Trump is shaking up the stock market — and can still prove naysayers wrong

New York Post - Apr 5th, 2025

Wall Street supporters of President Trump are expressing growing concern over his recent imposition of tariffs, fearing significant negative impacts on both the markets and the broader economy. The tariffs have raised alarms about potential stagflation and have sparked fears that Trump's actions could jeopardize his presidency and Republican control of Congress in upcoming midterms. Key figures such as economic adviser Peter Navarro and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are central in the debate, with Navarro advocating for tariffs as a means to revive American manufacturing, while Bessent warns of the adverse effects of trade barriers.

The implications of Trump's trade policies are significant, as they challenge traditional economic principles and risk escalating tensions with major trading partners like China, Europe, Canada, and Mexico. The potential for a continued trade war poses threats to global economic stability, with critics warning of decreased capital flows and increased inflation. Wall Street's skepticism is fueled by the fear that Trump's belief in tariffs as economic tools may lead to prolonged market volatility and hinder economic growth, despite his reputation as a pragmatic dealmaker.

Trump Economic Policy Wall Street Tariffs Scott Bessent Peter Navarro Trade War Market Impact

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a critical perspective on Trump's trade policies and their potential economic and political implications. It highlights concerns from Wall Street and economic advisers, suggesting a negative view of the tariffs' impacts. However, the article's reliance on speculative assertions and lack of diverse perspectives limit its accuracy and balance. The absence of credible sources and detailed evidence undermines the reliability of the claims made.

While the article addresses timely and relevant topics that are of public interest, its potential impact is diminished by the lack of structured analysis and clear attribution. The informal tone and speculative language may engage some readers, but the overall clarity and professionalism could be improved to enhance comprehension and foster meaningful discussion. Despite these weaknesses, the article successfully raises important issues for consideration in the ongoing debate about economic policy and governance.

Accuracy

The article presents a mix of factual claims and speculative opinions regarding Trump's economic policies and their impacts. It accurately mentions Trump's agenda of tax cuts and deregulation, which are well-documented aspects of his presidency. However, the claim that Trump supporters are 'legion' on Wall Street lacks specific evidence or data to quantify this assertion. The article also discusses the imposition of tariffs and the subsequent market reactions, which are factual but require verification of the specific impacts described, such as the extent of market declines and economic repercussions.

The mention of Peter Navarro and Howard Lutnick as key advisers pushing for tariffs is accurate, but the article does not provide evidence of their direct influence on Trump's decisions. The claim about Scott Bessent's role and his supposed opposition to tariffs needs verification, as there is no clear evidence presented in the article to support this.

The article's speculative nature is evident in the discussion of potential political implications and future economic scenarios, such as the possibility of Kamala Harris re-emerging in 2028 or Trump's potential negotiation strategies. These are not factual claims but rather opinions or predictions that cannot be verified. Overall, while the article contains some accurate information, it also includes speculative elements that need further evidence for full verification.

Balance

The article primarily presents a critical perspective on Trump's trade policies and their potential negative impacts on the economy and market. It highlights the concerns of Wall Street and economic advisers about the tariffs, suggesting a bias towards the negative consequences of these policies.

While it briefly mentions the potential for Trump to negotiate and mitigate these impacts, this is presented more as a hopeful possibility rather than a balanced analysis of the situation. The article does not adequately explore the potential benefits of Trump's policies or provide a range of perspectives from different stakeholders, such as businesses that might benefit from protectionist measures or economists with differing views.

The lack of diverse viewpoints and the focus on negative outcomes suggest an imbalance in the presentation of the topic. The article could benefit from including more perspectives to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.

Clarity

The article is written in a conversational tone that is relatively easy to follow, but the structure lacks clear organization. It jumps between different topics, such as economic policies, market reactions, and political implications, without clear transitions or logical flow.

While the language is generally accessible, the use of informal expressions and speculative language, such as 'word-salad queen' and 'tariff sledgehammer,' may detract from the article's perceived professionalism and objectivity. These elements can also affect the clarity of the argument, as they introduce subjective judgments without providing supporting evidence.

Despite these issues, the article does convey its main points clearly enough for readers to grasp the overall narrative, although it could benefit from a more structured presentation and less speculative language.

Source quality

The article does not reference specific sources or provide direct quotes from credible individuals or institutions, which undermines the credibility of the information presented. The lack of attribution makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the claims, particularly those regarding the opinions and actions of Trump's advisers and Wall Street's reactions.

There is no mention of studies, reports, or expert analyses that could substantiate the claims made about the economic impacts of tariffs or the political implications of Trump's policies. The narrative relies heavily on the author's interpretations and speculations without providing evidence from authoritative sources.

Overall, the absence of credible sources and the reliance on the author's perspective significantly weaken the article's source quality.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of disclosing the basis for its claims and the methodology behind its analysis. There is no explanation of how the author arrived at the conclusions presented, nor is there any acknowledgment of potential conflicts of interest or biases that might affect the narrative.

The article does not provide sufficient context for the economic and political issues discussed, such as the historical background of trade policies or the specific data supporting market reactions to tariffs. This lack of context and explanation makes it difficult for readers to fully understand the factors influencing the author's perspective.

Without clear disclosure of the sources of information and the reasoning behind the claims, the article's transparency is limited, leaving readers without a clear understanding of the basis for the assertions made.