Those whose memories go back to the ancient times of 2017 will remember that Democrats and their media adjuncts waged a full-on information war against the first Trump administration. One part came to be known as the Russian Collusion Hoax. The other was a series of predictions of war, famine, and economic ruin seemingly cribbed from the book of Revelation.
The results of Trump’s first term were far from the doom and gloom prophecies. Indeed, until the great COVID-19 panic, Trump’s record of peace, strength, and economic growth was truly great.
Like a broken record, the left is now repeating their Apocalypse Now forecasts. But in light of Trump’s record, Americans would do well to echo Senator Paul Laxalt’s famous cry, “Let Reagan be Reagan.” The president will not always bat a thousand, but the best bet is to let Trump be Trump.
Economists and a great many armchair economists of the Democratic persuasion have been forecasting economic catastrophe ever since Trump’s inauguration. Given the bumpy ride for the markets over the last few weeks, many were gleefully projecting their assumed “grief” or, more honestly, schadenfreude, at what they perceived as an impending downturn.
They have likely influenced consumers. The University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers March 2025 report indicated declines in consumer confidence and increases in expectations of inflation. Democrats were more pessimistic, but the trend held for Independents and even Republicans.
It has thus been a real joy this week to see that even CNN had to admit good news for the economy: after four months in a row of rising inflation, February saw inflation decline and consumer prices drop.
It is safe to assume that if so-called mainstream media networks are reporting on good news under Trump, it’s probably even better than they are saying.
Indeed, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) posted on X on Wednesday that not only did inflation subside and core consumer prices hit a four-year low (including eggs, which have dropped about $2 since the inauguration, and gas), but mortgage rates went down and there was a “16% increase in Ginnie Mae loans made to first time homebuyers compared to this time last year.” In a press release, the White House added news of large investments and new jobs in the U.S. economy from GE Aerospace, Asahi, and Merck.
In other words, the reports of a looming economic crash have been greatly exaggerated.
Even so, however, expect negative reports to continue. On March 12, the same day much of the good economic news dropped, Money Talks News published an article titled, “7 Major Corporations Warning of Economic Trouble—If Not Recession.” Most of the article consists of business analysts and CEOs worried about Trump’s tariffs causing some uncertainty for business leaders. While some are proclaiming that their own predicted risk of recession is growing by 5% or 10% (but starting from fairly low odds to begin with), most simply say that this is a bumpy period they’ll get through.
Many of the CEOs are worried about Trump’s use of tariffs. This isn’t uncommon, but even some economists who don’t like tariffs are focusing more on why Trump’s plans for the economy might be necessary, even if they might create some short-term bumps in the road.
Brian Wesbury, for instance, chief economist of First Trust Advisors L.P., told Fox Business that he is worried about tariffs, of which he is not a fan generally, but understands why there is pressure to protect American businesses. He thinks Trump’s general plan is on the money.
There may well be some pain from tariffs and the reductions in government spending, but Wesbury believes that Trump is doing what is necessary. When MSNBC tried to spin him by quoting only the “pain” part, he posted that he had “said we will have pain, before gain. Just like Reagan did. The good news is the pain will be less than if we stayed addicted to deficit spending.”
Even more intriguing is the note to investors from Jared Woodard, Head of Global Research at Bank of America, parts of which have been circulating online. Woodard observes that the growth in our economy has been due to “unsustainable government support and protectionist policies” and warns that “the risks from the unsustainable status quo of debt-financed, tepid, and narrow economic growth are severe.”
Breitbart journalist John Carney, who seems to have seen more of the Woodard note, expands on Woodard’s points in his article about “Trump’s economic detox.” The term “detox” comes from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has argued that Trump’s plan is to move from an economy wherein easy federal money to certain industries drives growth to one in which the private sector leads the way.
Trump’s plan isn’t a purely libertarian attempt to cut all government spending. There will still be federal investment, but it will go to sectors such as “defense and strategic infrastructure.” Carney cites Woodard’s observation that “healthcare administration and renewable energy,” which have been the beneficiaries of government subsidy in the past, are now contracting, whereas “infrastructure, industrial manufacturing, and defense-related industries are attracting renewed investment.”
It’s not just that these latter sectors will now be the beneficiaries of largesse. Carney says the investment, public and private, is driven by “real demand.” Trump wants America to be a place where we really do make things rather than just buying them cheap from other countries. “The transition away from government-driven growth,” writes Carney echoing Woodard, “was always going to be disruptive, but it is necessary for long-term stability.”
Trump’s strategy certainly involves risks, but a big part of the reason Americans elected him was that they saw the dangers in continuing a way of life that was not working for many people. On the surface, things looked better than they were. Economist E.J. Antoni of the Heritage Foundation argues that the revenue gain during Biden’s term “was mostly just inflation engorging entries on balance sheets, not an increase in economic activity….”
Trump wants to change that. Given his track record in his first term and the real economic gains revealed this past week, it is rational to trust that his plan, approved in general by figures such as Wesbury and Woodard, ought to be given a chance, and the predictions of economic doom ought to be taken with a large grain of salt.
Let’s let Trump be Trump.
David P. Deavel teaches at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. A past Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute, he is a Senior Contributor at The Imaginative Conservative. Follow him on X (Twitter) @davidpdeavel.
Read full article here
