Connect with us

Economics

Did sexism propel Donald Trump to power?

Published

on

AS DEMOCRATS COME to terms with their decisive loss, some have begun pointing fingers at a temptingly simple—and conveniently self-absolving—explanation: it was sexism. America is simply not ready to elect a female president, suggested several news outlets, as it became clear that voters had rejected a woman for the highest office for a second time. In the early hours of November 6th David Axelrod, a campaign strategist turned political commentator, said on CNN that anyone who claimed that sexism did not play a role in Ms Harris’s defeat was simply “wrong”. Patti Solis Doyle, who ran Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, said to Politico that “the country is still sexist and is not ready for a woman president.”

Meanwhile, angry young women have taken to TikTok and other social-media channels to call on each other to emulate South Korea’s feminist 4B movement, which rejects sex and heterosexual dating, in retaliation against young men voting for Mr Trump. “The good news is that men hate us, so there’s no point in catering to them,” starts one video that quickly attracted over 1.3m likes. “No more kitty cat” for men, adds another.

Yet there is little evidence that Ms Harris lost because of sexism, and plenty that she did not. She suffered from structural disadvantages, including her ties to an unpopular presidency and perceptions of a bad economy, that had nothing to do with her sex. While a minority of Americans do hold overtly sexist views, including the idea that men are emotionally better suited for politics, they are clustered in Mr Trump’s base and so were never likely to vote for Ms Harris anyway. And at first glance, those states with a higher prevalence of sexist views (according to metrics devised by economists at the University of Chicago, Northwestern University and National University Singapore) appear to have been no more likely to have swung towards Mr Trump than states with lower levels of sexism.

Research suggests that the electorate, on average, is not influenced by a candidate’s sex when they enter the voting booth. A meta-study, by Susanne Schwarz, now of Swarthmore College, and Alexander Coppock, of Yale, found that some voters (particularly if they are Democrats or women) are slightly more supportive of hypothetical female candidates. And unlike Mrs Clinton, Ms Harris throughout her campaign managed to avoid one of the few things that studies suggest can measurably hurt a female candidate’s chances with male voters: emphasising the historical nature of her candidacy.

None of this is to say that Ms Harris did not face sexist attacks. T-shirts and caps sold at Trump rallies were emblazoned with “F*** Joe and the Hoe” and “Biden Sucks, Kamala Swallows”. A now-deleted ad, by Elon Musk’s PAC, repeatedly called her “a big old c-word”. After she was announced as the Democratic nominee, sexist language online surged, sometimes fuelled by Mr Trump himself. Google searches for Ms Harris with the word “bitch” rocketed, much as they did after Mrs Clinton announced her candidacy.

But gender can be both highly relevant in an election and yet not hurt the chances of a female candidate. One reason for the speculation that sexism influenced the outcome is that this election became seen as a “battle of the sexes”—stoked by comments such as J.D. Vance’s about “childless cat ladies”—and a referendum on women’s rights. Because of this, several analysts predicted that the gender voting gap could reach a new high as women flocked to Ms Harris and men to Mr Trump.

With only exit-poll data to go on, it is too early to draw firm conclusions. But clearly the central Democratic hope of mobilising women in unprecedented numbers did not materialise. According to early estimates, women did not make up a larger share of the voting population than in 2020, and there is little evidence so far to suggest that the gender gap widened. Damningly, there is plenty to suggest that women (at least modestly) pivoted to Mr Trump. Where in 2020 some 55% of women overall voted for Mr Biden, AP VoteCast estimates that in 2024 Harris’s share slipped to 53%.

It appears that one of the few groups with whom Ms Harris gained ground compared with Joe Biden in 2020 were white college-educated women. Her support among black women remained stable even as it slipped among Hispanic women (although a majority still supported her). As in 2020, a majority of white women seem to have voted for Mr Trump. Meanwhile, Mr Trump’s lead among white men appears not to have increased, but he did see meaningful bumps among Hispanic men and young black men.

What came of the Gen Z “gender schism”? In the final stretch of the election, Mr Trump and Ms Harris actively courted young men and young women, respectively. Before November 5th pollsters were divided on how much weight to give to the idea that young men and women were growing apart. This is the generation most likely to say they lie to loved ones about how they vote, so it is hard to know how honest they are with pollsters. The first exit-poll data paint a similarly mixed picture, and it is too early to say whether the youth gender gap widened. Although talk of radicalisation of all young men is overblown—about half still voted for Ms Harris—Mr Trump has been successful in appealing to grievances among large segments of this age group.

What is clear is that the (relatively) young did not save Ms Harris. Quite the opposite. Among the under-45s, according to AP VoteCast, the swing towards Mr Trump was similar among both men and women and much greater than the very marginal shift in the over-45s. Instead, young people are the group who have shifted farthest, regardless of gender or race. This is not the key variable for explaining Trump’s vote, it’s the key variable explaining the swing. For a party that had hoped to count on both a gender- and a youth-quake, that is damning.

Continue Reading

Economics

U.S. tariff rates under Trump will be higher than the Smoot-Hawley levels from Great Depression era

Published

on

U.S. President Donald Trump holds a chart next to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick as Trump delivers remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 2, 2025.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

The tariff policy outlined by President Donald Trump on Wednesday appears set to raise the level of U.S. import duties to the highest in more than 100 years.

The U.S. introduced a baseline 10% tariff on imports, but also steep country-by-country rates on some major trading partners, including China. The country-by-country rates appear to be related to the trade deficit the U.S. has with each trading partner.

Sarah Bianchi, Evercore ISI chief strategist of international political affairs and public policy, said in a note to clients late Wednesday that the new policies put the effective tariff rate above the level of around 20% set by 1930’s Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which is often cited by economists as a contributing factor to the Great Depression.

“A very tough and more bearish announcement that pushes the overall U.S. weighted average tariff rate to 24%, the highest in over 100 years – and likely headed to as high as 27% once anticipated 232s are complete,” Bianchi wrote. The “232s” is a reference to some sector-specific tariffs that could be added soon.

JPMorgan’s chief U.S. economist Michael Feroli came up with similar results when his team crunched the numbers.

“By our calculations this takes the average effective tariff rate from what had been prior to today’s announcement around 10% to just over 23%. … A White House official mentioned that other section 232 tariffs (e.g. chips, pharma, critical minerals) are still in the works, so the average effective rate could go even higher. Moreover, the executive order states that retaliation by US trading partners could result in even higher US tariffs,” Feroli said in a note to clients.

More downside risk for the economy going forward, says Apollo Global's Torsten Slok

An estimate from Fitch Ratings was in the same range, with a report saying the tariff rate would hit its highest level since 1909.

Trump referenced the Smoot-Hawley Act in his Rose Garden remarks on Wednesday. The president said the issue was not the tariffs imposed in 1930 but the previous decision to remove the higher tariffs that existed earlier in the 20th century.

“It would have never happened if they had stayed with the tariff policy. It would have been a much different story. They tried to bring back tariffs to save our country, but it was gone. It was gone. It was too late,” Trump said.

The full economic impact of the new tariffs will likely depend on how long they are in place and if other countries retaliate. Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have indicated that the country-by-country tariffs could come down if those trade partners change their policies.

JPMorgan global economist Nora Szentivanyi warned that Trump’s tariffs were likely to push the U.S. and global economy into a recession this year if they are sustained.

Continue Reading

Economics

The Federal Reserve is not likely to rescue markets and economy from tariff turmoil anytime soon

Published

on

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

Craig Hudson | Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

Now that President Donald Trump has set out his landmark tariff plans, the Federal Reserve finds itself in a potential policy box to choose between fighting inflation, boosting growth — or simply avoiding the fray and letting events take their course without intervention.

Should the president hold fast to his tougher-than-expected trade policy, there’s a material risk of at least near-term costs, namely the potential for higher prices and a slowdown in growth that could turn into a recession.

For the Fed, that presents a potential no-win situation.

The central bank is tasked with using its policy levers to ensure full employment and low prices, the so-called dual mandate of which policymakers speak. If tariffs present challenges to both, choosing whether to ease to support growth or tighten to fight inflation won’t be easy, as each courts its own peril.

“The problem for the Fed is that they’re going to have to be very reactive,” said Jonathan Pingle, chief U.S. economist at UBS. “They’re going to be watching prices rise, which might make them hesitant to respond to any growth weakness that materializes. I think it’s certainly going to make it very hard for them to be preemptive.”

Under normal conditions, the Fed likes to get ahead of things.

If it sees leading gauges of unemployment perk up, the Fed will cut interest rates to ease financial conditions and give companies more incentive to hire. If it sniffs out a coming rise in inflation, it can raise rates to dampen demand and bring down prices.

So what happens when both things occur at the same time?

Risks to waiting

The Fed hasn’t had to answer that question since the early 1980s, when then-Chair Paul Volcker, faced with such stagflation, chose to uphold the inflation side of the mandate and hike rates dramatically, tilting the economy into a recession.

In the current case, the choice will be tough, particularly coming on the heels of how the Jerome Powell-led central bank was flat-footed when prices started rising in 2021 and he and his colleagues dismissed the move as “transitory.” The word has been resurrected to describe the Fed’s general view on tariff-induced price increases.

“They do risk getting caught offsides with the potential magnitude of this kind of price increase, not unlike what happened in 2022 where, they might might feel the need to respond,” Pingle said. “In order for them to respond to weakening growth, they’re really going to have to wait until the growth does weaken and makes the case for them to move.”

To be sure, the Trump administration sees the tariffs as pro-growth and anti-inflation, though officials have acknowledged the potential for some bumpiness ahead.

“It’s time to change the rules and make the rules be stacked fairly with the United States of America,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC in a Thursday interview. ” We need to stop supporting the rest of the world and start supporting American workers.”

However, that could take some time as even Lutnick acknowledged that the administration is seeking a “re-ordering” of the global economic landscape.

Like many other Wall Street economists, Pingle spent the time since Trump announced the new tariffs Wednesday adapting forecasts for the potential impact.

Bracing for inflation and flat growth

The general consensus is that unless the duties are negotiated lower, they will take prospects for economic growth down to near-zero or perhaps even into recession, while putting core inflation in 2025 north of 3% and, according to some forecasts, as high as 5%. With the Fed targeting inflation at 2%, that’s a wide miss for its own policy objective.

“With price stability still not fully achieved, and tariffs threatening to push prices higher, policymakers may not be able to provide as much monetary support as the growth picture requires, and could even bind them from cutting rates at all,” wrote Seema Shah, chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management.

Traders, however, ramped up their bets that the Fed will act to boost growth rather than fight inflation.

As is often the reaction during a market wipeout like Thursday’s, the market raised the implied odds that the Fed will cut aggressively this year, going so far as to put the equivalent of four quarter-percentage-point reductions in play, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch tracker of futures pricing.

Shah, however, noted that “the path to easing has become narrower and more uncertain.”

Fed officials certainly haven’t provided any fodder for the notion of rate cuts anytime soon.

In a speech Thursday, Vice Chair Philip Jefferson stuck to the Fed’s recent script, insisting “there is no need to be in a hurry to make further policy rate adjustments. The current policy stance is well positioned to deal with the risks and uncertainties that we face in pursuing both sides of our dual mandate.”

Taking the cautious tone a step further, Governor Adriana Kugler said Wednesday afternoon — at the same time Trump was delivering his tariff presentation in the Rose Garden — that she expects the Fed to stay put until things clear up.

“I will support maintaining the current policy rate for as long as these upside risks to inflation continue, while economic activity and employment remain stable,” Kugler said, adding she “strongly supported” the decision in March to keep the Fed’s benchmark rate unchanged.

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

Layoff announcements surge to the most since the pandemic as Musk’s DOGE slices Federal labor force

Published

on

Employees of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) hug each other as they queue outside the Mary E. Switzer Memorial Building, after it was reported that the Trump administration fired staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the Food and Drug Administration, as it embarked on its plan to cut 10,000 jobs at HHS, in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 1, 2025. 

Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

A surge in federal government job cuts contributed to a near record-setting pace for announced layoffs in March, exceeded only by when the country shut down in 2020 for the Covid pandemic, according to a report Thursday from job placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

Furloughs in the federal government totaled 216,215 for the month, part of a total 275,240 reductions overall in the labor force. Some 280,253 layoffs across 27 agencies in the past two months have been linked to the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency and its efforts to pare down the federal workforce.

The monthly total was surpassed only by April and May of 2020 in the early days of the pandemic when employers announced combined reductions of more than 1 million, according to Challenger records going back to 1989.

“Job cut announcements were dominated last month by Department of Government Efficiency [DOGE] plans to eliminate positions in the federal government,” said Andrew Challenger, senior vice president and workplace expert at the firm. “It would have otherwise been a fairly quiet month for layoffs.”

However, DOGE has continued to cut aggressively across the government.

Various reports have indicated that the Veterans Affairs department could lose 80,000 jobs, the IRS is in line for some 18,000 reductions and Treasury is expected to drop a “substantial” level of workers as well, according to a court filing.

The year to date tally for federal government announced layoffs represents a 672% increase from the same period in 2024, according to Challenger.

To be sure, the outsized layoff plans haven’t made their way into other jobs data.

Weekly unemployment claims have held in a fairly tight range since President Donald Trump took office. Payroll growth has slowed a bit from its pace in 2024 but is still positive, while job openings have receded but only to around their pre-pandemic levels.

However, the Washington, D.C. area has been hit particularly hard by the announced layoffs, which have totaled 278,711 year to date for the city, according to the report.

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