Connect with us

Economics

Why the Trump campaign is spending heavily on ads on trans issues

Published

on

FEW THINGS get Donald Trump more excited than talking about transgender issues. As he delivers his closing argument to America, barely a speech or ad goes by without a mention of “illegal aliens” getting “taxpayer-funded surgery” or biological males competing in women’s sports. Most of it is inflammatory and hateful. Some of it is clearly untrue, such as his claims that children are returning from school with sex changes, or his running-mate, J.D. Vance, suggesting this week that teens are “becoming trans” to get into Ivy League colleges. But some of it is not.

When asked recently how he would address the sports situation, Mr Trump said this was “such an easy question”: he would simply ban it. That brought loud cheers from the all-female Fox audience. It is a message Republicans are emphasising up and down the ballot. Recent polling by YouGov shows that Trump supporters have higher awareness of the former president’s policy on women’s sports than of his policy on abortion. In his final days of campaigning, Mr Trump is spending more on ads that attack Kamala Harris’s support for transgender rights than on any other subject, according to Politico.

Chart: The Economist

It is easy to see why. Most Americans favour basic protections for transgender people—against hate speech, for example, or discrimination at work—and believe transgender people should be treated with respect (see chart). Yet most agree with Mr Trump that some policies and practices, however rare, have gone too far. Only 19% of Americans, including 33% of Democrats, support the idea of trans athletes playing on the sports team that matches their gender identity rather than their biological sex, according to YouGov. Indeed 25 states now require transgender students to participate in sports based on their natal sex, for reasons of both safety and fairness. Only 30% of Americans believe prisons should be required to house transgender inmates according to their gender identity. And just 19% believe transgender youths should have access to puberty-blocking medication (27% are unsure and 54% are opposed).

All of these policies are associated with Democrats, either because they supported them in the past or because they have failed to acknowledge some of the practical tensions that come with slogans like “transwomen are women”. During her presidential campaign, Ms Harris’s strategy has been to avoid the T-word at all costs, pivoting instead to the safer ground of same-sex marriage or women’s reproductive rights. Whereas the Republican Party’s convention was full of (inflammatory) references to threats posed by trans people, including some remarks by Mr Trump’s two eldest sons, only two speakers at the Democratic convention mentioned trans people, neither of them in a primetime slot.

Ms Harris’s silence has left space for Mr Trump to fill with footage of her previous commitments (eg, to trans prisoners being able to get gender-affirming treatments) and with claims that, as a popular Republican ad concludes, “Crazy liberal Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” It seems to be resonating. According to new polling by The Economist/YouGov, despite her vow of silence, some 36% of Americans think Ms Harris talks about trans issues too much, compared with 23% who say the same about Mr Trump.

But will it matter?

Republicans hope that outrage over what Mr Trump calls “trans insanity” will be their version of what abortion has done for Democrats, but there is a crucial difference. Whereas many Americans say abortion is a leading reason to vote, few say the same about trans issues. Polling shows that social issues in general feature low on Trump voters’ priority list, and within social issues transgender health care (albeit an imperfect proxy) sits at the very bottom. Mr Trump’s lines clearly play well with his base, and are a sure-fire way of getting a rally audience to its feet, but there is little evidence that this specific issue will recruit many new voters (though Republican strategists claim it can help swing undecided voters, who could prove crucial).

Only Ms Harris knows whether her recent silence is just a ruse until she is elected or whether she has genuinely moderated her stance. If elected, one opportunity to show herself as more in touch with the electorate will come when her administration deals with the most controversial part of Title IX anti-discrimination protections that the Biden administration kicked down the road: how to deal with women’s sports. By then she might be ready to agree with her opponent on one matter: it is an easy question.

Economics

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

Published

on

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.

How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister

Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.

If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.

Why No Election Was Required

A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.

This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.

The King’s Constitutional Role

After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.

Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.

Could an Election Still Happen?

Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.

In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.

What This Means for the UK

The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.

Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Grid Upgrades Reshape Macro Economics

Published

on

Global grid upgrades reshape macro economics

On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.

According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.

The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.

For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

Published

on

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.

The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.

Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.

For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.

Continue Reading

Trending