In a dramatic turnaround, President Donald Trump announced on social media that he would pause for 90 days higher trade tariffs for most countries, excluding China. This follows a period of escalating economic and political pressure that had become increasingly intolerable.
Just hours earlier, Trump had confidently asserted that his policies would never change, telling supporters that sometimes one must take the medicine to fix a situation. He had even boasted about his abilities, declaring, “I know what I’m doing,” and entreating the public to “BE COOL. Everything is going to work out well.”
However, by Wednesday morning, under the weight of backlash, Trump blinked, demonstrating a significant climbdown from a leader known for projecting unwavering strength.
White House aides immediately began efforts to spin the retreat as a clever maneuver, positioning Trump as a master dealmaker and strategic genius. Yet, the damage had already manifested—both to America’s image as a reliable ally and to Trump’s reputation regarding his signature economic policies.
Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, remarked, “It’s obviously far too soon to talk about a failed presidency, but to me there are clear indications that Donald Trump’s presidency is endangered.” This assessment is striking for the third month of his presidency, reflecting unusual and vocal discontent, especially among Republicans.
The volatility of the financial markets in recent weeks has rivaled that of the initial COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns five years prior, but this time the turmoil arises from the erratic decisions of one individual.
On April 2, Trump proclaimed sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on numerous countries from the White House Rose Garden. He heralded this initiative as a “declaration of economic independence,” celebrating a “liberation day” expected to usher in a new “golden age” for America. Trump claimed that after being taken advantage of for decades, it was “our turn to prosper.”
The tariffs were imposed based on a nation’s trade deficit with the US, divided by the value of goods imported from that nation—a formula that drew immediate criticism for its inaccuracies. Incredibly, it assigned tariffs even to Heard Island and McDonald Islands, which are home solely to penguins.
In Trump’s narrative, the long-promised tariffs were framed as essential for revitalizing US manufacturing and correcting long-standing trade imbalances. He held the Rose Garden event with workers donning hard hats and yellow construction vests, attempting to seize the narrative of the working-class party from Democrats.
Experts across the political spectrum acknowledge that the US industrial midwest has suffered due to globalization, resulting in factory closures and job loss. However, the consensus remains skeptical that Trump’s intense tariffs represent an effective remedy.
Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, expressed this view succinctly: “I have always believed that his understanding of when America was great was in the 1950s and 1960s,” times when manufacturing formed a significant portion of the workforce with the US as a global powerhouse.
Galston elaborated, explaining Trump’s vision of restoring the manufacturing sector, stating that it remains a fantasy that likely won’t result in substantial changes—given that manufacturing’s current share of employment in the US stands at a mere 8%, down from over 30% in the 1970s.
As the international response to Trump’s tariffs grew increasingly severe, he effectively held the global economy hostage with dire consequences manifesting rapidly. Market instability arose, and retaliatory actions materialized, particularly from China, alongside deep unease for businesses and consumers alike.
Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers characterized the situation as “the biggest self-inflicted wound we’ve put on our economy in history.” Various business leaders who had supported Trump’s election began expressing regrets as their fortunes dwindled, notably observing declines in stock prices at tech giants such as Apple with predictions of potential price increases for iPhones reaching up to 43%.
Insiders in the White House began to show signs of nervousness, with notable clashes arising as Elon Musk engaged in a public feud with Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro, over Tesla’s exposure to the tariffs. Musk called Navarro a “moron” and “dumber than a sack of bricks”—an extraordinary expression of discontent from a once-supportive business figure.
Despite the market’s crashing and billions in losses, Trump remained steadfast in his belief that he was correct, while the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, urgently sought a reevaluation of strategy, advocating for improved trade agreements.
Republicans grew restless upon hearing concerns from constituents regarding their retirement savings, some advocating for the limitation of Trump’s power to impose tariffs. Senator Ted Cruz, a longstanding supporter of Trump, stated, “Tariffs are a tax on consumers, and I’m not a fan of jacking up taxes on American consumers.”
This marked a significant departure from a party that has largely demonstrated blatant loyalty to Trump across other issues. Columnist James Bennet remarked on the potential for Republican resistance against Trump, noting that past grievances over other issues had not incited pushback, but that the tariffs could be a tipping point.
He noted, “There are limits to how far Donald Trump can go,” suggesting that collective discontent among Republicans might eventually manifest as opposition to his administration.
As pressures mounted from various fronts, fears of an impending recession escalated, prompting Trump to announce the 90-day reprieve alongside a call for negotiations on bilateral trade agreements.
Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright remarked on Trump’s lack of resilience in this situation, saying, “He is a paper tiger leader in many ways and this was just further proof of that.” He expressed that Trump wants to project a hardball image but is often unable to follow through.
While the White House worked to insist on a narrative of victory—even amid this retreat— it was evident that the marketplace had sent a decisive message.
The bond market’s reactions indicated a clear sense of unease, as Trump noted, “People were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy.”
Kurt Bardella, a strategic communications adviser, commented: “We’re seeing now, for the first time in Trump 2, the limitations of propaganda, of drinking your own Kool-Aid.” He pointed to the disparity between the realities of the market and Trump’s optimistic rhetoric as indicative of a breakdown in narrative credibility.
“He can go out there all day long till he’s blue in the face and say to friendly media and his Maga puppets that we’re being ripped off and this will lead to the greatest economic boom we’ve ever seen—but no one else is believing it,” Bardella articulated.
The article ends, diving into the temporary nature of the pause. While offering some short-term reprieve, a blanket duty on almost all US imports remained intact. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, claimed that over 75 countries had contacted the Trump administration in pursuit of addressing trade matters.
However, the feasibility of reaching significant agreements within 90 days remains dubious, with Trump’s impulsive decision-making style potentially undermining faith in US reliability, alongside the ongoing trade war with China which is exacerbating global economic instability.
In a chaotic environment, Trump escalated tariffs on China to 145%, prompting retaliatory measures. US consumers are poised to feel the impact of price increases across various products, and China has threatened further non-tariff initiatives, including blacklisting US companies and restricting exports of rare earth minerals.
image source from：https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/13/trump-tariffs-us-economy
