Connect with us

Economics

The Republicans gain control of the Senate

Published

on

REPUBLICANS HAVE won control of the Senate, a victory with big ramifications for policy and power in Washington no matter who ultimately wins the presidential contest between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, where Mr Trump has taken a clear lead.

It became evident that Republicans would control the upper chamber after the party’s candidate in West Virginia quickly flipped a seat held by former Democrat Joe Manchin, which had been long expected. Then networks called the Ohio Senate race—the most expensive in the nation—for Republican Bernie Moreno, who unseated Sherrod Brown, the Democratic incumbent. They secured their 51st seat when Deb Fischer (pictured), a Republican senator in Nebraska, fended off a surprisingly strong challenge from Dan Osborn, an independent.

Democrats’ attempts to flip Republican seats in Texas and Florida failed. As the night wore on, Republicans remained competitive in other close races and could contemplate how large their majority may become when all the votes are counted.

Republicans will find their win particularly satisfying after failing to retake the Senate in two consecutive close elections. Four years ago the contest came down to a pair of run-off races in Georgia, where Democratic candidates won close victories. That allowed Mr Biden to govern with his party in narrow control of the chamber, relying on Ms Harris, as the vice-president, to cast tie-breaking votes.

Republicans were even more optimistic ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. But flawed candidates lost what should have been competitive races against Democratic incumbents in Georgia, Arizona, New Hampshire and Nevada. The Republicans also lost an open seat in Pennsylvania, after John Fetterman bested Mehmet Oz, a surgeon and TV personality endorsed by Mr Trump. After also under-performing against expectations in House races that year, Republican leaders decided they needed a new approach in 2024.

Steve Daines, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, aggressively intervened in primaries to weed out unimpressive candidates in favour of wealthy and telegenic nominees like Tim Sheehy in Montana and Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania. In deep blue Maryland, Larry Hogan, the popular former Republican governor of the state, forced Democrats to commit tens of millions of dollars to a race Mr Hogan was always unlikely to win (and did not).

The price of victory was steep. In Ohio, the two major party campaigns and outside groups spent more than $500m on advertising. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s voters were treated to nearly $350m in unrelenting adverts for the Senate race alone, in addition to more than $400m-worth for the Trump-Harris contest. In Montana—home to just over 1m people—at least $282m was spent on advertising. Arizona, Maryland, Nevada, Texas, Minnesota and Wisconsin all became nine-figure contests.

Why were donors willing to shell out billions of dollars on just a handful of Senate races? The fate of presidencies runs through the chamber: Senators must approve more than 1,000 high-ranking jobs from cabinet officers to generals and ambassadors. New federal judges—including those pegged for the Supreme Court—also require Senate endorsement.

Republican control could be a moderating force if Mr Trump is re-elected. The Senate has welcomed more right-populist Republican members like Mr Moreno in recent years, but still remains a bastion of pre-Trump conservatism. A narrow Republican majority in the Senate could empower moderates to reject Trump nominees outside the political mainstream.

Nothing united Republicans during Mr Trump’s first term quite like his judicial nominations. He enjoyed a Republican-controlled Senate for four years and the body approved 234 of his nominees, including three Supreme Court justices. If he wins, it is plausible that an outright majority of the high court will have been chosen by Mr Trump by the time his second term ends.

Should Ms Harris pull out a late victory, she would struggle to seat a Supreme Court justice so long as the Republicans control the upper chamber. How Republicans would handle lower-court nominees—or even a moderate and older Supreme Court pick—remains an open question. Mitch McConnell, the Republicans’ departing Senate leader, showed in 2016 that the party can obstruct Democratic judicial picks and weather the political backlash.

Mr McConnell, however, will not be leading Republicans next year. On November 13th the Senate will vote in what is currently a three-way race to replace him. John Thune, a South Dakotan and current McConnell leadership deputy, is the frontrunner and recently won a valuable endorsement from Mr Daines. John Cornyn of Texas represents Mr Thune’s biggest threat. Rick Scott of Florida is running a longshot race from the right.

Mr Thune, an establishment figure close to Mr McConnell, once had a rocky relationship with Mr Trump but has since patched it up. He served alongside Ms Harris when she was a senator, but the vice-president did not form any notable bipartisan relationships during her four years in the upper chamber. Mr Thune may not be a pugnacious populist, but he will no doubt be ready for a confrontational relationship if Ms Harris takes the White House.

Key provisions of Mr Trump’s 2017 tax-cutting law will expire absent legislative action next year. Negotiations have yet to begin in earnest, but some battle lines already are being drawn. A Republican-controlled Senate is likely to fight to keep a contentious cap on tax deductions in high-tax states. Whether Ms Harris or Mr Trump wins, the Senate will also have a say on whether to expand the child tax credit; whether to increase or cut corporate and individual rates; whether to fulfil campaign promises such as removing taxes on tips; and myriad other provisions. The final result will come down to presidential priorities and whether Democrats or Republicans control the House (and by how much).

There are other looming fights where a Republican-controlled Senate could be decisive. Amidst recurring fights over America’s debt limit, the lame-duck Congress could pass another in a succession of short-term government funding bills, but at some point in 2025 Congress will be responsible for a proper budget. Republicans agonised over these fiscal matters for much of 2023 and 2024. And the Senate Armed Services Committee will now be led by a Republican who wants to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP—something that neither Ms Harris nor Mr Trump necessarily wants.

If Mr Trump wins the electoral college, a sizeable Senate majority and likely control of the House of Representatives would endow Mr Trump with plenty of political capital. How to spend it would be a subject of factional arguments. But the direction of travel would be clear.

Economics

‘He should bring them down’

Published

on

U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Win McNamee | Annabelle Gordon | Reuters

President Donald Trump on Friday lobbed his latest criticism at Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, as the White House’s discontent for the economic policy leader hits a fever pitch.

During a Friday afternoon question-and-answer session with reporters, Trump pointed to examples of prices going down.

“If we had a Fed Chairman that understood what he was doing, interest rates would be coming down, too,” Trump said. “He should bring them down.”

Trump has long argued that the Fed, which sets monetary policy in the U.S., should cut down interest rates. His latest comments come as the White House has ratcheted up its attacks on Powell in recent days.

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said Friday that Trump and his team are assessing whether they can remove the Fed chair. Powell has said previously that he cannot be fired under law and intends to serve through the end of his term as chair in May 2026.

“The president and his team will continue to study that matter,” Hassett said at the White House after a reporter questioned if firing Powell “is an option in a way that it wasn’t before,” according to Reuters.

Trump posted on Truth Social on Thursday that “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough.” His post included the nickname of “Too Late” for Powell, a continuation of Trump’s habit of giving satirical titles to political rivals.

His use of the word “termination” raised questions around if Trump was referring to Powell’s potential removal from his post ahead of schedule. Hassett said on Friday the administration will look at if there’s “new legal analysis” that would allow for Powell’s firing.

Powell appeared to irk Trump after saying Wednesday that the president’s contentious tariff plan could drive up inflation in the near-term and create challenges for the central bank in managing goals of high employment rates and price stability. Powell said Trump’s levies — many of which are currently on pause — are “likely to move us further away from our goals.”

“We may find ourselves in the challenging scenario in which our dual-mandate goals are in tension,” Powell said in prepared remarks before the Economic Club of Chicago. “If that were to occur, we would consider how far the economy is from each goal, and the potentially different time horizons over which those respective gaps would be anticipated to close.”

Powell also said that the Fed was “well positioned to wait for greater clarity before considering any adjustments to our policy stance.”

The Federal Open Market Committee has its borrowing rate currently targeted in a range between 4.25% and 4.5%, where it has sat since December. Fed funds futures are pricing in a more than 90% likelihood that the central bank holds rates steady again at its policy meeting next month, according to CME’s FedWatch tool.

As Trump’s team has scaled up criticisms, some Democrats have gone on defense. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., warned on Thursday that a president firing the Fed chief would be dire for U.S. financial markets.

“Understand this: If Chairman Powell can be fired by the president of the United States, it will crash markets in the United States,” Warren said on CNBC.

Continue Reading

Economics

China targets U.S. services and other areas after decrying ‘meaningless’ tariff hikes on goods

Published

on

Dilara Irem Sancar | Anadolu | Getty Images

China last week announced it was done retaliating against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying any further increases by the U.S. would be a “joke,” and Beijing would “ignore” them.

Instead of continuing to focus on tariffing goods, however, China has chosen to resort to other measures, including steps targeting the American services sector.

Trump has jacked up U.S. levies on select goods from China by up to 245% after several rounds of tit-for-tat measures with Beijing in recent weeks. Before calling it a “meaningless numbers game,” China last week imposed additional duties on imports from the U.S. of up to 125%.

While the Trump administration has largely focused on pressing ahead on his tariff plans, Beijing has rolled out a series of non-tariff restrictive measures including widening export controls of rare-earth minerals and opening antitrust probes into American companies, such as pharmaceutical giant DuPont and IT major Google.

Before the latest escalation, in February Beijing had put dozens of U.S. businesses on a so-called “unreliable entity” list, which would restrict or ban firms from trading with or investing in China. American firms such as PVH, the parent company of Tommy Hilfiger, and Illumina, a gene-sequencing equipment provider, were among those added to the list.

Its tightening of exports of critical mineral elements will require Chinese companies to secure special licenses for exporting these resources, effectively restricting U.S. access to the key minerals needed for semiconductors, missile-defense systems and solar cells.

In its latest move on Tuesday, Beijing went after Boeing — America’s largest exporter — by ordering Chinese airlines not to take any further deliveries for its jets and requested carriers to halt any purchases of aircraft-related equipment and parts from U.S. companies, according to Bloomberg.

Having deliveries to China cut off will add to the cash-strapped plane maker’s troubles, as it struggles with a lingering quality-control crisis.

In another sign of growing hostilities, Chinese police issued notices for apprehending three people they claimed to have engaged in cyberattacks against China on behalf of the U.S. National Security Agency.

Chinese state media, which published the notice, urged domestic users and companies to avoid using American technology and replace them with domestic alternatives.

“Beijing is clearly signaling to Washington that two can play in this retaliation game and that it has many levers to pull, all creating different levels of pain for U.S. companies,” said Wendy Cutler, vice president at Asia Society Policy Institute.

“With high tariffs and other restrictions in place, the decoupling of the two economies is at full steam,” Cutler said.

Targeting trade in services

China is seen by some as seeking to broaden the trade war to encompass services trade — which covers travel, legal, consulting and financial services — where the U.S. has been running a significant surplus with China for years.

China Beige Book CEO: U.S. needs to articulate what they want from China

Earlier this month, a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media Xinhua News Agency, suggested Beijing could impose curbs on U.S. legal consultancy firms and consider a probe into U.S. companies’ China operations for the huge “monopoly benefits” they have gained from intellectual-property rights.

China’s imports of U.S. services surged more than 10-fold to $55 billion in 2024 over the past two decades, according to Nomura estimates, driving U.S. services trade surplus with China to $32 billion last year.

Last week, China said it would reduce imports of U.S. films and warned its citizens against traveling or studying in the U.S., in a sign of Beijing’s intent to put pressure on the U.S. entertainment, tourism and education sectors.

“These measures target high-visibility sectors — aviation, media, and education — that resonate politically in the U.S.,” said Jing Qian, managing director at Center for China Analysis.

While they might be low on actual dollar impact given the smaller scale of these sectors, “reputational effects — such as fewer Chinese students or more cautious Chinese employees — could ripple through academia and the tech talent ecosystem,” he added.

Nomura estimates $24 billion could be at stake if Beijing significantly step up restrictions on travel to the U.S.

Weekly analysis and insights from Asia’s largest economy in your inbox
Subscribe now

Travel dominated U.S. services exports to China, reflecting expenditure by millions of Chinese tourists in the U.S., according to Nomura. Within travel, education-related spending leads at 71%, it estimates, mostly coming from tuition and living expenses for the more than 270,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S.

Entertainment exports, encompassing films, music and television programs, accounted for just 6% of U.S. exports within this sector, the investment firm said, noting that Beijing’s latest move on film imports “carries more symbolic heft than economic bite.”

“We could see deeper decoupling — not only in supply chains, but in people-to-people ties, knowledge exchange, and regulatory frameworks. This may signal a shift from transactional tension to systemic divergence,” said Qian.

Can Beijing get more aggressive?

Analysts largely expect Beijing to continue deploying its arsenal of non-tariff policy tools in an effort to raise its leverage ahead of any potential negotiation with the Trump administration.

“From the Chinese government’s perspective, the U.S. companies’ operations in China are the biggest remaining target for inflicting pain on the U.S .side,” said Gabriel Wildau, managing director at risk advisory firm Teneo.

Apple, Tesla, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are among the businesses that could be targeted as Beijing presses ahead with non-tariff measures, including sanction, regulatory harassment and export controls, Wildau added.

Shoppers and staff are seen inside the Apple Store, with its sleek modern interior design and prominent Apple logo, in Chongqing, China, on Sept. 10, 2024.

Cheng Xin | Getty Images

While a deal may allow both sides to unwind some of the retaliatory measures, hopes for near-term talks between the two leaders are fading fast.

Chinese officials have repeatedly condemned the “unilateral tariffs” imposed by Trump as “bullying” and vowed to “fight to the end.” Still, Beijing has left the door open for negotiations but they must be on “an equal footing.”

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is open to making a deal with China but Beijing needs to make the first move.

“In the end, only when a country experiences sufficient self-inflicted harm might it consider softening its stance and truly returning to the negotiation table,” said Jianwei Xu, economist at Natixis.

Continue Reading

Economics

Donald Trump’s approval rating is dropping

Published

on

EVEN WHEN Donald Trump does something well, he exaggerates. He won the popular vote last November for the first time in three tries, by a 1.5 point margin. “The mandate was massive,” he told Time. In fact it was the slimmest margin since 2000, but it was an improvement on Mr Trump’s two previous popular-vote losses, by 2.1 points in 2016 and 4.5 points in 2020. (He was elected in 2016 through the vagaries of the Electoral College.)

Continue Reading

Trending