grinding gears of change. It’s only been 45 days, after all. Maybe the radical surgery Trump and Elon Musk are performing on the sclerotic body of the US government is needed and will make things more efficient. But so far, that has not been the case.
For now, inflation is back up, prices are up, allies are fleeing, and the markets are down. And this is just the start. It could get worse.
All this got me thinking about Clayton Christensen, the great thinker I had the chance to interview years ago. Back in 1997, he wrote the seminal book “The Innovator’s Dilemma” about how disruption happens, but he may just as well have been writing about what Trump and Musk are doing domestically and internationally today.
“Many think of management as cutting deals and laying people off and hiring people and buying and selling companies,” Christensen wrote. “That’s not management, that's dealmaking. Management is the opportunity to help people become better people. Practiced that way, it’s a magnificent profession.”
By that measure, we are clearly in the dealmaking phase of the Trump presidency. And the marks on that, so far, are not good. His big win on illegal immigration and Musk’s hacksawing of government must be measured against the chaos around the economy, the tanking markets, and the rise in inflation. Trump’s foreign policy deals have been a calamity for US allies, from the abandonment of Ukraine, the alienation of the EU, and the threats to and tariffs on Canada and Mexico, not to mention the pitch to take over Gaza. Russia is the big winner so far, so if that’s on the scorecard, you get the Cyrillic version of an A. Otlichnyy!
As far as grading the management of the United States? Helping people become better people? The report card on the magnificent profession reads: More work needs to be done. Fast.
On this episode of Vladimir Putin's public access AMA, the Russian president offers his thoughts on dealing with an annoying neighbor. #PUPPETREGIME
Watch more of GZERO's award-winning PUPPET REGIME series!
Trump and Putin shaking hands in front of European leaders.
In geopolitics, there are moments that define decades. Europe is facing one of those inflection points right now. How it responds will determine not just Ukraine’s fate but the continent’s future.
For generations, Europe has comfortably sat under the American security umbrella, content to let the United States shoulder the burden of its defense while it reaped the economic and geopolitical dividends of the resulting peace. But the events of the past week have exposed the fragility of this arrangement and laid bare the extent of America’s retreat from its role as guarantor of European security under President Donald Trump.
In a televised meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky last Friday, Trump declared himself “neutral” between Russia and Ukraine and “on the side of peace,” dismissing the Ukrainian president’s pleas for security guarantees before unceremoniously kicking him out of the White House. Days later, the Trump administration froze all military aid to Ukraine and suspended offensive cyber operations against Russia. the US also paused intelligence sharing with Kyiv, blinding the Ukrainian military and immediately crippling its ability to fight.
The message from these moves was clear: The United States is no longer on Ukraine’s side – and by extension, it may no longer be on Europe’s side either. If the US is willing to abandon a country whose security is indivisible from Europe’s – and a pro-American democracy we were committed to protect, no less – why wouldn’t he do the same to an EU or NATO member? The realization that Trump’s turn away from Kyiv is genuine sent shockwaves through European capitals, seemingly galvanizing them to finally start taking a leadership role for both Ukraine’s and their own defense.
The warm embrace Zelensky received during last weekend’s emergency London summit of European leaders could not have contrasted more sharply with the hostile treatment he suffered in the Oval Office just days earlier. Hugs with European leaders were followed by dozens of shows of unity, expressions of support, and pledges to increase defense spending and aid to Kyiv.
But Europe has a long history of talking a big game and falling short when it counts. Is Europe ready to actually step up this time? Or will this moment, like so many before it, end in half measures and hollow promises?
There is reason for cautious optimism that his time will be different. Unlike previous moments of crisis, European leaders at least recognize the existential nature and urgency of the challenges. As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged, “This is Europe’s moment, and we must live up to it.” Just hours ago, French President Emmanuel Macron said that the “future of Europe cannot be decided in Washington or Moscow,” while even his arch-rival Marine Le Pen, a longtime admirer of Vladimir Putin, condemned Trump’s aid freeze as “brutal”. The show of unity and clarity of purpose are unlike anything we’ve seen in recent history.
Europe’s top priority should be to find a way to keep Ukraine in the fight without the Americans while simultaneously boosting Europe’s defense capabilities. This is a tall order, but in theory, it’s not impossible. After all, the continent has an economy ten times the size of Russia’s, and European contributions to Ukraine already exceed American ones (even if the US has provided the bulk of the military support).
Just in the last few days, European leaders have put more money on the table for defense spending and military aid to Ukraine than they had in the past three years. Here, the most promising development has been Germany’s game-changing decision to exempt infrastructure and defense spending from its strict borrowing rules, effectively allowing Europe’s largest economy to raise an unlimited amount of debt to upgrade its military and fund aid to Ukraine.
Declaring an “era of rearmament,” Von der Leyen also unveiled a plan yesterday called “ReArm Europe” to set up a €150 loan facility for military procurement and relax EU fiscal rules for member states wanting to increase defense spending. The most serious commitment we’ve seen from Brussels in years, this proposal could unlock up to €800 billion in defense spending over the coming years. European Union leaders will meet in Brussels on Thursday to discuss this plan and try to craft an aid package for Kyiv. Support is also growing within Europe for the seizure of the €300 billion in frozen Russian assets held in the EU (mostly in Belgium) – the one source of unilateral leverage European capitals have with Russia – which could add another potential funding stream for Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction.
All these moves would have been unthinkable just weeks ago, and they will go a long way toward rearming Europe and bolstering Ukraine’s capabilities.
But money alone is not enough.
Decades of underinvestment and overreliance on the United States to provide everything from intelligence to logistics to advanced weaponry have hollowed out Europe’s military infrastructure. Germany’s Rheinmetall and other European defense firms are ramping up production, but building enough of the systems Ukraine needs to stay in the fight will take time – time that Ukraine does not have. And there are some critical gaps left by the US cutoff that Europe will be unable to either fill or buy.
To be clear, the suspension of US aid will not lead to an imminent collapse of Ukraine’s defenses. The country already produces much of its weaponry domestically, often in joint ventures with European defense firms like Rheinmetall and the Franco-German KNDS, and it has enough equipment stockpiled to hold the line until summer. Increased European support can extend the runway by a few months. But Europe can’t do anything to help Ukraine solve its growing manpower shortage. Kyiv will likely struggle to sustain the fight much beyond August.
That’s why Europeans must also grapple with the question of how to credibly guarantee Ukraine’s long-term security once the fighting stops. Trump has made it clear that he wants to end the war as quickly as possible at any price. Never mind that a ceasefire without the strong security guarantees that Zelensky insists on and Trump waves away would make it likely the Russians will come back for more, posing a permanent threat on Europe’s doorstep.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have proposed a European peacekeeping force with 15,000-30,000 troops from a “coalition of the willing” to credibly deter future Russian aggression. The idea is feasible and shows the Europeans have seized a level of agency they didn’t have before. While the US president is reportedly open to the plan, it is fraught with a seemingly intractable contradiction: Starmer and Macron, who have already pledged British and French troops, remain adamant on the need for a US military backstop for those peacekeepers – an apparent nonstarter as Trump doesn’t want to risk World War III. But neither of these positions is set in stone, so the European plan is still on the table.
There is, of course, the question of whether Russia would even accept European troops in Ukraine as part of a ceasefire deal. Trump claims that Putin told him yes, but the Kremlin refutes that. In fact, color me skeptical that Putin is interested in negotiating a ceasefire at all when the Ukrainians have been cut off from US military support, their battlefield and negotiating position is only set to improve as time goes on, and rapprochement with the United States (possibly including unilateral sanctions relief) is on the horizon. Russia leverage these advantages to gain more Ukrainian territory and widen Western divisions, undermining Trump’s stated goal of achieving peace while seeking to extract bilateral concessions from the US. All Europe can do in that scenario is stay united in support of Ukraine, strengthen Kyiv’s position as much as possible, and try to persuade Trump to turn against Moscow.
The coming weeks and months will be the ultimate test of Europe’s mettle. If it can stand up in defense of its principles, values, and fellow Europeans, it will emerge stronger and more united than ever before. If it fails, Europe's own security and days as a credible geopolitical actor may well be numbered.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., February 18, 2025.
The Trump administration is moving to expand presidential authority over key independent regulatory agencies that were set up to be guarded from the executive’s influence.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump issued an order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” requiring independent agencies to submit any proposed regulations to the White House to ensure they align with the president’s priorities.
What does the order say? It gives the Office of Management and Budget – which has been working in lockstep with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency – the authority to make funding decisions and to “establish performance standards” for employees. It also instructs the agencies to create a leadership position for a “White House Liaison.”
The order applies to 19 agencies, and notably affects:
- The Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees markets.
- The Federal Trade Commission, which enforces antitrust laws and protects consumers from deceptive business practices.
- The Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the media, internet, and all other forms of communication.
- The Federal Election Commission, which oversees elections and political campaigns.
- The Federal Reserve. While the order does not apply to the monetary policy decisions of the Federal Reserve, it does bring its regulation of financial institutions under the purview of the president.
Pros: Proponents of the executive order argue that putting the commander in chief in charge makes agencies more democratically accountable because voters can hold the president responsible for their decisions at the ballot box. Trump is also keen to control the regulatory state, which he believes hindered his first time in office.
Cons: These agencies were established by Congress to operate independently from the White House for a reason. They protect democratic principles like freedom of the press, preventing their potential weaponization through selective auditing or manipulation of election and campaign finance laws, and shielding markets and financial institutions from short-term, politically motivated regulations that could cause long-term harm.
The courts just caught another case. Since these agencies were established by Congress to be independent of the president, the order will inevitably trigger legal challenges, likely to reach the Supreme Court since they concern questions of checks and balances and executive authority. Once there, Trump will test the long-fringe unitary executive legal theory, which argues that the president has the sole authority over the executive branch.