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.
Economy
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.
Inside the Grand Palais at the 2025 AI Action Summit, global leaders and innovators gathered to showcase how artificial intelligence is tackling some of the world’s most urgent challenges. The Paris Peace Forum selected 50 groundbreaking AI projects from over 770 applicants across 111 countries for their potential to drive positive change.
Among the featured projects was Disha, an AI-driven disaster response initiative from the UN Global Pulse Lab. "Our model compares satellite images before and after disasters like floods or earthquakes to identify damage and direct aid efficiently," explained Talea von Lupin.
Another initiative, Phoenix, is using AI for peacebuilding by analyzing social media discourse to detect and address polarization. "We help mediators monitor online narratives in an ethical and participatory way," said Rita Costa Cots, emphasizing the tool's role in conflict resolution.
In healthcare, Care for Rare is leveraging AI to detect rare genetic diseases in newborns, helping doctors diagnose conditions early and save lives. "We involve medical professionals in the design process, so the technology is easy to use from day one," said Jerry John Kponyo.
Meanwhile, Masakhane, an African-led initiative, is working to build AI-powered language tools for indigenous languages. "Many African farmers rely only on their native languages. AI can bridge this gap, empowering them with information and improving livelihoods," explained Tajuddeen Gwadabe.
With selected projects spanning 28 countries—including 22 from the Global South—the summit underscored the power of AI to drive sustainable and equitable progress. From environmental protection to healthcare breakthroughs, the innovations showcased in Paris demonstrate how AI can be a force for good, inclusion, and global development.
This segment, reported by GZERO's own Tony Maciulis, is part of the Global Stage series at the 2025 AI Action Summit in Paris, presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft.
“France has a special message in AI,” says Justin Vaïsse, director general of the Paris Peace Forum. Speaking to GZERO’s Tony Maciulis at the 2025 AI Action Summit in Paris, Vaïsse highlighted France’s diplomatic and technological role in shaping global AI governance. The shift from an AI “safety” summit, as it was called in 2023 and 2024, to this year’s “action” summit reflects the growing urgency to balance AI innovation with AI regulation as European leaders reconsider the impact of early AI laws on competitiveness. Meanwhile, tensions over US-Europe AI policy remain, with Vaïsse making clear: “We certainly have a right to regulate.”
This conversation is part of the Global Stage series at the 2025 AI Action Summit in Paris, presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft.
Ian's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take for today on USAID, the US Agency for International Development, which is in the process of being shut down. Nearly all Washington staff have been put on leave, they're closing missions abroad, the State Department moving to evacuate all staff around the world. Why should we care? Does this matter? This agency was set up back over 50 years ago, 1961, by then President John F. Kennedy, and it was meant to coordinate the distribution of foreign aid for the United States all over the world and differentiate that from military support that was provided by the United States.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the US isn't providing charity, that's not what foreign aid is, that it should be providing support for US national interests. And I agree that it should be providing support for US national interest, but it is important to recognize that actually when USAID was set up, it was set up in part as charity, that President Kennedy's position was that the United States had a moral obligation to support poorer people, and poorer countries around the world. They are fellow human beings, after all, and the United States has historically benefited massively from developing resources all around the world, and frequently, the people that lived in those countries didn't get very much as a consequence, and the US has benefited massively, as have other wealthy countries, from industrialization, and putting carbon into the atmosphere that now poor countries can't do because of climate change, and we're saying, "We need to transition," but the US, of course, has gotten the benefits of that historically.
You know, my view is, I'm okay with charity. I actually think that helping save lives with food and medicine for millions of people and especially babies and children. I mean, even if it did nothing for the United States directly, I would be okay with spending some of the money of American taxpayers on that, especially as opposed to say a war in Afghanistan or the latest sort of bomber program that is expensive and more than the Americans need. So, I push back on the US should never do charity argument. But leaving that aside, you don't need that argument to focus on the importance of USAID.
And I want to, before I get into the national interest side, I do want to say I am empathetic with why it is unpopular. Because at a moment when so many average Americans feel like the US government has not taken care of them, and this is why you see so much backlash against all of the illegal immigrants that have not been addressed by administrations for many years, and why there's so much backlash against the US establishment, whether it's Democrat or Republican, in saying, "What about the average working American? What about our healthcare? What about our public school system? What about things that you should care a lot more about than sending aid to brown people around the world?" Which is essentially what USAID is mostly doing. I get that. And in that regard, it's an easy target for Trump. It's a particularly easy target for Elon Musk. I would ask first, "Why tax cuts for and regulations written by billionaires in the United States before poor people and Americans?" That would be my higher priority if I was really, really angry and antagonized by how badly money is being spent in the US. But that's a different story.
The point is you don't need to make the argument of charity. It is very clear that US foreign aid supports America's economic and national security interests. It is growing markets for consumers, for American businesses and products all over the world. The US has the biggest businesses. It has the biggest market. It benefits the most from other countries around the world having more capacity to sustainably consume and engage with those businesses. America benefits in having more health security by containing disease and pandemics because those diseases and pandemics don't suddenly stop at the American border. The US benefits from aid that reduces insurgencies creating instability that leads to more illegal migration all over the world, many of whom ultimately end up in the United States. It creates more economic opportunity and safety and security in origin countries. And that is a carrot that matters. It's not just about sticks. It's a carrot for economic statecraft that gives the Americans more influence as opposed to say the Russians, or more importantly the Chinese.
Because getting rid of USAID and cutting back on all these programs creates a vacuum. And that is an opportunity for adversaries. I've already seen ministers from large African countries who have their American programs getting cut off, reaching out immediately to their counterparts, ministers in China saying, "Are you willing to send in the programs to replace the Americans that are leaving?" And China doesn't have the economic wherewithal, the Americans do, but they certainly will seize opportunities that are economically useful to them, long-term, because they have a much longer-term perspective on these things than a US administration that's gone in four years. So I worry about that.
I think that USAID has been America's principle interlocutor with civil society in developing countries. And to the extent that we care about those countries having systems that are more aligned with the values and standards that the United States has historically promoted, then you don't want to undermine that and allow the Chinese to come in, which has very little interest in civil society, indifferent to civil society. It's a source of intelligence for the United States. And we've seen that even if it's sometimes uncomfortable for the local governments who aren't necessarily in favor of that. It is true that all USAID projects are probably not going to ultimately be killed, that the State Department is going to take it over and Marco Rubio has said that, "There's a lot of corruption in USAID, and a lot of this money is misspent, and is spent badly, and breaks executive orders," and I am sure that is true, and I am sure that that corruption needs to be addressed. It wouldn't surprise me. The US is an incredibly bloated government system. But shooting first and asking questions later tends to kill innocencts. And that is of course the approach here. And the reality is, that Elon and Trump and their ability to act and be destructive is much greater than the damage control that the secretary of state can do at this moment. And the State Department just does not have the people or the infrastructure to execute on a lot of these programs once USAID is shut down.
And the message that this is really sending to allies is that the United States is an unreliable partner. You cannot count on it. That what they say to you in one administration is not going to be consistent in a second administration, in a way that is not true with other countries, most other countries, around the world. And so I continue to believe, as I did before Trump was inaugurated, that the US is going to see a lot of wins. A lot of countries are going to bend to his will because he's more powerful and he's willing to use that power directly. But that does not mean that the United States will long-term succeed in a law of the jungle approach, an approach which is all stick and no carrot, even when the stick is very, very big, but you can't wield it effectively for a long period of time. And other countries are learning that carrots are kind of smart. I mean, the Chinese originally perfected the all stick and no carrot approach and then saw that the United States was more effective in a lot of countries because they also had economic statecraft. They also had these commercial levers, and so the Chinese started saying, "Oh, we need to figure out how to deliver aid to a lot of these countries, doesn't have to be transparent, can work right with the governments, but ultimately that's going to give us more influence in these countries." And that is something that President Trump and his administration in the early weeks at least seemed to be jettisoning.
So I think this is Pennywise pound foolish. I think it is short-term beneficial to Trump and will look like a win for him and his base and long-term will undermine US power around the world and will of course make the world a less stable place. So on balance, I think this is a problem. It's not something that I think is going to go well. I would love to be proven wrong. I'll be watching it carefully and I think it's a good thing to be debating.
So that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as he signs an executive order in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S., January 31, 2025.
In a stunning blow for America’s top three trade partners, including two of its closest allies, President Donald Trump on Saturday imposed high tariffs on products coming into the United States from Canada, China, and Mexico. The tariffs take effect on Tuesday.
Products imported from China will face a 10% tariff, while Canada and Mexico must pay 25% duties. Trump did make an exception: He imposed a lower rate of 10% on Canadian energy imports. But that's not all. The US president also threatened to escalate tariffs further if any of the countries retaliated, which two have already done.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to Trump's move late Saturday, retaliating with a rollout of 25% tariffs on $155 billion worth of US imports. This will impact US products such as orange juice, coffee, and peanut butter, and could eventually impact cars and steel products. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, meanwhile, also retaliated with "tariff and non-tariff measures in defense of Mexico's interests," but she did not specify the rates.
China also responded with plans to implement countermeasures and called Trump's tariffs a "serious violation" of international trade rules. Beijing intends to challenge the tariffs at the World Trade Organization.
How much trade? Total US turnover with Canada and Mexico each year is about $1.8 trillion, three times the volume with China. The US trade deficit with China is its largest, nearing $300 billion last year, followed by Mexico at more than $160 billion. The deficit with Canada is about $60 billion.
Major imports from Canada and Mexico include automobiles and auto parts. Oil is the single largest US import from Canada (why? See here). The US also imports a sizable volume of agricultural products from Mexico. Imports from China, meanwhile, include a raft of machinery products, electronics, and toys.
What is the aim? It's not entirely clear. Trump believes in the power of tariffs to rebalance trade and create more US manufacturing jobs.During his first term, he revised the 1994 NAFTA free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, addressing loopholes concerning the national origin of auto components and labor protections. This resulted in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which these new tariffs would appear to violate.
China, meanwhile, is already under a welter of tariffs imposed by both Trump’s first administration and the Biden administration. These focus on a range of products in advanced technology, natural resources, EV production, and medical supplies.
Trump has recently blamed all three countries for allowing undocumented migrants and illegal drugs to enter the US, but he hasn’t laid out specific benchmarks for removing the new tariffs. On Saturday, he said the tariffs are being used to force the countries to halt the flow of fentanyl into the US.
What will the effect be? Chaotic and potentially expensive, at least in the short term. Complex North American supply chains, particularly in the auto industry, could be disrupted. And as companies in Canada, Mexico, and China simply pass along the cost of the tariffs to US consumers, Americans could see higher prices at the pump and the register for a range of goods.
Retaliation. Rather than turn the other cheek, Canada and Mexico are likely to slap back, imposing retaliatory tariffs of their own, which could harm American export industries.
But Trump seems to be willing to run those risks. For months, he has threatened to take a staggering turn towards protectionism. Now he’s doing it, and he's taking direct aim at the largest trade relationships in the world. Buckle up.
“I can tell you Europe is absolutely committed to tackling climate change, to developing this green economy, and to making the green transition a European success,” said Nadia Calviño, President of the European Investment Bank.
The rollout of artificial intelligence has raised big questions about how it will impact Europe’s transition to a more sustainable economy. During a Global Stage livestream at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Calviño stressed the continent’s role in addressing risks generated by AI. She said, “I think it will be key when we're talking about these technologies that have such a huge demand for energy supply.” Alongside countries being energy-conscious, Calviño stresses that building strong trust between businesses and citizens will help the new technologies “unleash their full potential.”
This conversation, moderated by Becky Anderson, was part of the Global Stage series at the 2025 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft.
Click to watch the full discussion for our panel's insights on AI's future and how it is expected to transform our economy and society by 2030.
- Norway's PM Jonas Støre says his country can power Europe ›
- Is the EU's landmark AI bill doomed? ›
- AI's impact on jobs could lead to global unrest, warns AI expert Marietje Schaake ›
- Exclusive: How to govern the unknown – a Q&A with MEP Eva Maydell ›
- Europe adopts first “binding” treaty on AI ›
- France's AI Action Summit maps a European vision for AI - GZERO Media ›
"We are on the right path to building, what I call, the 'intelligence grid' alongside the electricity grid," said Peng Xiao, CEO of G42.
As Donald Trump begins his new term, artificial intelligence has reemerged as a major topic of discussion. During a Global Stage livestream at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Peng highlighted the benefits and challenges of advancing AI technology. He praised Trump’s global infrastructure build-out initiative and AI’s potential to integrate seamlessly into daily life but underscored, "We cannot afford for intelligence not to be equally distributed."
Peng emphasized the need for global governance and development to be "equitable, systematic, and coordinated across regions." Thus as private sector investments in AI surge, policy decisions in the coming months will be closely watched
This conversation, moderated by Becky Anderson, was part of the Global Stage series at the 2025 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft.