Connect with us

Economics

The Supreme Court hints it will keep Donald Trump on the ballot

Published

on

WHEN THE SUPREME COURT decided Bush v Gore a generation ago, five justices in effect handed George W. Bush the presidency over Al Gore. The implications of Trump v Anderson, which the court heard on February 8th, could be similarly momentous. But this time the justices are wary of making a splash in a presidential election and of splitting their votes along ideological lines. By the end of the oral argument, a consensus seemed to have emerged: despite his role in the events of January 6th 2021, Colorado will very probably not be allowed to remove Mr Trump from its ballot, nor will the other 49 states in this year’s election.

The historic hearing marked the first time the Supreme Court had considered the meaning and reach of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a provision that bars officials from holding future public office if, after taking an oath supporting the constitution, they engage in “insurrection or rebellion”. When rioters stormed the Capitol trying to overturn the 2020 election, scholars pointed to this relic of the Reconstruction era—a tool originally designed to keep former Confederate leaders away from the levers of power. Voters and advocacy groups in at least 35 states emerged to contend that Donald Trump is a modern-day insurrectionist who should be disqualified from a second presidential term.

Legal efforts stalled in most states, but on December 19th the Colorado Supreme Court cited Section 3 in ruling Mr Trump ineligible to appear on the ballot for the state’s Republican primary on March 5th. Defending that decision at the federal Supreme Court, Jason Murray (representing a group of voters including Norma Anderson, a 91-year-old Republican) called January 6th a “violent assault” that was “incited by a sitting president of the United States”.

This was one of few moments in two hours of wrangling that recalled the mayhem that transpired across the street from the Supreme Court three years ago. The hearing was dominated by bloodless parsing of legal technicalities and worries about what would happen if the Colorado court’s ruling stood.

In his opening pitch, Jonathan Mitchell, Mr Trump’s lawyer, did not say a word about January 6th. He did not deny that the riot was an “insurrection” (though he did, half-heartedly, later on). At no point did he offer a defence of his client’s behaviour. Instead, he said Section 3 does not apply to Mr Trump because a “president is not ‘an officer of the United States’ as that term is used throughout the constitution”. (An officer, he later explained, is a “term of art” applying “only to those who are appointed, not to those who are elected”.) Mr Mitchell also cast doubt on a state’s power to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot based on Section 3. The second sentence of that provision permits Congress to lift the ban by a two-thirds vote. So by prematurely removing a candidate from the ballot, a state is “accelerating the deadline to meet a constitutionally imposed qualification” and disenfranchising “potentially tens of millions of Americans”.

Justices from right to left voiced scepticism about entrusting states with the power to disqualify presidential aspirants. Justice Brett Kavanaugh made much of Griffin’s case, an 1869 circuit-court ruling that said Section 3 could not be applied unless Congress passed a law permitting the removal of insurrectionists. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted that states have used Section 3 to disqualify candidates only for state, not federal, offices. The chief justice, John Roberts, looked to the purpose of the 14th Amendment: isn’t its “whole point”, he asked Mr Murray, ”to restrict state power”? Empowering states to disqualify candidates at will seems to be “at war” with that aim. If states cynically nix candidates from their ballots, elections could end up turning on just a “handful of states”. That, he warned, would be “a pretty daunting consequence”.

It was not only the six-justice conservative majority who were uncomfortable with Colorado’s erasing Mr Trump from the ballot. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson eyed the list of offices Section 3 prohibits oath-breakers from holding and noticed that “president” and “vice-president” are not among them. Justice Elena Kagan amplified Chief Justice Roberts’s worries about the disarray that would follow from 50 states each having a say on who qualifies for the ballot. “Why should a single state”, she asked Mr Murray (who clerked for her a decade ago), “have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor looks to be the only possible dissenting voice on a bench unwilling to approve a new regime of states making independent judgments about candidates’ fitness under Section 3. With primary season under way, the court is probably keen to allay confusion. The answer could come uncharacteristically swiftly for a court that normally takes months to rule: the justices are next scheduled to appear in the courtroom on February 16th.

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Economics

ADP jobs report March 2025:

Published

on

Attendees check in during a job fair at the YMCA Gerard Carter Center on March 27, 2025 in the Stapleton Heights neighborhood of the Staten Island borough in New York City. 

Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images

Private payroll gains were stronger than expected in March, countering fears that the labor market and economy are slowing, according to a report Wednesday from ADP.

Companies added 155,000 jobs for the month, a sharp increase from the upwardly revised 84,000 in February and better than the Dow Jones consensus forecast for 120,000, the payrolls processing firm said.

The upside surprise comes amid worries that President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariffs could deter firms from adding to headcount and in turn slow business and consumer activity. Trump is set to announce the next step in his trade policy Wednesday at 4 p.m.

Hiring was fairly broad based, with professional and business services adding 57,000 workers while financial activities grew by 38,000 as tax season heats up. Manufacturing contributed 21,000 and leisure and hospitality added 17,000.

Service providers were responsible for 132,000 of the positions. On the downside, trade, transportation and utilities saw a loss of 6,000 jobs and natural resources and mining declined by 3,000.

On the wage side, earnings rose by 4.6% year over year for those staying in their positions and 6.5% for job changers. The gap between the two matched a series low last hit in September, suggesting a lower level of mobility for workers wanting to switch jobs.

Still, the overall numbers indicate a solid labor market. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the level of open positions is now almost even with available workers, reversing a trend in which openings outnumbered the unemployed by 2 to 1 a couple years ago.

The ADP report comes ahead of the more closely watched BLS measure of nonfarm payrolls. The BLS report, which unlike ADP includes government jobs, is expected to show payroll growth of 140,000 in March, down slightly from 151,000 in February. The two counts sometimes show substantial disparities due to different methodologies.

Get Your Ticket to Pro LIVE

Join us at the New York Stock Exchange!
Uncertain markets? Gain an edge with 
CNBC Pro LIVE, an exclusive, inaugural event at the historic New York Stock Exchange.

In today’s dynamic financial landscape, access to expert insights is paramount. As a CNBC Pro subscriber, we invite you to join us for our first exclusive, in-person CNBC Pro LIVE event at the iconic NYSE on Thursday, June 12.

Join interactive Pro clinics led by our Pros Carter Worth, Dan Niles, and Dan Ives, with a special edition of Pro Talks with Tom Lee. You’ll also get the opportunity to network with CNBC experts, talent and other Pro subscribers during an exciting cocktail hour on the legendary trading floor. Tickets are limited!

Continue Reading

Economics

Trump tariffs’ effect on consumer prices debated by economists

Published

on

The U.S. government is set to increase tariff rates on several categories of imported products. Some economists tracking these trade proposals say the higher tariff rates could lead to higher consumer prices.

One model constructed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston suggests that in an “extreme” scenario, heightened taxes on U.S. imports could result in a 1.4 percentage point to 2.2 percentage point increase to core inflation. This scenario assumes 60% tariff rates on Chinese imports and 10% tariff rates on imports from all other countries.

The researchers note that many other tariff proposals have surfaced since they published their findings in February 2025. 

Price increases could come across many categories, including new housing and automobiles, alongside consumer services such as nursing, public transportation and finance. 

“People might think, ‘Oh, tariffs can only affect the goods that I buy. It can’t affect the services,'” said Hillary Stein, an economist at the Boston Fed. “Those hospitals are buying inputs that might be, for example, … medical equipment that comes from abroad.” 

White House economists say tariffs will not meaningfully contribute to inflation. In a statement to CNBC, Stephen Miran, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, said that “as the world’s largest source of consumer demand, the U.S. holds all the leverage, which means foreign suppliers will have to eat the economic burden or ‘incidence’ of the tariffs.” 

Assessing the impact of the administration’s full economic agenda has been a challenge for central bank leaders. The Federal Open Market Committee decided to leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at the meeting in March. 

The Fed targets its overnight borrowing rate at between 4.25% and 4.5%, with the effective federal funds rate at 4.33% on March 31, according to the New York Fed. The core personal consumption expenditures price index inflation rate rose to 2.8% in February, according to the Commerce Department. Forecasts of U.S. gross domestic product suggest that the economy will continue to grow at a 1.7% rate in 2025, albeit at a slower pace than what was forecast in January.  

Consumers in the U.S. and businesses around the world are bracing for impact. 
 
“There is a reason why companies went outside of the U.S.,” said Gregor Hirt, chief investment officer at Allianz Global Investors. “Most of the time it was because it was cheaper and more productive.” 

Watch the video above to learn how much inflation tariffs may cause.

Continue Reading

Economics

Trump’s tariff gambit will raise the stakes for an economy already looking fragile

Published

on

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks alongside entertainer Kid Rock before signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House on March 31, 2025 in Washington, DC. 

Andrew Harnik | Getty Images

President Donald Trump is set Wednesday to begin the biggest gamble of his nascent second term, wagering that broad-based tariffs on imports will jumpstart a new era for the U.S. economy.

The stakes couldn’t be higher.

As the president prepares his “liberation day” announcement, household sentiment is at multi-year lows. Consumers worry that the duties will spark another round of painful inflation, and investors are fretting that higher prices will mean lower profits and a tougher slog for the battered stock market.

What Trump is promising is a new economy not dependent on deficit spending, where Canada, Mexico, China and Europe no longer take advantage of the U.S. consumer’s desire for ever-cheaper products.

The big problem right now is no one outside the administration knows quite how those goals will be achieved, and what will be the price to pay.

“People always want everything to be done immediately and have to know exactly what’s going on,” said Joseph LaVorgna, who served as a senior economic advisor during Trump’s first term in office. “Negotiations themselves don’t work that way. Good things take time.”

For his part, LaVorgna, who is now chief economist at SMBC Nikko Securities, is optimistic Trump can pull it off, but understands why markets are rattled by the uncertainty of it all.

“This is a negotiation, and it needs to be judged in the fullness of time,” he said. “Eventually we’re going to get some details and some clarity, and to me, everything will fit together. But right now, we’re at that point where it’s just too soon to know exactly what the implementation is likely to look like.”

Here’s what we do know: The White House intends to implement “reciprocal” tariffs against its trading partners. In other words, the U.S. is going to match what other countries charge to import American goods into their countries. Most recently, a figure of 20% blanket tariffs has been bandied around, though LaVorgna said he expects the number to be around 10%, but something like 60% for China.

What is likely to emerge, though, will be far more nuanced as Trump seeks to reduce a record $131.4 billion U.S. trade deficit. Trump professes his ability to make deals, and the saber-rattling of draconian levies on other countries is all part of the strategy to get the best arrangement possible where more goods are manufactured domestically, boosting American jobs and providing a fairer landscape for trade.

The consequences, though, could be rough in the near term.

Potential inflation impact

On their surface, tariffs are a tax on imports and, theoretically, are inflationary. In practice, though, it doesn’t always work that way.

During his first term, Trump imposed heavy tariffs with nary a sign of longer-term inflation outside of isolated price increases. That’s how Federal Reserve economists generally view tariffs — a one-time “transitory” blip but rarely a generator of fundamental inflation.

This time, though, could be different as Trump attempts something on a scale not seen since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930 that kicked off a global trade war and would be the worst-case scenario of the president’s ambitions.

“This could be a major rewiring of the domestic economy and of the global economy, a la Thatcher, a la Reagan, where you get a more enabled private sector, streamlined government, a fair trading system,” Mohamed El-Erian, the Allianz chief economic advisor, said Tuesday on CNBC. “Alternatively, if we get tit-for-tat tariffs, we slip into stagflation, and that stagflation becomes well anchored, and that becomes problematic.”

Tariffs could be a major rewiring of the domestic and global economy, says Mohamed El-Erian

The U.S. economy already is showing signs of a stagflationary impulse, perhaps not along the lines of the 1970s and early ’80s but nevertheless one where growth is slowing and inflation is proving stickier than expected.

Goldman Sachs has lowered its projection for economic growth this year to barely positive. The firm is citing the “the sharp recent deterioration in household and business confidence” and second-order impacts of tariffs as administration officials are willing to trade lower growth in the near term for their longer-term trade goals.

Federal Reserve officials last month indicated an expectation of 1.7% gross domestic product growth this year; using the same metric, Goldman projects GDP to rise at just a 1% rate.

In addition, Goldman raised its recession risk to 35% this year, though it sees growth holding positive in the most-likely scenario.

Broader economic questions

However, Luke Tilley, chief economist at Wilmington Trust, thinks the recession risk is even higher at 40%, and not just because of tariff impacts.

“We were already on the pessimistic side of the spectrum,” he said. “A lot of that is coming from the fact that we didn’t think the consumer was strong enough heading into the year, and we see growth slowing because of the tariffs.”

Tilley also sees the labor market weakening as companies hold off on hiring as well as other decisions such as capital expenditure-type investments in their businesses.

That view on business hesitation was backed up Tuesday in an Institute for Supply Management survey in which respondents cited the uncertain climate as an obstacle to growth.

“Customers are pausing on new orders as a result of uncertainty regarding tariffs,” said a manager in the transportation equipment industry. “There is no clear direction from the administration on how they will be implemented, so it’s harder to project how they will affect business.”

While Tilley thinks the concern over tariffs causing long-term inflation is misplaced — Smoot-Hawley, for instance, actually ended up being deflationary — he does see them as a danger to an already-fragile consumer and economy as they could tend to weaken activity further.

“We think of the tariffs as just being such a weight on growth. It would drive up prices in the initial couple [inflation] readings, but it would create so much economic weakness that they would end up being net deflationary,” he said. “They’re a tax hike, they’re contractionary, they’re going to weigh on the economy.”

Get Your Ticket to Pro LIVE

Join us at the New York Stock Exchange!
Uncertain markets? Gain an edge with 
CNBC Pro LIVE, an exclusive, inaugural event at the historic New York Stock Exchange.

In today’s dynamic financial landscape, access to expert insights is paramount. As a CNBC Pro subscriber, we invite you to join us for our first exclusive, in-person CNBC Pro LIVE event at the iconic NYSE on Thursday, June 12.

Join interactive Pro clinics led by our Pros Carter Worth, Dan Niles, and Dan Ives, with a special edition of Pro Talks with Tom Lee. You’ll also get the opportunity to network with CNBC experts, talent and other Pro subscribers during an exciting cocktail hour on the legendary trading floor. Tickets are limited!

Continue Reading

Trending