Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump's Deregulation Lure: A Wage Squeeze for the Global South

Opinion

Trump's Deregulation Lure: A Wage Squeeze for the Global South
person using black laptop computer
Photo by Kanchanara on Unsplash

When Colm Kelleher, chairman of UBS, sat down with Scott Bessent in recent months to discuss uprooting the bank's headquarters from Zurich to New York, it was more than corporate maneuvering. It was a signal flare for the financial world under Donald Trump's second term. Bessent promised a regulatory bonfire that could slash compliance costs and open the floodgates for American finance. The reported talks underscore a broader shift: the United States is apparently positioning itself as the unassailable hub of global capital, drawing in institutions like UBS with tax breaks and lighter oversight. Yet this allure comes at a steep price for emerging markets, where wage growth is already fragile. What looks like a boom for American workers masks a quiet trap, one that could deepen the divide between rich nations and the rest.

Bessent's vision, laid out in private conversations and public hints, paints a picture of American exceptionalism reborn. He has warned of a "perfect storm" of inherited inflation and supply disruptions from the Biden years, now to be tamed by aggressive deregulation and targeted tariffs. In one recent interview, he blamed soaring beef prices on a mix of migrant-driven cattle issues and lingering policy failures, framing Trump's agenda as the corrective force. The rhetoric is folksy, but the policy is sharp: roll back rules that hobble banks, lure foreign firms stateside, and shield domestic industries with import duties. UBS's flirtation with relocation fits neatly here. Across the Atlantic, Trump offers relief: no more endless stress tests, faster mergers, and a friendlier tax code. If UBS moves, it could save hundreds of millions annually in regulatory overhead, funneling those gains into higher bonuses for its New York traders.


This is not isolated. Other European lenders are weighing similar shifts. The draw is clear: America's labor market, bolstered by reshoring, promises wage hikes for skilled workers in finance and tech. Entry-level analysts in Manhattan could see annual raises of 5 to 7 percent, outpacing inflation, as firms consolidate operations. Trump's team projects this will add 1.5 million jobs by mid-2026, many in high-wage sectors. Bessent, a hedge fund veteran who made his fortune betting on currency swings, sees it as a virtuous cycle: more capital inflows mean more lending, more investment, and fatter paychecks for the middle class.

But turn the lens southward, to the factories of Vietnam, the call centers of India, and the assembly lines of Mexico. Here, the same policies spell stagnation. Trump's tariffs, announced in early November and partially rolled back on commodities like beef and coffee just days ago to ease domestic inflation, still target manufactured goods with duties of 10 to 20 percent. The exemptions are tactical, aimed at grocery bills, but the core assault on electronics, autos, and textiles remains. Emerging markets, which supply 40 percent of U.S. imports in these categories, are set to take a direct hit. Early modelling by trade economists suggests significant downside risk to electronics exporters such as Vietnam. That translates to lost orders, idle workers, and frozen wages. Factory hands in Hanoi, earning around $300 a month, will not see the 3 percent gains economists once forecast; instead, vulnerable export hubs risk stagnation or decline if orders fall

India tells a starker story. Its IT services sector, which employs 5 million and fuels middle-class dreams, depends on U.S. outsourcing deals. Tariffs on components could inflate costs by 8 percent, prompting clients like JPMorgan to pull back. Wages in Bengaluru, stagnant at 4 percent growth since the pandemic, may flatline entirely. Mexico, Trump's neighbor and largest trading partner, faces the cruelest irony. Nearshoring boomed under Biden, with $35 billion in new factories. Now, 25 percent border duties threaten to unwind that. Maquiladora workers in Tijuana, averaging $450 monthly, could see real wages erode by 5 percent as U.S. buyers seek alternatives in the heartland.

This is the mirage: U.S. growth at the expense of emerging markets. Trump's plan, for all its talk of fair trade, accelerates deglobalization. Supply chains, painstakingly woven over decades, will fray as firms chase the lowest-risk path. The Atlantic Council tracks over 50 tariff actions since the inauguration, each chipping away at cross-border flows. J.P. Morgan Research now cuts its 2025 global growth forecast to 2.7 percent, with emerging economies bearing the brunt at 3.9 percent, down from 4.5 percent. Wages follow suit. While American finance swells, the global south's labor surplus grows, suppressing pay in export hubs. The International Labour Organization warns of a "lost decade" for developing nations if trade volumes drop 10 percent, as projected. Inequality widens not just within countries, but between them, echoing the K-shaped recovery we saw post-COVID: the top accelerates, the base stalls.

Bessent and his peers may dismiss this as collateral, but Americans are not powerless. Voters, consumers, and civic actors can exert pressure on Congress and the administration to ensure that trade policies and deregulation take global labor impacts into account, whether through public letters, petitions, or targeted campaigns. Citizens can influence corporate behavior by favoring companies that maintain fair labor practices abroad and by holding firms accountable for their supply-chain ethics. Engagement with NGOs and civic groups that monitor U.S. trade decisions offers another avenue to shape outcomes. In contrast, advocacy for multilateral frameworks promoting fair wages and sustainable trade- through U.S.-based organizations and think tanks - can reinforce American leadership and credibility. These efforts not only support workers abroad but also protect the United States’ legitimacy in the global economy, reducing the risk that its firms and policies provoke backlash.

Bessent's perfect storm is no inheritance from Biden. It is a deliberate gale, one that lifts American sails while grounding ships in distant ports. UBS may thrive in New York, but the workers it leaves behind in Zurich, and those it displaces in Asia, will pay the toll. Global finance cannot afford such zero-sum games. The storm breaks soon; better to seek shelter together than watch the divide grow.

Imran Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst, and freelance writer.

Read More

Pro-Trump protestors
Trump supporters who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results are now seeking influential election oversight roles in battleground states.
Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Loving Someone Who Thinks the Election Was Stolen

He’s the kind of man you’d want as a neighbor in a storm.

Big guy. Strong hands. The person you’d call if your car slid into a ditch. He lives rural, works hard, supports a wife and young son, and helps care for his aging mom. Life has not been easy, but he shows up anyway.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on December 15, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

In May 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s early State Department reforms aligned with Project 2025, including calls for budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments. At the time, the most controversial move was an executive order targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting it down and freezing all federal foreign aid. This decision reflected Project 2025’s recommendation to scale back and "deradicalize" USAID by eliminating programs deemed overly politicized or inconsistent with conservative values. The report specifically criticized USAID for funding progressive initiatives, such as policies addressing systemic racism and central economic planning, arguing that U.S. foreign aid had become a "massive and open-ended global entitlement program" benefiting left-leaning organizations. The process connecting the report’s ideological critiques to this executive action involved a strategic alignment between key administration officials and Project 2025 architects, who lobbied for immediate policy adjustments. This coalition effectively linked the critique to policy by framing it as a necessary step toward realigning foreign aid with national interests and conservative principles.

Back then, I predicted even more sweeping changes to the State Department. Since May, several major developments have indeed reshaped the department:

Keep ReadingShow less
SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.
apples and bananas in brown cardboard box
Photo by Maria Lin Kim on Unsplash

SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.

Millions of families just survived the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Now they’re bracing again as politicians turn food assistance into a bargaining chip.

Food assistance should not be subject to politics, yet the Trump administration is now requiring over 20 Democratic-led states to share sensitive SNAP recipient data—including Social Security and immigration details—or risk losing funding. Officials call it "program integrity," but the effect is clear: millions of low-income families may once again have their access to food threatened by political disputes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections
us a flag on white concrete building

Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections

Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.

Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:

  • California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
  • Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
  • Other states in play:
    • Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
    • Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
    • New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
    • National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.

Implications for 2026

  • Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
  • Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
  • The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network