(Washington, DC) – President Donald J. Trump, now leading his second administration, has launched what he’s calling “90 Trades in 90 Days”—an aggressive economic experiment designed to reset America’s trade policies. The initiative has already reshaped global markets, sparked fierce political debate, and left American consumers, investors, and small businesses bracing for impact.
At the center of the plan: a sweeping 10% tariff imposed across all imports beginning April 2. Though the administration initially floated escalating rates as high as 60%—and a stunning 125% for Chinese goods—fears of economic whiplash caused officials to quickly pause most of the heavier duties, exempting certain allies while doubling down on adversarial targets like China.
Within 48 hours of the initial announcement, U.S. stock markets lost more than $6.6 trillion in value, with the Dow and S&P 500 plunging over 10%, and the Nasdaq officially entering bear market territory. Wall Street dealmaking came to a near standstill as uncertainty over the future of global trade took center stage. Economists warn that these sudden shifts signal the possibility of a looming recession—a concern echoed in new projections from the Federal Reserve, which downgraded 2025 growth forecasts and adjusted inflation expectations upward.
Economists from both sides of the aisle question the logic of sudden, unilateral tariffs, especially in a delicate post-pandemic recovery period. The policy appears to rely heavily on disruption rather than coordination, with no clear roadmap beyond the initial 90-day window. While some industries—especially domestic steel and aluminum—stand to benefit from increased protection, many others are already reporting rising supply costs and disrupted inventory chains.
Small businesses have been hit particularly hard. Several have already filed lawsuits challenging the administration’s legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs under emergency executive powers without congressional approval. Many cite increased costs for imported goods, delays in shipments, and vanishing profit margins as early signs of trouble.
The administration insists this is part of a broader strategy. During the 90-day pause, U.S. trade envoys are working to negotiate a new slate of bilateral deals—preferably ones that exclude or isolate China. A “tariff alliance,” according to insiders, is being floated among European partners, some of whom have shown tentative support, while others remain cautious.
China, predictably, has retaliated, announcing targeted tariffs on U.S. exports including soybeans, aircraft parts, and tech components. While Chinese officials downplayed the long-term impact, global investors are watching closely. Ireland and several European Union nations have also expressed concern, warning that global pharmaceutical, automotive, and agricultural sectors could be destabilized if the U.S. strategy escalates into a prolonged trade war.
At home, the politics are just as volatile. Republican lawmakers are split—some celebrating Trump’s bold return to nationalist economic policy, others quietly worried about alienating business constituencies. Democrats, meanwhile, accuse the administration of using economic brinksmanship to distract from broader domestic challenges, including inflation, labor unrest, and a rising national deficit.
What remains unclear is how the average American will fare. Early indicators suggest higher prices at retail stores, inflationary pressure on fuel and food, and reduced investment in long-term business projects. For now, the consumer bears the brunt of the experiment—paying more for less, without knowing what comes next.
Trump has framed the 90-day strategy as a necessary course correction, arguing that previous trade agreements hollowed out U.S. industry. Whether this gamble will result in long-term gains or deepen economic instability is a question only time—and perhaps November’s voters—will answer
