Photo credit: www.cnbc.com
On February 3, 2025, during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, U.S. President Donald Trump, flanked by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary nominee Howard Lutnick, initiated an executive order establishing a U.S. sovereign wealth fund.
As we reflect on the phenomena of irrational exuberance, collective thinking, and hopeful predictions infiltrating market narrative, it becomes evident that this outlook was primarily observed in the aftermath of Trump’s reelection in 2024. Many investors on Wall Street leaned heavily into the belief that tax cuts, deregulation, and an intense focus on stock market performance would lead to a revival of what is often referred to as “animal spirits.”
During this period of enthusiasm, caution was largely absent from discussions, and the notion of worst-case scenario planning was seldom entertained. The dominant narrative depicted Trump’s tough stance on tariffs and promises to disrupt global trade as mere ploys aimed at negotiating better terms for the U.S. Despite the widespread agreement on this interpretation, few could concretely delineate the specifics of these anticipated deals.
However, for those of us entrenched in the policy battles of the previous trade war under Trump, the situation was starkly different. It became clear that the president’s approach to tariffs and trade was not simply posturing but a fundamental aspect of his worldview. To him, tariffs are tools to reclaim what he perceives as America’s lost advantages in global trade, wielded as weapons against trading partners rather than mere bargaining chips. Early indicators suggest that this upcoming trade agenda will reflect an escalation beyond what occurred in 2018.
A pivotal date looms: April 2, which Trump has termed “the big one” and has referred to as “Liberation Day in America!!!” This day marks the anticipated kick-off for the central features of his America First Trade Policy, as delineated in an executive order issued on his first day back in office. This policy is poised to introduce sweeping tariffs, enhance retaliatory powers, and provide the administration with broad authority to enact trade sanctions with minimal consultation or public input, raising concerns about significant market repercussions.
Nevertheless, some market participants cling to the hope that influential figures such as Secretary Bessent and Secretary Lutnick will moderate these aggressive policies, despite their track records of robustly supporting Trump’s trade initiatives. As former hedge fund manager Bessent and Wall Street CEO Lutnick embrace the administration’s approach, they seem poised to endorse the upcoming tariff implementations, framing any resulting economic challenges in a light that downplays their severity.
In public statements, Bessent has dismissed concerns regarding market corrections as “healthy,” reiterating the administration’s steadfast commitment to its policies, a sentiment echoed by Lutnick. Their vocal support serves to amplify the administration’s determination to transform U.S. trade dynamics.
Contrastingly, less visible yet equally vital voices within the administration are advocating for a more grounded approach. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is quietly working to establish a more structured process for tariff policymaking, recognizing the dangers of volatility that arise in the absence of a clear and transparent strategy.
As the market navigates these turbulent waters, it would benefit from paying attention to these quieter, but crucial, influences that may shape the longer-term stability of trade policy.
Looking ahead, the broader trade community and analysts have begun to raise alarms about the potential consequences of unchecked tariff increases, underscoring the urgency for more discourse on this topic. Experts such as Matt Goodman from the Council on Foreign Relations, Bill Reinsch and Scott Miller from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Kevin Nealer at the Scowcroft Group have consistently highlighted the risks posed by escalated tariffs, including disrupted supply chains and real economic burden on American consumers and businesses, particularly in regions that strongly supported Trump.
Wall Street’s cognitive dissonance and corrections
While Wall Street has expressed occasional unease—evidenced by recent corrections and heightened commentary on the administration’s unclear trajectory—the underlying issue seems to be a refusal to accept the implications of the current trade stance. Tariffs are not merely a matter of timing; they are an enduring policy consideration under Trump.
Despite the administration’s consistency, corporate leaders, especially in the automobile and retail sectors, continue to seek private sessions with the White House, hoping for relief from tariffs they had previously underestimated. Industry organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, still perceive Trump’s tariff policy as a negotiation tactic rather than the unwavering ideological position it has proven to be.
In Washington, the path forward calls for a more active Congress. Lawmakers, particularly within the House Ways and Means Committee, should take a proactive stance in evaluating trade policies, facilitating hearings to illuminate the costs and benefits of current strategies, and reconsidering the broad trade powers assigned to the executive branch in light of their significant marketplace and geopolitical consequences.
Questions remain: Has the delegation of these responsibilities become excessive? Is it time to reassess and potentially rein in these authorities?
The powers, largely based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), afford the executive branch broad latitude to impose tariffs with minimal checks. Congress retains the authority to narrow these parameters, mandate public consultations, and impose transparency requirements for significant trade actions.
The political landscape complicates this effort, particularly with a MAGA-aligned Congress likely to resist limiting Trump’s authority. Nonetheless, some bipartisan voices, including Senators Chuck Grassley, Todd Young, and Bill Cassidy, have previously indicated discomfort with unchecked trade powers and called for greater Congressional involvement.
As the April 2 deadline approaches, a prudent reminder for all parties involved is needed: relying on close access or private discussions to nudge Trump’s policies might be overly optimistic. His resolute stance on tariffs is already well-established, and considering market behavior as a corrective factor in policy adjustments has proven overly naive.
As global entities begin to adapt to this evolving reality, it would be wise for both Wall Street and Washington to prepare for the potential implications of a significant policy shift on April 2.
Source
www.cnbc.com