The biggest challenge to the Trump administration is Trump himself

According to RCO News Agency, the British media points out that US President Donald Trump has started his second term in office in a situation where macroeconomic indicators look strong, but public support for him is weakening; A fundamental contradiction that, according to the author, forms the core of the Trump administration’s challenge.

The “Financial Times” newspaper writes in this report that although experts had warned that the unprecedented restructuring of the global economic order and the severe curbing of immigration by Trump would lead to an economic disaster, the data so far have not confirmed such a picture.

The Financial Times writes: Investment, industrial production, unemployment and inflation are all in good shape, real wages have risen and financial markets have set new records. Also, the Federal Reserve has reduced the interest rate for the third time in a row and at the same time significantly improved the outlook for economic growth. From a purely statistical point of view, the article emphasizes that Trump must have a very powerful political position.

However, the Financial Times suggests that the public’s perception is quite different. Trump’s approval rating has not only fallen overall, but also in areas such as the economy, inflation and immigration. According to the author, this gap is not caused by weak economic performance, but it is rooted in contradictory messaging and inconsistent policies that have made voters unable to understand or evaluate the government’s strategy.

The Financial Times cites Trump’s remarks about the “cost of living” as an obvious example. In a situation where “affordability” has become the main concern of many families, Trump called this issue “deception” and said that children do not need dozens of toys! The article emphasizes that such rhetoric downplays the long-term economic strain many families face and undermines public confidence.

English media has raised a series of political contradictions. For example, Trump has sometimes claimed that the main burden of customs tariffs is on the shoulders of the target countries, and sometimes he has admitted that this burden is on the shoulders of American consumers. The American people don’t know if prices are going to go up or down; What sacrifices are expected from them and what is the ultimate goal of these policies? According to the Financial Times, until these questions are answered clearly, voters will not be able to judge the success or failure of this economic experiment.

The Financial Times presented the US policy towards China as another example of confusion and wrote that the White House sometimes considers the Chinese government an enemy, restricts the sale of advanced artificial intelligence chips and encourages allies to close their markets, but at other times, supports the sale of more powerful chips or talks about the establishment of Chinese companies on American soil. The same contradiction can be seen in immigration policy. Where foreign labor is sometimes presented as a threat and sometimes as an economic necessity. Trump’s proposal to admit hundreds of thousands of Chinese students into the higher education system, which he has repeatedly criticized, is very confusing in terms of the article.

The Financial Times also looks at industrial policy, highlighting Trump’s shift on the Chip Act. According to this article, the American president sometimes destroys this law and sometimes praises its achievements and even expands the government’s intervention in the market. The case of the detention of skilled Korean workers in a project to set up a battery factory is cited as an example of the lack of a coherent plan to attract foreign experts.

This article emphasizes that Trump’s unconventional and ambitious agenda is both his administration’s greatest opportunity and its greatest threat. Since these policies seek to reverse 40-year-old trends, not just short-term reforms, clarity and coherence in their explanation is doubly important. According to the Financial Times, this economic project is not a series of quick wins, but a structural overhaul that has significant short-term costs but claims greater long-term benefits.

British media say that maintaining public support for such a program requires transparency about costs and a clear explanation of its achievements. “Reindustrialization” means giving up some cheap imported goods, and creating a “high-quality” labor market requires accepting higher service costs. A predictable policy environment can reduce these costs and strengthen public confidence.

The Financial Times goes on to argue that the “cost of living” crisis is not simply the result of the recent inflationary spike, but the decades-long erosion of middle-class security. According to the American Comps think tank, in 1985, a man with an average income could support a family of four with 40 weeks of work, but by 2020, the same standard of living would require 62 weeks of work. De-inflation alone will not solve this structural problem.

This article concludes that it is politically damaging to claim that prices are falling when they are not. According to the author, Trump needs to be honest with people, admit that recovery will take time, and explain why short-cut solutions are counterproductive. The Financial Times calls for a clear diagnosis of the problem, a credible plan for progress and clear indicators to measure success.

Finally, the article points to a historical example and notes that American society has supported leaders who have been honest about hardships before. According to the author, at the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, very high interest rates, economic recession and unemployment did not prevent him from winning the election decisively. The Financial Times concludes that transparency, consistency in messaging and honesty, not denial and contradiction, are key to sustaining public support for Trump’s ambitious economic project.

end of message