In this episode, How Do We Fix it discusses how the war in Ukraine is changing the debate over fossil fuel dependency. This week's guest is climate economist and Bloomberg News columnist Gernot Wagner of NYU and Columbia School of Business.
U.S. President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter in the Oval Office at the White House on May 05, 2025 in Washington, DC.
President Donald Trump was elected for a second term after a campaign in which voters were persuaded that he could skillfully manage the economy better than his Democratic opponent. On the campaign trail and since being elected for the second time, President Trump has promised that his policies would bolster economic growth, boost domestic manufacturing with more products “made in the USA,” reduce the price of groceries “on Day 1,” and make America “very rich” again.
These were bold promises, so how is President Trump doing, three and a half months into his term? The evidence so far is as mixed and uncertain as his roller coaster tariff policy.
Economic growth. After a chaotic month of on again, off again tariffs and a turbulent stock market, many Americans are dismayed that the nation’s gross domestic product—the measure of all goods and services produced by the economy—actually shrank in the first three months of the year. But rather than indicating a struggling economy, it may have been a byproduct of companies front-loading the purchase of imports in anticipation of the tariffs to come. Imports get subtracted from GDP for accounting purposes, so this may end up being a short-term trend. In the meantime, all the imports have led to a surge in the trade deficit, which hit a record $140 billion in March–the exact opposite of the Trump administration’s tariff policy goal.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Reflecting the volatile climate of conflicting signals, Goldman Sachs raised its recession probability forecast to 45%. Yet, later that same day, after President Trump announced a 90-day tariff pause, Goldman Sachs walked back its prediction. Uncertainty is in the air, everywhere you look.
Prices and inflation. Here too, the trend is toward more uncertainty and conflicting signals.. Donald Trump said, “We’re going to get the prices down. Groceries, cars, everything.” But the average retail price of eggs in the grocery store increased from $4.95 in January to $6.22 in March, a 26% increase. Paradoxically, though, wholesale egg prices—the amount grocers pay to suppliers—have dropped since Trump took office. The real question is: will that wholesale egg decline ever translate into relief for consumers? Currently, we simply don’t know.
Meat and poultry prices have risen over 9% compared to a year ago, tripling the rate of inflation (though prices have fluctuated somewhat by locality). Prices for coffee, seafood, fruit and vegetables, and cheese and nuts are predicted to rise due to the uncertainty and volatility of the White House tariff policy, causing businesses to freeze their production and investment plans.
David Dennison, director of operations at the Original Pancake House restaurant chain in suburban Washington, D.C., said costs have already increased by more than 20% on food items such as oranges, peppers, avocados, and tomatoes.
President Trump also promised to bring down the price of gas fuel through his enthusiastic embrace of a “Drill, baby, drill” policy. Yet, so far the price of gas has increased slightly from $3.018 per gallon in December to $3.171 in April, about a 5% increase. But paradoxically again, the price of crude oil has dropped by nearly 25% since early January. However, due to a lag in the price at the gas pump, it’s not clear which way retail prices ultimately will go.
While many prices are up, again somewhat paradoxically, the rate of inflation has dropped to 2.4%, marking a six-month low. But as President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris found out the hard way, everyday people don’t care much about the rate of inflation, which is the rate of price increases. They care about the price levels themselves—what they are actually paying in the grocery store or at the gas pump.
The White House can be cheered a bit by the fact that the monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI) decreased by 0.1%, marking the first monthly decline since May 2020. But it had increased twice as much the month before. With so much uncertainty and volatility, it’s hard to know which way the CPI will continue trending. Once the full impact of tariffs hits—either actual or the effects of policy uncertainty—most experts predict that prices will climb. President Trump pretty much admitted as much with his comment that children might have to spend a “couple bucks more” on dolls.
Unemployment. One positive sign for the Trump economy is that the unemployment rate so far has held steady at a very low 4.2%, despite White House attempts to fire many workers at various federal agencies. Changes in unemployment rates tend to lag behind the broader economy, except during a catastrophe like a pandemic or war, so it’s possible that Trump’s executive orders and other actions might show impact in the coming weeks.
Wages. Additionally, the Trump economy is benefiting from an increase in real average hourly wages from March 2024 to March 2025 by 1.4% (and by 0.3% from February to March alone). But that is still way lower than the rate of inflation, so workers might not be noticing the increase. And Trump can’t really claim much credit since most of that increase came when Joe Biden was president. The average work week actually declined during the past year by 0.6 percent, so the wages in people’s pockets don’t reflect much of an increase.
In all these areas, there has been more uncertainty than clarity, and the verdict about future trends is still out.
The stock market has fallen…
One thing is for sure: the stock market’s gyrating roller coaster has been giving millions of investors financial vertigo. The S&P 500, a broad stock market gauge, dropped 18.9% between its Feb. 19 peak and its April 8 low, before partly bouncing back in the succeeding weeks. The S&P 500 is still five percent lower since Trump’s inauguration in January. So far, this has been Wall Street’s worst start to a new presidential term in 51 years.
…and so has the dollar.
The U.S. dollar has also lost about nine percent of its value since Trump took office. Investors in U.S. Treasuries and America’s debt have hesitated amidst the ongoing uncertainty, with bond prices fluctuating along with the value of the dollar. Currency investors instead have loaded up on more of other currencies and commodities, such as the euro, yen, Swiss franc, and gold. In short, investors are registering their pessimism about the Trump administration’s policies by dumping the dollar, so this is a trend worth watching to see how it develops.
If this decline in dollar dominance continues, it could force the U.S. government to pay much higher interest rates to service the national debt. That could well increase the chances that the federal government, at some point, would be forced to enact either tax hikes or cuts to entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (which the Republican Congress is already trying to figure out how to cut).
The Federal Reserve recently voted unanimously to keep interest rates unchanged as officials brace for the impacts of the tariffs, and to “wait and see” if they will stoke higher inflation and slower growth. Fed Chair Jerome Powell said that it’s “not at all clear” what the central bank should do next, since the uncertainty about tariffs has become pervasive among businesses, which has in turn resulted in stalled investments and hesitation in economic planning. Some companies have put expansion plans on hold due to the unpredictability of trade policy.
The tumult of tariffs.
The sudden imposition of on again, off again high tariffs has introduced an unsettling level of uncertainty and turbulence into the U.S. and global economies. The tariffs have disrupted global supply chains, making it harder for businesses to forecast profitability. While some countries have responded with reciprocal tariffs, others have opted for negotiations, adding another layer of unpredictability. The White House’s yo-yo tariff war has left longtime trade allies, as well as competitors, bewildered and unsure of America’s trustworthiness as a trade partner. With tariffs on China reaching up to 145%, many firms have had to pause orders from China, increasing the odds that they will soon run out of inventory for certain goods and materials.
Just last weekend, new tariffs of 25 percent on imported auto parts took effect. That’s in addition to a previous tax of 25 percent on imported cars. In early May, business leaders said they are struggling to forecast their business and investment outlook because of the lack of clarity on trade policy. More companies have warned that they will have to pass on higher costs to consumers as they pay more to import finished goods and spare parts into the U.S. Despite the recent stock recovery, “The damage to economic momentum has already been done,” said Mike Sanders from Madison Investments.
Different economists have contrasting views on these weighty matters, and the White House insists that a degree of short-term pain is necessary to bring long-term gain. But The Economist magazine predicts that “America will be a country with shabbier roads, older airports and more dated factories.” The Trump administration’s tariff strategy is a huge gamble, and the verdict is still out on its ultimate impacts.
Consumers react, Trump’s favorability declines.
Amidst this uncertainty, Americans are increasingly worried about the direction of the Trump economy. For the first time since 2001, a Gallup poll found that more than half of Americans say their financial situation is getting worse, and President Trump’s approval ratings are declining. In a CNN/SSRS poll, 66% of Americans said they are pessimistic (29%) or afraid (37%) about the economy, with just 34% feeling enthusiastic or optimistic. Donald Trump’s 100-day approval rating is the worst for a U.S. president in 80 years. Even small businesses that had high hopes for Trump’s second term show declining confidence.
Perhaps to counter the darkening public mood, the White House has begun taking steps to try and hide the new economic reality from the American public. Recently, President Trump tried to claim that the price of gasoline is the “lowest in years,” which several media outlets, including Fox News, debunked as far from accurate. And an Amazon.com subsidiary announced that, in the interest of transparency, it would begin publicly posting how much tariffs will personally cost each of its customers on every product. But the Trump administration decried that as a “hostile and political act,” and President Trump reportedly called billionaire Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder, and demanded that Amazon cease these efforts. Amazon complied.
Meanwhile, Trump has started to make excuses for the economy’s volatile performance. On the one hand, he takes full credit for private-sector growth that started right after his November election. But then he frequently blames the previous president, Joe Biden, for the current slowdown and high prices. In a recent interview with NBC, the president deceptively boasted, “The good parts are the ‘Trump economy’ and the bad parts are the ‘Biden economy’.”
But it’s not quite that simple. David Sanger, New York Times national security correspondent, said President Trump is facing a fundamental timing problem over his tariff strategy. “It will take years,” said Sanger, “for the huge investments he predicts will flow into the United States to unfold and bring about the industrial renaissance he has promised.” For example, the timeline for constructing a new semiconductor fabrication plant in the U.S. can take five years. But the economic pain of the tariffs has already started and will increase in the months ahead. “What is at stake,” wrote Sanger, “is a question of fundamental competence on an issue that [Trump] has always used to define himself.”
With 44 months still left in Donald Trump’s second term, it’s too soon to predict the ultimate fate of the Trump economy, or whether President Trump will succeed in revitalizing US manufacturing. As Yogi Berra once famously said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” But the White House still has many months to try and right the leaky ship, and the clock is ticking.
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote, and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
U.S. President Donald Trump walks towards Marine One on the South Lawn on May 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Presidents are typically evaluated by their accomplishments in the first 100 days. Donald Trump's second term stands out for a different reason: the unprecedented number of executive actions challenged and blocked by the courts. In just over three months, Trump issued more than 200 executive orders, targeting areas such as climate policy, civil service regulations, immigration, and education funding.
However, the most telling statistic is not the volume of orders but the judiciary's response: over 120 rulings have paused or invalidated these directives. This positions the courts, rather than Congress, as the primary institutional check on the administration's agenda. With a legislature largely aligned with the executive, the judiciary has become a critical counterbalance. The sustainability of this dynamic raises questions about the resilience of democratic institutions when one branch shoulders the burden of oversight responsibilities.
Upon returning to office, President Trump took an aggressive approach to executive authority, unleashing a tsunami of orders aimed at radically reshaping federal policy. This strategy, designed to implement changes swiftly, seems to potentially outpace legal challenges. Nevertheless, the judiciary has actively engaged in reviewing these actions, resulting in numerous injunctions and rulings that underscore the constitutional limits of executive power.
In one high-profile case, New Jersey v. Trump, the administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents was challenged and blocked. A federal judge found the order in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, and the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court is pending.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In Dellinger v. Bessent, an executive order seeking to reclassify senior civil servants as at-will employees—effectively removing their job protections—was halted with a preliminary injunction. The court determined the order violated civil service laws and posed risks to the function of government.
Meanwhile, in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, the administration’s effort to freeze federal funding to institutions promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives was ruled an unconstitutional overreach. The court emphasized that policy disagreements do not justify infringing upon academic freedom and civil rights.
These cases illustrate a pattern of executive actions that the judiciary deems as overstepping legal and constitutional lines in the sand. The courts have thus far served as a vital check on the administration's expansive use of executive orders.
While the judiciary has actively engaged in reviewing executive actions, Congress has taken a more passive role. The passage of continuing resolutions (CRs) to avoid government shutdowns has inadvertently granted the executive branch increased discretion over federal spending. Unlike detailed appropriations bills, CRs extend existing funding levels without specific instructions, allowing the administration to redirect funds with minimal oversight.
This discretion has been utilized to withhold funding from programs such as climate research and DEI initiatives, aligning spending with the administration's priorities without new legislative mandates. The reliance on CRs, coupled with a lack of assertive legislative oversight, has contributed to an imbalance in the separation of powers.
Yet, even as the judiciary works to check the excesses of executive power, the legislative branch—the one designed by the Framers to be the first line of defense—has largely chosen to stand aside. If the courts have played prosecutor, Congress has spent much of its time playing the absent witness—sometimes unwilling, but just as often all too willing to let the executive branch redraw the lines it was supposed to defend. Nowhere has this been clearer than in the recent Senate vote over tariffs. The GOP-led Senate could have stood with the majority of American voters in disapproving the administration’s actions. Instead, it meekly acquiesced, declining to impose any limits on the president’s authority despite bipartisan concerns. The message was unmistakable: Trump’s consolidation of power would not face resistance from Capitol Hill.
The first 100 days of President Trump's second term have tested the mechanisms of American governance. The judiciary has emerged as a central figure in maintaining constitutional checks and balances, responding to a surge of executive actions with rigorous legal scrutiny. However, the limited engagement from Congress raises concerns about the durability of this equilibrium. Sustaining a healthy democracy requires active participation from all branches of government and an informed public. If oversight becomes just the lonely burden of the judiciary, the system begins to tilt—slowly, but decisively—toward executive dominance.
The danger lies not in the temporary assertion of power but in the normalization of it. You don’t have to be a Constitutional law scholar to recognize that when checks and balances rely on a single branch to function, the republic risks becoming structurally unbalanced. The ongoing challenges underscore the importance of vigilance, accountability, and institutional courage in preserving the foundational principles of the republic.
This all begs the question: What is to be done? Congress must get off the sidelines and reassert its constitutional responsibilities, beginning with full appropriations bills that constrain executive discretion and meaningful oversight hearings that clarify the scope and limits of presidential power. Courts must continue to defend legal norms without being drawn into partisanship. But the broader task belongs to the public: to demand transparency, resist apathy, and reaffirm that no leader is above the law. Democracy, after all, is not self-executing—it must be defended, deliberately and continually, by those it serves.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
U.S. President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC.
On July 25, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a radio address to 125 million Americans in which he coined the term “first 100 days.” Today, the 100th day of a presidency is considered a benchmark to measure the early success or failure of a president.
Mr. Trump’s 100th day of office lands on April 30, when the world has witnessed his 137 executive orders, 39 proclamations, 36 memoranda, a few Cabinet meetings, and numerous press briefings. In summary, Trump’s cabinet appointments and seemingly arbitrary, capricious, ad hoc, and erratic actions have created turmoil in the stock market, utter confusion among our international trade partners, and confounded unrest with consumers, workers, small business owners, and corporate CEOs.
Interestingly, a recently published UMass/YouGov poll found that 26 percent of the people who voted for Trump have lost their confidence and appeal for our 47th president.
It appears The New York Times was the first media agency to report, on just the 18th day of Trump’s 2.0 presidency, that Trump was creating a constitutional crisis. That claim has been reported in multiple major news agencies, spoken in town hall meetings, and observed in thousands of public protests with demonstrators from all political persuasions requesting Congress and the Supreme Court to stop our democracy from turning into an authoritarian dictatorship.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
On March 25, I sent an e-mail to authoritarian scholar Barbara McQuade (who is a professor at the University Michigan Law School, previous U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, and author of “Attack from within”) seeking her expert opinion on what citizens would most likely witness when a constitutional crisis has occurred and on recommended action citizens should take.
Two days later, McQuade replied to my inquiry: “If a president were to deliberately violate a court order, I think we could consider that a constitutional crisis,” and she added, “Citizens can do many things to push back against abuse of power, such as vote, write to their member of Congress, or participate in a protest, but I think the most effective thing a citizen can do is to talk to their friends and neighbors to explain their concerns and rally support.”
Republican Peter Wehner, who served as the speechwriter for three GOP administrations (i.e., Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush) and senior fellow at Trinity Forum — an American faith-based non-profit Christian organization — feels Trump has created not one, not two, but three crisis situations. Wehner stated in an April 19 Wall Street Journal article, “It seems as if we are moving at a rapid speed toward a genuine constitutional crisis, a genuine separation-of-powers crisis, and a genuine checks-and-balances crisis.”
You can decide if any of the following actions and published repercussions put America in the precarious dilemma of being in a constitutional crisis:
Polling by the revered and non-political Reuters/Ipsos found 83 percent of Americans feel “Trump must obey federal court rulings even if he doesn’t want to” (April 20). Wall Street Journal polling has shown that “voters want to keep constitutional guardrails in place that constrain a president’s power” (April 4).
Keep in mind, as of April 23, there have been 208 legal challenges to the Trump administration’s actions (Just Security – New York Univ. School of Law). Additionally, a probable Trump-related contempt of court opinion was issued by U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg, which, if ordered, could lead to incarceration (Law News, April 23).
If you are concerned about Mr. Trump’s endeavors, consider the advice offered by law professor McQuade: participate in peaceful rallies, support political candidates committed to upholding constitutional democracy, communicate with your two Senators and Representatives about your concerns, and visit with friends about the trifecta crisis that is becoming more evident by political scientists, authoritarian scholars, constitutional law experts, and registered voters like you and me.
Steve Corbin is a Professor Emeritus of Marketing, University of Northern Iowa.
Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Liz Truss speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on February 20, 2025 in Oxon Hill, Maryland.
America is having a Liz Truss moment. The problem is that America doesn’t have a Liz Truss solution.
Let me take you back to the fall of 2022 when the United Kingdom experienced its own version of political whiplash. In the span of seven weeks, no less than three Prime Ministers (and two monarchs, incidentally) tried to steer the British governmental ship. On September 6, Boris Johnson was forced to resign over a seemingly endless series of scandals. Enter Liz Truss. She lasted forty-nine days, until October 25, when she too was pushed out the black door of 10 Downing Street. Her blunder? Incompetence. Rishi Sunak, the Conservative Party’s third choice, then measured the drapes.
What most people remember of the Truss premiership is the Daily Star wager that a head of lettuce would last longer than Truss. The lettuce won. But Truss’ stint as Prime Minister—the shortest ever, I should note—holds some lessons for America today.
Truss suffered from a self-inflicted political wound. She tried to push through an aggressive tax cut at a time when the financial markets were edgy and inflation was high. She also pledged to increase government spending to counter those stinging inflated prices. As it turned out, hers was a foolish fiscal plan—tax reductions and public spending increases don’t exactly go hand-in-hand—and it failed spectacularly. The tax cuts never materialized, prices didn’t decrease, and the Pound lost a ton of its value. Truss was out.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Her plan was to uproot the existing fiscal conventions, to dislocate the British financial landscape through radically bold and risky economic policy. She envisioned a new domestic world order.
Sound familiar? President Trump is trying to kindle a similar revolutionary spark. He wants a new world order too, and he’s going to use giant tariffs—or at least the threat of giant tariffs—to realize his ambition. Like Truss, he is wagering the future of his country’s financial footing on an experimental and radical strategy. Like Truss, he is leveraging a plan that is almost impossible to simulate. And like Truss, he is staking the country’s very reputation, at home and abroad, on this untested ante.
Americans can only hope that Trump’s tariff train hasn’t gone completely off the rails, as the tax one did for Ms. Truss. Because here’s the thing: The Brits’ system of government enjoys at least one massive guardrail that the U.S. system cannot duplicate: Their head of government, their party leader, their administrative public face, indeed their constitutional chief, can quickly be replaced.
Liz Truss could float a genuinely radical and potentially calamitous idea and, if it didn’t stick, she could be sacked. Pursue an idea that causes domestic and international panic and the shelf life of any British chancellor is short. Donald Trump can’t be sacked. His shelf life is fixed by the Constitution: Four years. That’s a long time, far longer than the five days it took to replace Truss with Rishi Sunak.
In my four decades as a faithful student of the U.S. Constitution, I never imagined that I would question the wisdom of the Framers’ decision to separate the branches. But then again, I never imagined a president who held such disdain for the very conventions and traditions—and the rule of law—that made the office of the president so dignified and reverential. I’m now questioning.
Our system of separation of powers—unlike the parliamentary system in Great Britain—allows the U.S. Congress to shrug at the incoherence of the White House. There is little at stake for the individual members of Congress when the President is issuing controversial executive orders and playing fast and loose with America’s standing in the world. Aside from impeachment and conviction—a toothless process more political now than anything else—Congress has no ability to fire a rogue president.
Not so in Great Britain. The Prime Minister is a member of Parliament, an elected legislative official, so if she is incoherent or too radical or too risky, she can simply be replaced by another member of parliament from the majority coalition party. Hence the lightspeed transition from Truss to Sunak. It’s not a pleasant situation, and it triggers a spate of hand-wringing in London and elsewhere. But it is relatively painless and frequently invoked.
Once again, America’s Constitution is showing its age. A governing charter written for a virtuous and noble George Washington has a hard time standing up to an egoistic and mercenary Donald Trump.
It’s time for constitutional change. A number of proposals have surfaced that get us a bit closer to the British model without sacrificing the principle of separate powers. How about a constitutional amendment that allows for a Congressional vote of no confidence in the President? Or one that offers a national recall election? The bar for each of these possibilities would have to be extraordinarily high so that neither is used as casual political fodder. We’re experiencing too much partisan grandstanding these days.
Or maybe we should rethink the 25th Amendment. Article IV permits the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments to replace the President if he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” That is surely unlikely in this environment where those principal officers are hand-selected by the very leader they’re appraising.
No, I’m referring to the next clause of the 25th Amendment, the one that empowers Congress to appoint “[an]other body” to declare a President unfit. That “other body” could be an independent commission, a bipartisan conclave, or a representative sample of everyday citizens. It could be anyone. I could even imagine that it would be a good role for Article III judges on “senior status.” My point is that we might need that “other body.” Now and in the future.
If all this sounds strange, it probably is. Constitutional reform is always a bit out there. But before we completely dismiss the notion that Congress might invoke Article IV of the 25th amendment maybe we should ask ourselves if the proposal is any more bizarre than a process whereby a majority of legislators from the lower house can impeach a president but he isn’t convicted and removed from office, except by a vote of two-thirds of the upper house.
Make more sense? I’m not so sure.
Beau Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”
